On June 12 2013 08:21 Xivsa wrote: Not a bad report. And it didn't mention Hellbats at all, but I hope that nerf will be coming soon.
Did you watch Day9's report on Hellbats last night? He brought up some good points as to why people believe Hellbats to be more OP than they actually are (but I have the feeling that Hellbats are also under scrutiny 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.
This is the perfect VOD to reinforce your first point. Flash vs soO where marines+tanks can trade with zerg and be aggressive.
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.
except tank or marines can be dropped 5-10 min before infestors or vipers are out which is game ending. remember the old version of lost temple? T just did fast tank drops and could attack the natural without Z being able to do anything about it. like that they got rid of that. was as imbalanced as island expansions would be
and like you say it yourself in the post above me: marine tank is still viable on some maps, so is mech on some maps, MMMM+hellbat is viable on every map. so T has lots of styles to choose from (unlike Z which is forced to go ling bane muta (roach bane all ins arent a style )).
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.
except tank or marines can be dropped 5-10 min before infestors or vipers are out which is game ending. remember the old version of lost temple? T just did fast tank drops and could attack the natural without Z being able to do anything about it. like that they got rid of that. was as imbalanced as island expansions would be
I'm not referring to cliffs at the natural. I'm referring to cliffs stationed through out the middle area of the map.
Take a look at Shakuras Plateau:
This is a perfect example of non-base cliffs that could really change the game.
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.
except tank or marines can be dropped 5-10 min before infestors or vipers are out which is game ending. remember the old version of lost temple? T just did fast tank drops and could attack the natural without Z being able to do anything about it. like that they got rid of that. was as imbalanced as island expansions would be
I'm not referring to cliffs at the natural. I'm referring to cliffs stationed through out the middle area of the map.
Take a look at Shakuras Plateau:
This is a perfect example of non-base cliffs that could really change the game.
beside the fact shakuras is a bad example (since there is only one attack way through the middle which makes the cliffs too strong early in the game) i agree that on bigger maps those cliffs could add some nice gameplay and would allow 3 tanks + some turrets and WMs to hold terrain which isnt possible on open field. after watching the flash vs action game i was reminded how awesome BW was in having very open maps but also having units that are able to hold terrain vs a much bigger army (something SC2 lacks incredibly).
On June 12 2013 19:46 BisuDagger wrote: The thor is used less then the carrier. I really hope they fix that issue.
I would like to see some statistics on this, at least on a pro level this is a blatant lie. Going through MLG, Dreamhack, WCS EU/KR/NA you won't find a single carrier, but tons of thors. Alone the amount of Thors in the MVP - Dimaga game made sure that your wrong.
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.
oh well, i agree. those sorts of cliffs arent what I talked about. I agree that current mappools could adda few of them. but i believe that you can mainly just ppace them shakuras style - in which case they arent overly relevant. (main strength of shakuras was the choky area around them, whichwas pretty strong defensively regardless of qhether you dropped tanks on them or just went full bio like in TvP)
On June 12 2013 19:46 BisuDagger wrote: The thor is used less then the carrier. I really hope they fix that issue.
I would like to see some statistics on this, at least on a pro level this is a blatant lie. Going through MLG, Dreamhack, WCS EU/KR/NA you won't find a single carrier, but tons of thors. Alone the amount of Thors in the MVP - Dimaga game made sure that your wrong.
Also if it's irony i feel really bad (
It was irony lol, but we are still good <3. I've seen them used, but they definitely haven't made their presence felt like they had in WoL TvZ. And in TvP they are still pretty non existant. What purpose does a thor serve in TvP? I really would love that one explained to me. If the thor didn't exist as an option when ever you played TvP would it change anything?
So our question here becomes “is this a good thing that Widow Mines have replaced Siege Tanks as the primary splash damage units?” We believe the answer is yes.
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.
I don't really agree with these statements. When deploying tanks, you need to put them in good spots and protect them at all times. You might be fortunate and do just that so you trade armies so that's true. It is one of the main reason I like playing terran because I can make trades without feeling something went WAY off. The latter statement suggests widow mines are somehow ''more skillful'' units and tanks are easy. I find it to be the exact opposite. With tanks you never want them to fire off just once. If you are caught unsieged then you kill very little and lose much. With widow mines, you can deploy them very late. Even if they fire off just once, that's okay because they are cheap units compared to tanks. Also you cannot predict the outcome of the battle, AT ALL. With widow mines, things just blow up almost at random. It's like being handed a lottery ticked.
I like the widow mine, its an exciting unit to watch (even if it is annoying to play against), the void ray and units that are similar to it (like mutas) where you can get a critical mass and a-move are not very exciting to watch, particularly void rays. as a protoss player i find them frustrating to play against and when watching pvz i find it dull to watch.
I agree with DK that it's best if harassment is encouraged throughout the game even against players who are good at defending it. I would like tanks to be viable along with mines in tvz, because mine/tank would probably be more fun to watch and play with/against than just mines, but if that's not possible I guess that's how it is.
Edit: I agree with this:
On June 12 2013 21:57 BisuDagger wrote: 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 21:49 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.
except tank or marines can be dropped 5-10 min before infestors or vipers are out which is game ending. remember the old version of lost temple? T just did fast tank drops and could attack the natural without Z being able to do anything about it. like that they got rid of that. was as imbalanced as island expansions would be
I'm not referring to cliffs at the natural. I'm referring to cliffs stationed through out the middle area of the map.
Take a look at Shakuras Plateau:
This is a perfect example of non-base cliffs that could really change the game.
On June 13 2013 00:23 MrSusan wrote: I like the widow mine, its an exciting unit to watch (even if it is annoying to play against), the void ray and units that are similar to it (like mutas) where you can get a critical mass and a-move are not very exciting to watch, particularly void rays. as a protoss player i find them frustrating to play against and when watching pvz i find it dull to watch.
I agree the widow mine is an exciting unit, however it should work in congruent with the tanks zone control as spider mines did. On the topic of voidrays being dull I had a stupidly awesome idea that banelings can morph into scourge when hive is researched. That would spice up air play.
DTs can't attack air, Swarm Hosts or any other burrowed unit can't attack air, yet widow mines blow observers out of the sky and the muta flocks. When terrans have missile turrets already doesn't it seem a little bogus for their WM to hit the air units as well? sure let their splash damage still do what it does, but to target air units is kinda bs.
Other things on my mind, I'm doing a lot of thinking today lol:
-Banshees, what purpose do they serve at this time outside of early harassment or early all ins? (Which they are not as efficient at now anyways.) -Ravens, how has the new HSM actually impacted the game. I feel like Ravens still haven't become important enough to late game match ups. The PDD was a major part of TvT in WoL but it seems to not be used anymore. vP and vZ PDD is not used. And the autoturret, last time I was it used was once a TvZ had already been won. I thought burrow and the earlier dts would force more use of raven detection but it seems orbitals are enough to have it covered. -Carrier, may evolve in the metagame but it's not likely when the Tempest is such a better utility unit. No real need to discuss this unit as blizzard said its in there for nostalgia.
On June 13 2013 00:56 yocheco619 wrote: DTs can't attack air, Swarm Hosts or any other burrowed unit can't attack air, yet widow mines blow observers out of the sky and the muta flocks. When terrans have missile turrets already doesn't it seem a little bogus for their WM to hit the air units as well? sure let their splash damage still do what it does, but to target air units is kinda bs.
I agree that I was very suprised it could target air. Jaedong clearly lost a game, I think it was this one versus cure, where widow mines destroyed his mutas as they flew over and it cost him the game. But if we take away the ability to target air then we have a more refined version of a spider mine. And I'm sure that's not what the designers want.
On June 13 2013 00:59 BisuDagger wrote: Other things on my mind, I'm doing a lot of thinking today lol:
-Banshees, what purpose do they serve at this time outside of early harassment or early all ins? (Which they are not as efficient at now anyways.) -Ravens, how has the new HSM actually impacted the game. I feel like Ravens still haven't become important enough to late game match ups. The PDD was a major part of TvT in WoL but it seems to not be used anymore. vP and vZ PDD is not used. And the autoturret, last time I was it used was once a TvZ had already been won. I thought burrow and the earlier dts would force more use of raven detection but it seems orbitals are enough to have it covered. -Carrier, may evolve in the metagame but it's not likely when the Tempest is such a better utility unit. No real need to discuss this unit as blizzard said its in there for nostalgia.
Yeah, banshees are much worse with the new spores now in TvZ. I think they are still good in TvT openings and can be used in the lategame to break tanklines (though, why bother with banshees... just drop mineral only hellbats on them...) Also in TvP openings I don't think they are bad, but again outshone by fast drops (widow mines or hellbats) and you are kind of required to go cloak now with the nexus canon. I think they could need a little love at this point.
Ravens are good as they are. Pretty useful unit in lategame TvZ and TvT... we just hardly ever see lategame TvZ these days, the game usually ends with Terran killing a zerg prehive or dying to a ling/bling/muta counter or a mass ultra counter - which is the metagame's fault and not the unit's.
For the carrier, I would like it if it focused more on killing light units and if they improved the interceptor AI more, so that they don't randomly return all the time.
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/b/ba/Shakuras_Plateau_2.0.jpg/688px-Shakuras_Plateau_2.0.jpg)
(
35766
7809
785
EPT
