EPTActually, if you give a strong enough army in TvP for the T to not auto lose in frontal fight, mech become much more viable, the weakness being the mobility that the protoss can abuse. But it is how it should be. Now protoss combine mobility and power in one army, that's a problem.
Jan 2nd Balance Test Map - Page 30
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
Actually, if you give a strong enough army in TvP for the T to not auto lose in frontal fight, mech become much more viable, the weakness being the mobility that the protoss can abuse. But it is how it should be. Now protoss combine mobility and power in one army, that's a problem. | ||
|
SiroKO
France721 Posts
On January 04 2014 22:32 Faust852 wrote: Actually, if you give a strong enough army in TvP for the T to not auto lose in frontal fight, mech become much more viable, the weakness being the mobility that the protoss can abuse. But it is how it should be. Now protoss combine mobility and power in one army, that's a problem. He is right. A +10 dmg on shield for tanks wouldn't change a thing, in other words, the T would still auto lose in a frontal fight against any serious lategame Protoss army. Even an equal exchange (which wouldn't happen with this buff) would actually result in T auto-losing due to remax/mobility issue. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
No clue how you guys can say it wouldn't change a thing when it would: - double the damage tanks do vs hardened shields, thus reducing shots needed from 14 to 9 against Immortals. - buff tank damage vs archons by over 28% (from 11 to 8 shots) - buff tanks against every other Protoss ground unit with results like 4shots instead of 5 against zealots, not to mention all the implications for splash If you think such a buff wouldn't change a thing (not to mention the Tempest nerf on top of that), then I don't where you guys would start to note differences. With +100damage? 5movement speed while sieged? Tank costs reduced to 0/0/0? | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On January 05 2014 00:40 Big J wrote: +10 vs shields and making that spell damage would be amazing and change a thousand things. No clue how you guys can say it wouldn't change a thing when it would: - double the damage tanks do vs hardened shields, thus reducing shots needed from 14 to 9 against Immortals. - buff tank damage vs archons by over 28% (from 11 to 8 shots) - buff tanks against every other Protoss ground unit with results like 4shots instead of 5 against zealots, not to mention all the implications for splash If you think such a buff wouldn't change a thing (not to mention the Tempest nerf on top of that), then I don't where you guys would start to note differences. With +100damage? 5movement speed while sieged? Tank costs reduced to 0/0/0? I think the same as you, +10 dmg against shield might be even a bit OP. | ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
On January 05 2014 00:40 Big J wrote: maybe just +10 vs hardened shield.+10 vs shields and making that spell damage would be amazing and change a thousand things. No clue how you guys can say it wouldn't change a thing when it would: - double the damage tanks do vs hardened shields, thus reducing shots needed from 14 to 9 against Immortals. - buff tank damage vs archons by over 28% (from 11 to 8 shots) - buff tanks against every other Protoss ground unit with results like 4shots instead of 5 against zealots, not to mention all the implications for splash If you think such a buff wouldn't change a thing (not to mention the Tempest nerf on top of that), then I don't where you guys would start to note differences. With +100damage? 5movement speed while sieged? Tank costs reduced to 0/0/0? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 05 2014 00:47 Faust852 wrote: I think the same as you, +10 dmg against shield might be even a bit OP. Hm, I don't think it would break Mech vs Protoss. But it might be unnecessarily strong against units like stalkers and sentries. And it wouldn't help TvZ, where I think a small tank buff is necessary as well. I think there could be better solutions (like the one I'm advertising usually, higher damage against the single main target independently of the armor type, same splash as right now). But if I had to choose between more of blizzard's "we will make Mech work: let's buff the ghost; let's buff the widow mine; let's make hellbats biological" and EMP shells for tanks, EMP shells with ~10spell damage vs shields sounds like a very great solution. | ||
|
Clbull
United Kingdom1439 Posts
1) Greatly imbalance mid-game TvT in favor of Mech and Biomech. With 60 vs Armored damage, the moment you get +1 Weapons on your Siege Tank, you 2-shot Marauders unless they have +2 Armor (and therefore 3 Armor which lets them survive 2 Siege Tank shells with 1 Life left.) Once you go beyond +2 Weapon upgrades, you reach the point of no return. 2) Improve TvP Mech. Currently Stalkers take 4 hits to die but the moment you go to +1 Weapon upgrades, Stalkers will take 3 hits to die, just as Dragoons once did and Colossi would likely take one hit less to kill with a Siege Tank. This will greatly improve the benefits of an Armory in the midgame. This combined with removing Moebius Reactor and starting Ghosts with 75 Energy without the need for an upgrade could make Ghost Mech much easier to obtain and give EMPs immediate availability, indirectly improving the tank tenfold against Immortals and Archons. However, this could result in a colossal TvP Bio imbalance and result in earlier mid-game Ghost timing attacks. 3) Improve TvZ Mech. Roaches have 145HP and currently take 3 hits to kill. At +3 Weapon upgrades where a Siege Tank would deal 75 damage vs Armored, tanks would 2-shot Roaches and fare somewhat better against Ultralisks. But what if David Kim buffed the Siege Tank's damage vs Armored through a small baseline damage upgrade and improved scaling from weapon upgrades too? The result: 55 vs Armored: Level 0: 1. 4-shots Stalkers 2. 7-shots Colossus 3. 4-shots Immortals without Shields 4. 3-shots Roaches 5. 10-shots Ultralisks (already an immediate improvement as health regen and base armor would result in 11-shotting.) 6. 3-shot Marauders 62 vs Armored: Level 1: 1. 3-shots Stalkers unless they have +2 Armor. 2. 6-shots Colossus 3. 4-shots Immortals without Shields 4. 3-shots Roaches 5. 9-shots Ultralisks 6. 3-shot Marauders 69 vs Armored: Level 2: 1. 3-shots all Stalkers. 2. 6-shots Colossus. 3. 3-shots Immortals without Shields unless they have +2 Armor. 4. 3-shots Roaches 5. 8-shots Ultralisks. 6. 2-shots Marauders 76 vs Armored: Level 3: 1. 3-shots all Stalkers. 2. 5-shots Colossus. 3. 3-shots all Immortals without Shields. 4. 2-shots Roaches unless on +3 Armor upgrades. 5. 7-shots Ultralisks unless +4 Armor upgraded. 6. 2-shots Marauders. | ||
|
Clbull
United Kingdom1439 Posts
On January 05 2014 01:02 Big J wrote: Hm, I don't think it would break Mech vs Protoss. But it might be unnecessarily strong against units like stalkers and sentries. And it wouldn't help TvZ, where I think a small tank buff is necessary as well. I think there could be better solutions (like the one I'm advertising usually, higher damage against the single main target independently of the armor type, same splash as right now). But if I had to choose between more of blizzard's "we will make Mech work: let's buff the ghost; let's buff the widow mine; let's make hellbats biological" and EMP shells for tanks, EMP shells with ~10spell damage vs shields sounds like a very great solution. Newsflash, Siege Tanks are meant to counter Stalkers and currently Stalkers are the soft-counter to Siege Tanks with good micro and Blink researched. | ||
|
ImperialFist
790 Posts
On January 04 2014 22:32 Faust852 wrote: Actually, if you give a strong enough army in TvP for the T to not auto lose in frontal fight, mech become much more viable, the weakness being the mobility that the protoss can abuse. But it is how it should be. Now protoss combine mobility and power in one army, that's a problem. well said | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 05 2014 01:25 Clbull wrote: Newsflash, Siege Tanks are meant to counter Stalkers and currently Stalkers are the soft-counter to Siege Tanks with good micro and Blink researched. No they don't. If your opponent masses stalkers against Mech it's a freewin, talk with anybody who has played Mech at a reasonable level against Protoss. Like me. No clue how you think Stalkers can beat tanks, mass tank amoves mass stalkers without sieging. If he tries to do fancy blink micro (which is pretty hard because to lose targetting from a tank the stalker has to get at least out of their vision range of 11, which means blinking far back), targetfire stalker clumps and they will evaporate from max health to 0 long before he can start blinking. All of that not talking about hellbats also wiping the floor with stalkers if he closes in, which he has to do to even be able to attack tanks. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Morbidius
Brazil3449 Posts
| ||
|
pmp10
3389 Posts
On January 05 2014 01:42 Morbidius wrote: Are people seriously saying +10 vs Shields as separate damage would do nothing? I think its enough to break the match up. It's kind of like that 10% tank buff that broke all terran match-ups. The problem of mech TvP is not the tank damage since the game is usually decided before a number of tanks gets build. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On January 05 2014 01:58 pmp10 wrote: It's kind of like that 10% tank buff that broke all terran match-ups. Let's not get carried away here, the 10% attack speed buff was considered to much. We got a massive 7% instead. Still broke the T MUs though. | ||
|
Kestnuts
United States29 Posts
| ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On January 05 2014 02:49 Kestnuts wrote: I'm totally okay with making mech more viable in all matchups, but I'd like to see it become a little more mechanically demanding to execute. I feel like on certain maps it's possible for a much weaker player to abuse a mech build for easy wins (Granted, I haven't played on any of the new maps yet.) It's not as mechanically demanding as bio in a certain way, but in other aspect it's much harder depending your playstyle. If you play aggressive with mech, like timing attack and drop heavy, it's as hard as bio in every aspect but splitting where you don't split in fight but you have to position yourself perfectly, and it's not that easy. If you play more of a passive style, you have to react to everything that comes to you perfectly, react very fast to every aggression on the minimap (same as bio but with a much slower army so.). You have to scout like a beast to have the perfect composition everytime because you might lose to 3 broodlords if you don't have enough vikings, to a sick SH transition if you don't have enough tanks or to a mass muta if you don't have enough thor. It's something you don't really care about when you play bio centric style for exemple. | ||
|
TeeTS
Germany2762 Posts
On January 05 2014 01:34 Plansix wrote: People forget the stalkers are made of glass and are only good at alpha striking down a single unit at a time. If you can blink them into a flank were they won't take to much DPS, they can do some damage. But in a straight up fight they suck ass. With 160 HP, Stalkers are pretty beafy for a 2supply unit, don´t you think? Dunno where this comes, that they are made of glass, when a roach with 145 HP at 2 supply is considered as a tank. | ||
|
mikumegurine
Canada3145 Posts
On January 05 2014 03:17 TeeTS wrote: With 160 HP, Stalkers are pretty beafy for a 2supply unit, don´t you think? Dunno where this comes, that they are made of glass, when a roach with 145 HP at 2 supply is considered as a tank. cause Roaches are lots of HP for cheap cost its not all about supply...you gota look at costs... | ||
|
Kestnuts
United States29 Posts
On January 05 2014 02:58 Faust852 wrote: It's not as mechanically demanding as bio in a certain way, but in other aspect it's much harder depending your playstyle. If you play aggressive with mech, like timing attack and drop heavy, it's as hard as bio in every aspect but splitting where you don't split in fight but you have to position yourself perfectly, and it's not that easy. If you play more of a passive style, you have to react to everything that comes to you perfectly, react very fast to every aggression on the minimap (same as bio but with a much slower army so.). You have to scout like a beast to have the perfect composition everytime because you might lose to 3 broodlords if you don't have enough vikings, to a sick SH transition if you don't have enough tanks or to a mass muta if you don't have enough thor. It's something you don't really care about when you play bio centric style for exemple. That's true, and I'm not saying I'm a total expert, since I haven't played terran since WoL, but from what I remember it seemed like it was harder to kill mech than it is to play it. Not so much the hellbat drop-heavy mech style, but the turtle on 3base to a deathball mech style. It's beatable, no doubt, but I'd like it to be a little less easy to turtle in any matchup, period, and as a zerg player I wish we had more options to aggressively shut down a turtling terran or toss without going totally all in. I don't enjoy camping outside a terrans base with swarmhosts and vipers and starving them out for 45 minutes, I guess. | ||
|
lukem
7 Posts
Also I have no idea why po is being nerfed instead of the absolutely insane oracle. I play toss and that unit is stupid | ||
| ||
