|
On December 05 2013 02:33 SheaR619 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2013 17:33 KaizoOnFire wrote:On December 04 2013 17:15 SheaR619 wrote:On December 04 2013 16:44 KaizoOnFire wrote:
i would say we also buff skytoss because its completely trash vs. bio Sky toss will never work anyways since you dont have a cheap mineral fodder. Mech is on the rope of working and it just need an extra push. It also distinctively different style from bio so if mech is viable without affecting bio then it good for the over all game for making the game more diverse. Think of mech as a race rather than some sort of unit composition because it play completely different from traditional bio and other race act completely different against it. Will skytoss be different from traditional protoss deathball? No, it will probably just be another slow deathball unit composition like collosus/HT because the core unit in sky toss are slow and therefore offer no real difference from traditional protoss. Making mech work is good for the overall game by making the game more different. And guess what, sky toss is actually pretty good against mech and could be a possible future meta if mech is viable. why would you see it as a race? its just a techtree which has pros and cons just like everyething else. either you commit to it or not you can play mech vs. terran and zerg and usually not vs. protoss just like you can play skytoss vs. toss and zerg but not vs. bio. why should they buff it even more, just play bio then in that matchup. i've never seen anyone playing skytoss vs. bio and there are reasons for it btw, saying you can play skytoss vs mech is like saying you can play baneling vs. marines lol, like i said, all has pros and cons, thats the funny part of the game :-) Mech should be considered a race because of how distinctively different it is from bio. Also transitioning out of mech to bio is almost impossible and generally there no reason to do. So once you commit to mech you are going to stick to mech. Same goes for bio. That is why mech could be considered a different race. The terran race is the only race that has the capability of doing this and it is not being utilized. There are pro and cons but mech is the most immobile unit composition and the pro does not out weight the con. They should buff it cause TvP been the exact same thing for 5 years and it in need of serious diversity. Skytoss vs mech is nothing like baneling vs marine.
It's not a race, it's a techtree. And it contains units that are really unuseful, which should change.
And skytoss vs bio is an issue of its own, though Protoss air units are quite more viable vs Terran than Terran Mech units vs protoss. (e.g. Oracle and VR rushes, Phoenixes as dropdefense or in the Phoenix/Colossus builds; Tempests in the very lategame)
|
On December 04 2013 19:00 paddyz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2013 21:21 GoOdy wrote:
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless. Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal? I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them.
Show me an example of a pro game where adding ghosts made mech win.
|
On December 05 2013 02:57 NoobCrunch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2013 19:00 paddyz wrote:On December 03 2013 21:21 GoOdy wrote:
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless. Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal? I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them. Show me an example of a pro game where adding ghosts made mech win.
Easier said than done.. The mech TvP victories I can actually remember from pro games are either:
1) Constant hellbat drops pre-nerf
2) A massive tank/hellbat timing on 2 or 3 base that ends the game.
|
On December 05 2013 02:57 NoobCrunch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2013 19:00 paddyz wrote:On December 03 2013 21:21 GoOdy wrote:
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless. Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal? I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them. Show me an example of a pro game where adding ghosts made mech win.
Thorzain vs HasuObs first game of their match in the last Homestory Cup group phase.
That game has like no meaning though since HasuObs completely misplayed almost everything in that game (and it still took a while for Thorzain to win). That game is probably a good example of why not to use Mech sadly.
|
On December 04 2013 12:47 lost_artz wrote:
I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals.
you must be some sort of dense.
If that was the solution, we would see it at high level play. News flash- that is not the solution.
|
You can not get Ghosts when you need them.
Mech is very gas expensive. Just setting up the production cost so much.
1. Factory, 125 Gas with tech lab, 150 with reactor.
2. Armouries, 100 Gas each.
3. Upgrades 200 Gas for 1/1
4. Units 125 Gas for each tank
5. Ghosts 100 Gas each
So Ghosts are a must have but you can not afford to get them in time.
Making armouries or factories cost less gas would probably be the best way of helping mech without making it OP.
|
Jeah, it just takes to much time, if u want fax, upgrades, some mech army, ghosts, expos, some air etc, then you lose every timing for an early push and the toss has all the time to just go to air
and on top the ghost habe no upgrades, so they dont add a lot in a fight and die quickly to everything
and if u want emps for a hole immortal archon army, you need a lot of them, so thats cuts into your real mech army sup, so if toss has some air and u need ghost and vikings your real army is tiny and the smaller a mech army is the weaker it gets.
and for the pdds, i dont think they are rly good vs tempest, first off all mass raven is mass gas and you dont need the tempest for the dps, but to force the terran player to push into storm and vikings die fast to storm, so with mass pdd u can delay the dmg you get, but at one point u still have to push into the toss army and u cant rly use the raven for hsm, because of the feedbacks
|
On December 05 2013 06:09 MockHamill wrote:
You can not get Ghosts when you need them.
Mech is very gas expensive. Just setting up the production cost so much.
1. Factory, 125 Gas with tech lab, 150 with reactor.
2. Armouries, 100 Gas each.
3. Upgrades 200 Gas for 1/1
4. Units 125 Gas for each tank
5. Ghosts 100 Gas each
So Ghosts are a must have but you can not afford to get them in time.
Making armouries or factories cost less gas would probably be the best way of helping mech without making it OP.
Also,
If tanks can't split up because immortals, adding ghosts will not help them be able to split up.
|
I don't play T and might say something silly but, would it be possible to buff tanks unsieged weapon?
It's rarely useful the way it is, and it could make sense that when not in siege/aoe mode, the tank's weapon would be a sort of "perforating shell" that goes through (a part of) shields.
|
On December 05 2013 06:34 eXdeath wrote:
I don't play T and might say something silly but, would it be possible to buff tanks unsieged weapon?
It's rarely useful the way it is, and it could make sense that when not in siege/aoe mode, the tank's weapon would be a sort of "perforating shell" that goes through (a part of) shields.
It currently deals more DPS than siege mode due to high attack speed, just no splash.
|
On December 05 2013 06:34 eXdeath wrote:
I don't play T and might say something silly but, would it be possible to buff tanks unsieged weapon?
It's rarely useful the way it is, and it could make sense that when not in siege/aoe mode, the tank's weapon would be a sort of "perforating shell" that goes through (a part of) shields.
Can't see it being useful. You can't siege mid-fight; the tanks die too fast, and any other role it could fulfill in an army (high single target damage, anti-shields, anti-caster, anti-stalker, anti-anything, really) will be done better by different terran unit or siege mode.
Besides, the siege tank is supposed to have a crap unsieged mode. Siege mode was supposed to be the main form of damage and was designed to allow the tank to be incredibly powerful but still balanced by gimping it's mobility. Making unsieged mode useful outside of very niche situations would defeat the point of having a unit like the siege tank.
|
Awhile ago i did some testing in the unit tester with various mech armies against toss. The difference between siege mode and unsieged ones in bigger a-click battles is actually not that big. Fighting without siege mode is often better then a late siege mode usage. Toss armies more or less split automatically because of charge and different range on various units. This applies especially to Chargelot, archon, immortal colossus. On top of that all those units except the chargelots are rather big, and siegetanks also do friendly fire. The result is that the splash damage is far less effective then in other confrontations. Tanks are only really good against two toss units: HTs and sentries aka slow low HP units that are often used in groups.
|
On December 05 2013 17:02 submarine wrote:
Awhile ago i did some testing in the unit tester with various mech armies against toss. The difference between siege mode and unsieged ones in bigger a-click battles is actually not that big. Fighting without siege mode is often better then a late siege mode usage. Toss armies more or less split automatically because of charge and different range on various units. This applies especially to Chargelot, archon, immortal colossus. On top of that all those units except the chargelots are rather big, and siegetanks also do friendly fire. The result is that the splash damage is far less effective then in other confrontations. Tanks are only really good against two toss units: HTs and sentries aka slow low HP units that are often used in groups.
but the extra range of a sieged up tanks would help you to zone out key units like HTs
|
On December 05 2013 17:06 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2013 17:02 submarine wrote:
Awhile ago i did some testing in the unit tester with various mech armies against toss. The difference between siege mode and unsieged ones in bigger a-click battles is actually not that big. Fighting without siege mode is often better then a late siege mode usage. Toss armies more or less split automatically because of charge and different range on various units. This applies especially to Chargelot, archon, immortal colossus. On top of that all those units except the chargelots are rather big, and siegetanks also do friendly fire. The result is that the splash damage is far less effective then in other confrontations. Tanks are only really good against two toss units: HTs and sentries aka slow low HP units that are often used in groups. but the extra range of a sieged up tanks would help you to zone out key units like HTs
siege tanks in siege mode only deal more damage zero seconds into the fight when they deal high front loaded damage. They have better DPS in tank mode.
|
I think that best modification would be if tanks did some kind of bonus damage to shields, or at least hardened shield to make immortal less of a hard counter. 4 shots for immortal to kill the tank vs. 14 shots for tank to kill an immortal is just way too much.
The best thing is, it doesn't affect other matchups at all. It is not really new idea so I don't understand why Blizzard never tried that in some balance test map.
|
I think the best modification would be if tanks shot two shells instead of one, and had a cheap upgrade called:
"Piercing Shells: This unit ignores 45/50/55/60 percent of the target's armor, scaling with Vehicle Attack upgrades."
That way, the tank will still do the same damage to everything else (at +1 attack, at least), and it will only do double damage to the Immortal. However, it doesn't have the inelegance of adding an upgrade that explicitly only affects one unit, like "This unit ignores Hardened Shields."
I think this would be a more elegant way to implement an anti-Immortal attack.
|
On December 05 2013 06:34 eXdeath wrote:
I don't play T and might say something silly but, would it be possible to buff tanks unsieged weapon?
It's rarely useful the way it is, and it could make sense that when not in siege/aoe mode, the tank's weapon would be a sort of "perforating shell" that goes through (a part of) shields.
it deals higher dps than siege mode ..
|
I think the way to make Tank Hellbat better in TvP is to make Hellbats better when they are used in conjunction with Tanks. When you compare the hellbat with the meatshields of the other races you see that once again the terran unit has the least HP and the highest damage potential due to splash:
Roach: 145 HP; 1 A; 8+1 DPS
Berserker: 100+50 HP; 1 A; 13.3+1.7 DPS
Hellbat: 135 HP; 0 A; 9+1 DPS+Splash
What i would like to try is a Hellbat that has more HP and less DPS with a split attack to softcounter the hardened shield ability, similar to goodys proposal. This would allow tanks to get of more shots while the hellbats tank damage. It would be even more important to keep the hellbats between your tanks and the opponent. Flanking tanks would play an even bigger role. If you really wanna hardcode a hellbat-tank synergy into the game you could also make hellbats immune to friendly splash damage from siege tanks.
Another rather blunt way to make tanks useful against toss would be s straight bonus damage against shields. That way they would actually be decent against toss units in general, while immortals remain a very strong counter. In the end i would like to see both, a tank buff and a hellion adjustment.
Mech TvP could be really interesting if mech actually had the upper hand in direct army confrontations between ground units. Toss has all the right tools to abuse the drawbacks of a slow immobile, hard to rebuild mechanical army. Sadly toss does not have to abuse the weaknesses because mech does not even have real strengths. The only time mech armys trade rather well with toss is when they are sieged up in a defensive position. Guess what, bio trades at least as well in these kind of situations, and bio is actually able to capitalize after one-sided fights.
|
|
|
On December 05 2013 05:41 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2013 12:47 lost_artz wrote:
I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals. you must be some sort of dense. If that was the solution, we would see it at high level play. News flash- that is not the solution.
See this kind of mentality is utterly absurd. Just because you don't see something RIGHT NOW at high levels doesn't mean its not viable. It just means the game isn't figured out fully.
We didn't see Ghosts for ages in 2011 until Terrans finally "got around" to trying them out (after insisting for months they were terrible). They were immediately nerfed because they were far too good.
Zerg didn't start off using Broodlord Infestor every single game in WoL despite the fact it proved to be "the solution" to winning lategame as Zerg. That developed over a long period of time.
Protoss didn't magically just know that a great way to deal with the aforementioned Broodlord Infestor is to mass up a bunch of sentries and immortals and go for the throat before Zerg ever gets there.
There's a ton of other things. Hell, every single build in the game can be classified this way because they had to be designed and refined. But the point is that if you honestly believe that "its never been done successfully before so its crap" is true then I bet you're still confused why every PvP didn't stay as 4-gate vs 4-gate.
I mean I'm not saying any particular thing is viable; but your argument against it is utterly absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
