On June 12 2013 17:44 mihajovics wrote: I like that they are not nerfing anything. BUT
David Kim is using the word "skill" in a context as though positional play would be easy... what's easy is massing stupid a-move power units like the colossus and marauder.
I really miss the siege tank, I think it's a great unit conceptually. Just like the carrier vs tempest, the carrier is much much more awesome.... Siege tanks are way cooler than widow mines, sad to see them fade out even more.
Don't get me wrong, bio-mine is fun to watch, but positional play SHOULD be a viable alternative for every matchup.
Or protoss making immortals against a bunch of siege tanks and a moving with zealots and maybe even colossi thrown in. He doesn't respect methodical play. I still don't understand why such a hard counter unit like the immortal which helps invalidate an entire terran playstyle isn't tarred and feathered by more people.
"But terran players must innovate !"
Good point. Even Widow Mines that could help some sort of positionnal mech play are just plain wrong agaisnt toss because of zealot charge. Yup, mech isn't going to be viable any time soon in TvP... (Well, I enjoy the TvP in its current state, but having to rely on bio everytime is quite sad in terms of variety...)
(Making this article appear in "Spotlight" wasn't enough it seems... *sigh*)
Whatever man. Hellbats come out of a factory, get upgrade by armory, and for some bizarre reason go well with the rest of my mech army.
You refusing to make them and say "mech no viable pvt" (which is a statement that you kinda took out of your ass, I saw strelok beat mana yesterday with it) just shows you don't know anything about mech tvp.
"It comes out of the factory and get Armory armor upgrade so it is mech". Nope !
Hint : Mechanical unit =/= mech playstyle. You should read the link I gave you before reacting, would avoid these kind of mistakes :/
Plus "Strelok beat MaNa with mech so mech is viable in TvP" is completely wrong to justify your point. One game doesn't make a strategy viable...
Bro, don't be condescending. Not only did I read that article, but I loved playing mech myself in BW. And don't derail this thread into the eternal "mech ain't viable" discussion, we got loads of those already.
All I said is Hellbats rape zealots, so even though it doesn't promote the "mech playstyle", there is nowadays a lot more space to play a factory based tvp than in WoL.
But sure we can continue playing on words all fuckin day if you want :=)
Sorry if that sounded condescending, that was indeed not necessary...
I do agree that you can play more "factory" oriented in TvP thanks to this, but reacted on the fact that hellbat don't promote/help/improve the mech "playstyle"...
I might be truly wrong about the viability of mech in TvP (as in "I'm probably wrong thinking nobody will ever figure out how to play mech in a consistently viable fashion"), but mech viability wasn't really the point of my reaction to your post. Sorry if that was misleading.
Again, sorry for my tone, that wasn't very civil of me T_T
It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
On June 12 2013 20:51 BisuDagger wrote: The importance of siege tanks and why we loved watching them:
Epic TvT between two titans
A must see TvZ, don't live another day not watching this.
TvP Not a scary mech game but it shows some tanks and is a very fun less lengthy game to end your BW viewing of this post
[T/N]Why won't these show up as videos? T_T
edit: Added rant. When was the last time we saw unit that actually enhanced other units. That cloud ability from the viper turned out to be a flop. SC2 is missing spells like DMatrix that could turn the tide of a situation on the defensive end or enhance harassment on the offensive end too. It could also help push on engagements. They need to start looking at unit synergy rather then solving one goal which currently for them is to harass everything. And why hasn't the viper/blinding cloud been reworked yet. I haven't seen it used once in a PL game yet. Am I missing something there?
On June 12 2013 09:01 BronzeKnee wrote: Shocked that they won't change the Widow Mine.
It isn't overpowered statistically, but the effect it has on the game is dramatic. It controls APM better than any other unit, to the extent that in TvZ it allows Terran to dominate multitasking. Idra said this is the reason so many people have been doing Roach-Bane busts, simply because a Terran player who is good at multitasking can dominate an equally skilled Zerg player using Widow Mines. As a Protoss bystander, I'm inclined to agree when I watch high level Terran or Zerg streams. It ruined my favorite match up to watch for me.
Also as another poster said above, it promotes a chance aspect, rather than skill. The skill in using Tanks isn't just focus firing, it is in the positioning! Blizzard seems to have lost sight of this.
The thing here is that Terran have been multitasking their army for the last 3 years whereas it was possible to win without this level of control with Z, I'm sure pro Zergs will find a way (such as Life) to defeat widow mines, it will just require just as much multitasking with the army, which Zergs aren't used to.
What stupid and bullshitty thing to say, that terran player believe in such statement is just so silly.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
When you see an army of Marines and tanks clash with a Zerg army, you pretty much know who will come out ahead, even before the battle.
When you see an army of Marines and Widow Mines, it comes down to the skill of the players in that specific battle.
uh what? I feel like we're missing an explaination of how this is skill and not random
I think he's referring to how the widow mines can be baited/splash damage can be minimized. And since it's only a single shot for the length of most engagements (per widow mine) it's a little more realistic to do than say splitting your zerglings so a couple take the entire siege tank line each volley every 2-3 seconds
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
I'm not sure about that, cause I don't remember there being a tank nerf just ghost nerfs after that GSL time period.
If protoss now get flying siege tanks and zerg has viper grab, then cliff tanks seem perfectly reasonable now.
On June 12 2013 17:44 mihajovics wrote: I like that they are not nerfing anything. BUT
David Kim is using the word "skill" in a context as though positional play would be easy... what's easy is massing stupid a-move power units like the colossus and marauder.
I really miss the siege tank, I think it's a great unit conceptually. Just like the carrier vs tempest, the carrier is much much more awesome.... Siege tanks are way cooler than widow mines, sad to see them fade out even more.
Don't get me wrong, bio-mine is fun to watch, but positional play SHOULD be a viable alternative for every matchup.
Or protoss making immortals against a bunch of siege tanks and a moving with zealots and maybe even colossi thrown in. He doesn't respect methodical play. I still don't understand why such a hard counter unit like the immortal which helps invalidate an entire terran playstyle isn't tarred and feathered by more people.
"But terran players must innovate !"
Good point. Even Widow Mines that could help some sort of positionnal mech play are just plain wrong agaisnt toss because of zealot charge. Yup, mech isn't going to be viable any time soon in TvP... (Well, I enjoy the TvP in its current state, but having to rely on bio everytime is quite sad in terms of variety...)
(Making this article appear in "Spotlight" wasn't enough it seems... *sigh*)
Whatever man. Hellbats come out of a factory, get upgrade by armory, and for some bizarre reason go well with the rest of my mech army.
You refusing to make them and say "mech no viable pvt" (which is a statement that you kinda took out of your ass, I saw strelok beat mana yesterday with it) just shows you don't know anything about mech tvp.
"It comes out of the factory and get Armory armor upgrade so it is mech". Nope !
Hint : Mechanical unit =/= mech playstyle. You should read the link I gave you before reacting, would avoid these kind of mistakes :/
Plus "Strelok beat MaNa with mech so mech is viable in TvP" is completely wrong to justify your point. One game doesn't make a strategy viable...
Bro, don't be condescending. Not only did I read that article, but I loved playing mech myself in BW. And don't derail this thread into the eternal "mech ain't viable" discussion, we got loads of those already.
All I said is Hellbats rape zealots, so even though it doesn't promote the "mech playstyle", there is nowadays a lot more space to play a factory based tvp than in WoL.
But sure we can continue playing on words all fuckin day if you want :=)
Sorry if that sounded condescending, that was indeed not necessary...
I do agree that you can play more "factory" oriented in TvP thanks to this, but reacted on the fact that hellbat don't promote/help/improve the mech "playstyle"...
I might be truly wrong about the viability of mech in TvP (as in "I'm probably wrong thinking nobody will ever figure out how to play mech in a consistently viable fashion"), but mech viability wasn't really the point of my reaction to your post. Sorry if that was misleading.
Again, sorry for my tone, that wasn't very civil of me T_T
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
I'm not sure about that, cause I don't remember there being a tank nerf just ghost nerfs after that GSL time period.
If protoss now get flying siege tanks and zerg has viper grab, then cliff tanks seem perfectly reasonable now.
Patch 1.1.0 General Information Version: 16561 SEA Release Date: September 22nd 2010 NA Release Date: September 21st 2010 EU Release Date: September 22nd 2010 KOR Release Date: September 22nd 2010
Siege Tank Siege mode damage changed from 50 to 35 (+15 armored). Upgrade damage changed from +5 to +3 (+2 armored).
Only thing is, this was before my SC2 time and I don't know when the maps were removed.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
The problem with this is: how do you make it so that ONLY tanks have an advantage, while marines can't go completly Yolo when the opponent does not have a lot of surface area on them. Shakuras Plateau was a pretty decent map in achieving this. Also Antiga was pretty good in that aspect and Bel'Shire Vestige does a good job as well. But they already stretch balance to its borders, and especially from the last example we see that it's not like it mainly makes Tanks better, but the more mobile ranged units - such as MMM play grants - have probably even bigger advantages, as they are capable of moving in ways that minimize surface area. (against melee or lowranged attackers)
Still, I think, Muta regeneration is one of the biggest problems with HotS, especially in PvZ. I'm pretty much fine with everything else at the moment.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
I'm not sure about that, cause I don't remember there being a tank nerf just ghost nerfs after that GSL time period.
If protoss now get flying siege tanks and zerg has viper grab, then cliff tanks seem perfectly reasonable now.
Tanks got nerfed to 35 damage and +15 to armored in early 2011, the Ghost snipe nerf happened more towards early 2012 if I remember correctly. And the game you are thinking off was game 7 of the Blizzcup finals between MMA and DRG on Shakuras Plateau.
On topic, I really don't agree with Blizzard on the topic of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks on multiple points even. First I don't agree that the outcome of Marine, Tank, Medivac engagement vs Ling, Bling, Muta, being already decided before it happens, the outcome always depended on the skill of both players and the positioning. The zerg could absolutely crush the terran army, the terran army could do the same, or both could trade evenly. Yes there where situations when the terran could get a very good position that made it very, very hard for the zerg to engage cost efficiently with Marine Tank, but the same is true with Bio Mine as well.
Secondly, while I agree that the widow mine creates really dynamic and positional play, which is somewhat different from that of tanks, I don't agree with them replacing tanks at all, in my opinion marine tank creates better and deeper games overall, promotes more meticulous play, positioning etc.
And the reason why tanks are more interesting and games involving them are better, is because tanks are much more vulnerable and fragile, and much, much more unforgiving if you mess up: -Losing a large tank count can be devastating, they are very expensive and it takes a long time to replace -Positioning them badly means they can easily be picked apart -Clumping them too much makes them even more vulnerable and inefficient
And now there are even more ways to nullify good position of tanks, blinding cloud, abduct, tempests.
Compared to widow mines that are: -Cheeper and easier to produce due to reactored factories -Faster burrow and unburrow making them less punishing then if you mess up positioning them badly -Can target air -Larger burst radius -Requires detection to counter properly
Its no wonder then that tanks are being phased out slowly in some MUs. Yes I know tanks do still have some advantages, like stronger sustained damage and longer range, but compared to the multitude of other advantages that mines have, then it makes them seem severely underpowered.
Adjusting tanks themselves is hard though, giving them more HP would make it even harder to break good tank lines even if you kill the buffer first, it also makes the other races even more dependent on the hard counters to tanks. Giving them more damage could, potentially unbalance them, making it so they can burst down threats before their buffer dies, making them even more cost efficient.
The solution would probably be to adjust some of the counters to tanks, but that also has far reaching repercussions.
In the end the situation isn't so bad though, we still get to see great games and the game is not imbalanced towards any side. Its kind of a good thing that what most of us discuss is purely design related, but its still a sad thing worth discussing, I'd personally love more synergy between mines and tanks and just overall more positional games. But that isn't happening any time soon.
On June 12 2013 21:49 Roachu wrote: It seems like they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing. I definitely agree to not nerf any of the mentioned units before they have been thoroughly tested and given enough time to lose their "new unit!" novelty. The tanks vs mine bit though seem to contradict his entire thought-process, it was pure theorycrafting when he specifically said he wanted the team to stay away from that. Sure in theory tanks are more basic units than mines, but the efficiency of both depend heavily on both the defender and the attacker. The only clear difference I can see is mines have the potential to lose/win you the game in a single well-placed (or not) shot. I can't see a tank fuck up a game like that ForGG mine did.
Tanks in SC1 used to be more where it could f you up but it also required a lot more skill. With the integration of spider mine fields ahead of tanks and defensive goliaths or offensive turrets, it was incredibly hard to get to a tank to attack it. You either had to do tactical drops or run in zerglings/fast zlots to buffer the damage of tanks so you can start targeting them down. And then if you were even better you could get a single tank fire to take out three friendly tanks. And it was tons of fun seeing tanks blow up each other.
Widow mines and tanks need to have synergy among each other, not stomp on each others role. In the current state it's too difficult to keep a zerg army from just bum rushing the tanks which is why we know how the outcome is going to play out. I def hope they figure this one out instead of abandoning tanks all together.
On June 12 2013 21:56 Targe wrote: That TvZ o.000000000
Thanks for the BW games again Bisu!
<3, that was Action's break out game for sure. Possibly the best Lair tech Zerg at the time versus Flash who was just starting to peak. Plus Estro was a team still. Such a good mixture of fun.
Just imagine a world where Widow Mines and Siege Tanks had a good, strong synergy. It's sad that at the moment you either go tanks or you go mines, not both
That game was pretty crazy, I loved how Flash was shaking his wrists at the end.
I actually had to leave my office so I could watch the game all over again. Flash is a friggin machine. How he didn't GG so many times throughout that game baffles me. I'm actually putting together a cast that will be featuring this game as part of the series. I can't think of a better game to analyze late game TvZ.
The map has a huge impact too. Which brings me to my next thought on siege tanks:
Is it time we started bringing cliffs back in maps? Everyone is familiar with the MMA vs DRG series where MMA kept using cliffs in the middle of the map to zone the zerg out and it was a way to keep the tanks alive long enough for their impact to be felt. Imagine if we add cliffs back into the map pool and then we can have tank heavy maps and widow mine heavy maps so that way we do see new strategy. Map making is an integral part of strategy that we should observe here too.
Weren't cliffy maps stopped back when Terran had 50 damage tanks? I've always wondered if they would bring back lots of cliffs.
The problem with this is: how do you make it so that ONLY tanks have an advantage, while marines can't go completly Yolo when the opponent does not have a lot of surface area on them. Shakuras Plateau was a pretty decent map in achieving this. Also Antiga was pretty good in that aspect and Bel'Shire Vestige does a good job as well. But they already stretch balance to its borders, and especially from the last example we see that it's not like it mainly makes Tanks better, but the more mobile ranged units - such as MMM play grants - have probably even bigger advantages, as they are capable of moving in ways that minimize surface area. (against melee or lowranged attackers)
Marines on cliffs aren't as strong as they used to be. Viper+Fungal are two options right away that make it possible. You could even use blinding cloud on them for engagements instead of just pulling them off. And with buffed mutas the dmg isn't as scary.
hmm their aims sound quiet good, but seeing their tries to reach them still worries me. But atleast they do it slower, so I had enough time to enjoy HotS if they mess it up. I still have hope for them though, despite this negative sounding post !
EPT
