EPTTerran Buffs - Balance Testing Soon - July 1 - Page 58
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Nekovivie
United Kingdom2599 Posts
| ||
|
KOtical
Germany451 Posts
as for the pruposed changes im not a big fan of them, as many users already pointed out its not the early or mid game where terran struggles its the lategame. well lets wait and see what blizzard is doing, but i think buffing mines/medivacs isnt really helping... buffing widow mines will give maybe some timings again (where i can see zerg struggeling again). Buffing medivacs wont help any vs protoss, coz stalker(s) and nexus canon holds of any smaller drop in early/mid game + the sight of the observer then they already know... just look at that teajea vs pigbaby games... ugly to be terran those days.. | ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
On July 07 2014 14:31 Foxxan wrote: Siege tank in broodwar: 4.4 attackspeed 70 damage versus armored 52,5 versus medium (hydras were medium in broodwar) 35 vs light (Zealots, marines etc) Cost 150/100/2 43~ buildtime and dont forget the lower supply cost. | ||
|
ETisME
12387 Posts
On July 07 2014 14:31 Foxxan wrote: Siege tank in broodwar: 4.4 attackspeed 70 damage versus armored 52,5 versus medium (hydras were medium in broodwar) 35 vs light (Zealots, marines etc) Cost 150/100/2 43~ buildtime This comparison is as silly as comparing heroes in DotA and champions in league of legends. | ||
|
Thezzy
Netherlands2117 Posts
At 150/125/3 trying to get them up in the number you need is hard, especially in the gas department. Tanks suck until you get atleast 4-5 of them and they still have to siege up. Early game one might say you could get away with a lower number but their gas cost early on means you can't spend it on anything else. 150/100/2 might a change worth trying out on the test map. I'd still want to try TheDwf changes as well though to deal with Archons and Immortals. One other option to help with that and Mech in general is to reintroduce the Warhound as a modified Goliath. Primarily anti-air, average ground attack (kinda like Ground Viking), around 150 HP and 2 supply, decent speed (2.75 or 2.95) and the Haywire missiles that always deal 30 shield damage (even to an Immortal because it's a spell). You'd have a mid size Mech unit that can help fill the AA gap, still provide support on the ground and Archons/Immortals would be less of a hard counter. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
On July 07 2014 14:01 Xequecal wrote: I really don't get the "tank damage is low" complaint. They do double the damage of the BW tank to "small," and have significantly increased damage against "large." Remember the BW tank had a 5 second cooldown, and only did 35 damage to small units. I know a direct comparison is not possible here, but SC2 units have similar HP numbers to broodwar ones. People asking for massive damage are asking for the ability to have tanks work against Immortals by brute force, which is absolutely the wrong way to go. Yeh I am sure you want Siege Tanks to do all crazy kinds of micro vs Immortals here lol. You refer to BW, but in BW Siege Tanks were cost-effective vs Dragoons. Even if you remove hardend shield, Imortals are still cost-effective vs Tanks (yes it's that bad currently). | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
On July 07 2014 20:44 Thezzy wrote: Perhaps, but more massable Tanks would be one way to try and help the unit. At 150/125/3 trying to get them up in the number you need is hard, especially in the gas department. Tanks suck until you get atleast 4-5 of them and they still have to siege up. Early game one might say you could get away with a lower number but their gas cost early on means you can't spend it on anything else. 150/100/2 might a change worth trying out on the test map. I'd still want to try TheDwf changes as well though to deal with Archons and Immortals. One other option to help with that and Mech in general is to reintroduce the Warhound as a modified Goliath. Primarily anti-air, average ground attack (kinda like Ground Viking), around 150 HP and 2 supply, decent speed (2.75 or 2.95) and the Haywire missiles that always deal 30 shield damage (even to an Immortal because it's a spell). You'd have a mid size Mech unit that can help fill the AA gap, still provide support on the ground and Archons/Immortals would be less of a hard counter. 150/100/2 is a change I've wanted to see for years, it should allow mech the overal higher AV they need, having more room in supply for tanks whilst also having more gas to make more would be a welcome change. | ||
|
klup
France612 Posts
Research : Alien Rounds XX s , K minerals, L gas tanks do +Y bonus dmg to alien races. Prevent from having tank rekt bio in TvT and still allow tank to be more powerful vs Z or P. This is hard to do because you would have to add an alien type to both protoss and zerg units :D | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On July 07 2014 20:53 Hider wrote: Yeh I am sure you want Siege Tanks to do all crazy kinds of micro vs Immortals here lol. You refer to BW, but in BW Siege Tanks were cost-effective vs Dragoons. Even if you remove hardend shield, Imortals are still cost-effective vs Tanks (yes it's that bad currently). ??? The equivalent to Dragoons in BW are Stalkers. Same tech path, with similar cost and abilities, minus blink. Immortals ae not related to dragoons at all. Other than some dodgy lore. | ||
|
XiaoJoyce-
China2908 Posts
On July 07 2014 22:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote: ??? The equivalent to Dragoons in BW are Stalkers. Same tech path, with similar cost and abilities, minus blink. Immortals ae not related to dragoons at all. Other than some dodgy lore. Then siege tank equilvilant is reaver? some long range some high damage. Same mobility restriction. One having to siege the other is really slow. I tink Hider is trying to say in BW , during mid & late game match up, dragoon is one of the main unit composition for protoss and siege tank is cost effective in dealing with dragoon threat. But in SC2, there is a hard counter with strong ability (reduce all damage, regardless how high it is , to maximum of 10) . That can counter tank and make tank so useless and not cost effective at all. It is also easily acessible in the tech tree too. . Anyway I dont like the ability idea of hardened shield, it feels too ...hard counter? Too good against siege tank but become useless against fast attacking units. Reduce any dmg greater than 10 , regardless how high it is , to 10 . It feels . . . too unrealistic? Ah, I cant describe well... but marine & SCV able to punch through the shield and siege tank cant. is wierd. Even for a sci-fi world . . . It makes the game more game-like , and less Sci-Fi like? Can I explain it this way? With all the hard counters .. | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
2. In terms of recent tournament wins, the three races are performing quite evenly. This sentence is so hilarious. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
The problem there is Blizzard just looks at overall percentages rather than review context. Having Taeja/Bomber/Maru be both the only consistently representing Terrans and perform well means "TvX" tournament win rates look decent, despite the fact that the Terran community is languishing as a whole. It's the same problem as Blizzard's flawed "skill-separating" algorithm they use on ladder. There's no accounting for overall rank deflation for a race, no determining skill based on length of game/how the players win, etc. All you end up with is a situation where a Gold Terran that would otherwise be Platinum playing and losing against Gold P/Z, and the algorithm saying "yep, that was expected based on MMR, no balance issue here". It was the same thing when Protoss was languishing hard, and Blizzard kept saying the win rates looked solid. Basically, it only detects sharp shifts in racial success, not long-term balance issues. It's why Blizz says ladder looks pretty even despite an extreme under-representation of Terran in the higher leagues. | ||
|
Cazimirbzh
334 Posts
The problem there is Blizzard just looks at overall percentages rather than review context. Having Taeja/Bomber/Maru be both the only consistently representing Terrans and perform well means "TvX" tournament win rates look decent, despite the fact that the Terran community is languishing as a whole. so we forget Bbyong who is the best terran player at the moment and also GuMiho, flash, TY, cure, dream, MarineKing, TUrn.... where a Gold Terran that would otherwise be Platinum playing and losing against Gold P/Z, best sentence^^ sincerely, there is no differences beetween a gold and a diamond even a low master, one just keep producing harvester/army/upgrades in time. that's all... and no need to talk this crappy ladder, every one knows it's impossible to balance a mmr ...except blizzard :p | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On July 08 2014 03:07 Cazimirbzh wrote: so we forget Bbyong who is the best terran player at the moment and also GuMiho, flash, TY, cure, dream, MarineKing, TUrn.... Because they are doing so well... MKP and Maru are the best T in Pro League with a terrific 4-5 maps. Only Maru has maintain is code S spot Bbyong didn't shit without is lift gold strat on Habitation, and guess what? This map is no more. | ||
|
Glorfindel!
Sweden1815 Posts
Hey I am sure there are some Bronze League Heroes tournaments where Terrans have actually won!  | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On July 08 2014 03:07 Cazimirbzh wrote: so we forget Bbyong who is the best terran player at the moment and also GuMiho, flash, TY, cure, dream, MarineKing, TUrn.... Bbyong is not the best Terran at the moment. | ||
|
Deleted User 132135
702 Posts
On July 07 2014 14:11 Vindicare605 wrote: The problem with the Siege Tank isn't actually with the Siege Tank. It's with the ridiculous hard counter units that Zerg and Protoss have access to in HoTS that they never had in SC:BW. Yes, and now look at terran bio and see how strong it is compared to broodwar. Bio was strong in broodwar as well but it had counters that just forced the terran out of bio like psi-storm or lurker. Therefore terran went mech from the beginning in tvp and in tvz as soon as lurkers where there needed tanks and vessels. What is it now? Terran build bio, z builds hardcounter baneling (which is actually no hard counter) and terran counters it with just more bio. Exactly this is the problem of SC2. Bio is too strong, mech is too weak. If you buff mech without nerfing bio, bio/mech combinations will defenitely become way too strong and undefeatable. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On July 08 2014 03:07 Cazimirbzh wrote: so we forget Bbyong who is the best terran player at the moment and also GuMiho, flash, TY, cure, dream, MarineKing, TUrn.... Those Terrans are not forgotten, but frankly they're not producing premier tournament results. They have Bo1 Proleague victories to their names. That's cool and all, but is a whole other ball game. On July 08 2014 03:07 Cazimirbzh wrote: best sentence^^ sincerely, there is no differences beetween a gold and a diamond even a low master, one just keep producing harvester/army/upgrades in time. that's all... and no need to talk this crappy ladder, every one knows it's impossible to balance a mmr ...except blizzard :p ... Are you serious? At least try sounding reasonable. Just because you're at a certain high skill level doesn't make everyone below you exactly the same. :\ | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On July 02 2014 02:10 Musicus wrote: Widow Mines are quite core in both TvP and TvZ. They’re also one of the most exciting units to watch and create lots of diverse moments depending on the players’ interaction with them within each engagement. Am I the only one to find Siege Tanks far more exciting to watch? I think Widow Mines are terrible to watch, play with and play against. They seem so gimmicky. | ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
On July 08 2014 04:25 BronzeKnee wrote: Am I the only one to find Siege Tanks far more exciting to watch? I think Widow Mines are terrible to watch, play with and play against. They seem so gimmicky. Widow mines are "exciting" in the sense that you have no idea what the result is going to be, because they tend to be so random. The only neat, skillful micro trick surrounding them is opponents sending a couple of units in to bait shots, and Terrans unburrowing to avoid having the shot wasted. With tanks, you can tell when target-firing is involved, which leads into observing the player's decision making and army control. Tanks are definitely better IMO. | ||
| ||
