EPTIn Detail: Tank Buff Numbers - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
| ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
What I would really like to see is a lot of finesse-based tricks to either bypass or pick away at a tank line, such as using Immortals in Warp Prisms, or Adepts with their shade ability to kamikaze into a tank, causing them to kill each other, or other friendly units. And there's the Tempest/Carrier skytoss late game answer so the tank army has a timer before it's basically worthless, so it must do damage before then. Zerg has Zerglings which tanks are terrible against, Vipers for Blinding Cloud and Abduct, as well as Mutalisks to pick away at isolated tanks, and Broodlords as a late game answer to a large tank army. The big experiment here, I think, is about TvT because bio with PDD could either be hopelessly outclassed, or might just roflstomp all over a tank army because PDD stops tank shots. Either way, stuff will require tuning, either by adjusting PDD up or down to maintain a relative equilibrium between bio and mech, or by adjusting tank stats. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On December 04 2015 19:05 ledarsi wrote: Although I very much appreciate whoever made the test map, in all honesty it's not very well-made. The cow projectile is because there's an error with the model. And there's also only the one map Orbital Shipyards. To fix this, I have made an extension mod which is playable on any melee map, and which has properly implemented projectiles on the tank. Although the tank shells do look a little goofy firing close to minimum range, they generally look pretty good. I also changed the cyclone into a dedicated anti-air specialist, because if I'm going to the trouble to mod the game I'm going to make both the changes that really ought to be made so they can be tested together. To play it, under multiplayer custom games (not arcade) click on "Create with Mod" and search for "ledarsi Mech Mod." I have also edited the OP to refer people to the mod. I am going back and forth on whether it would be better to have tanks require Siege Tech again before they can use siege mode. It's currently in, but what do you guys think? The reason for a siege mode upgrade would be too strong early game tanks (for example 1-1-1 pushes). Considering if anything early game is where tanks are weakest, I would not put it in. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On December 04 2015 19:37 Sissors wrote: The reason for a siege mode upgrade would be too strong early game tanks (for example 1-1-1 pushes). Considering if anything early game is where tanks are weakest, I would not put it in. or too easy to defend very early expo with siege but i doubt it in SC2? the cost of it also has an impact generally on the tech investment for T that is important to consider I think (races don't need / can't be equal in tech investment costs overall) | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
| ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
On December 04 2015 19:34 ledarsi wrote: Make no mistake, this is a big buff. My biggest concern here is that I just know there's going to be some knucklehead who attack moves a Stalker army into a siege line and immediately rages that it's OP without adjusting their play in the slightest to deal with a strong positional tank. What I would really like to see is a lot of finesse-based tricks to either bypass or pick away at a tank line, such as using Immortals in Warp Prisms, or Adepts with their shade ability to kamikaze into a tank, causing them to kill each other, or other friendly units. And there's the Tempest/Carrier skytoss late game answer so the tank army has a timer before it's basically worthless, so it must do damage before then. Zerg has Zerglings which tanks are terrible against, Vipers for Blinding Cloud and Abduct, as well as Mutalisks to pick away at isolated tanks, and Broodlords as a late game answer to a large tank army. The big experiment here, I think, is about TvT because bio with PDD could either be hopelessly outclassed, or might just roflstomp all over a tank army because PDD stops tank shots. Either way, stuff will require tuning, either by adjusting PDD up or down to maintain a relative equilibrium between bio and mech, or by adjusting tank stats. Consider trying a smaller buff first. Something like 50+15 or 45+20. Note that you suggestion upgrades the anti armored damage from 50 to 75. That is a 50% buff. Collossus was considered OP by most terrans and after a 20% damage nerf is now terrible. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
It's a 50% damage buff to a single tank; but a group of tanks now overkills targets and wastes shots. This means one or two tanks is now 50% better, but a large group of tanks in one spot is a lot worse. We basically need to test it. I am not denying that it's entirely possible it's outrageously OP. But if you compare its numbers to the Disruptor and factor in its immobility and overkill.... | ||
|
WeddingEpisode
United States356 Posts
Tank change good, but map change is needed. To use an example from the OP's Ravager & Tank interplay, where is the Ravager supposed to come from in order to apply this indirect-attack strategy? There aren't enough nooks, ramps, blind-spots, high-ground, tunnels, etc.. to do this from. I think the maps dont have enough narrowness; that is to say, there aren't enough effect surprise or sabotage spots. It's just a shooting gallery type design. The map is too accommodating of all units throughout too much of the map. If an Ultra is too big to go down a certain path, this is not unfair, it just determines a new consideration in the game. | ||
|
HeroMystic
United States1217 Posts
On December 04 2015 19:53 ledarsi wrote: The reason why I decided to put Siege Tech in was that I was afraid of the superfast factory showing up with a tank with siege in only a few minutes. I don't think it's any faster than Ravagers, but the tank has way more range and could potentially put some serious hurt on their base. It's easier to see if it's too strong without such an early rush being possible, and if the early game is too weak we can just take siege tech out. Why is Transformation Servos for Hellion/Hellbat present? | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
The point of the Transformation Servos upgrade on the Factory Tech Lab is to compete for research time; it's cheap, but takes 140 seconds during which you could be researching something else from that tech lab, particularly Siege Tech. | ||
|
HeroMystic
United States1217 Posts
On December 04 2015 21:36 ledarsi wrote: One of the early tests I did showed it was pretty straightforward to hit this "perfect storm" timing of having some tanks with siege tech, hellbats, and an upgrade from your armory. Even if it's not overpowered it would be better not to have a magic timing that may or may not be possible to defend against. The point of the Transformation Servos upgrade on the Factory Tech Lab is to compete for research time; it's cheap, but takes 140 seconds during which you could be researching something else from that tech lab, particularly Siege Tech. Fair enough. At first I was miffed that there were so many research upgrades, but after playing around with it, I feel it's okay, especially Siege Tech. I feel the point is if you're going to go mech, it's gonna take time to assemble a full army. I prefer the exploding cows though. | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2655 Posts
On December 04 2015 20:25 WeddingEpisode wrote: About tactics, the maps don't allow for it that well. The maps are open-spaced in design. Tank change good, but map change is needed. To use an example from the OP's Ravager & Tank interplay, where is the Ravager supposed to come from in order to apply this indirect-attack strategy? There aren't enough nooks, ramps, blind-spots, high-ground, tunnels, etc.. to do this from. I think the maps dont have enough narrowness; that is to say, there aren't enough effect surprise or sabotage spots. It's just a shooting gallery type design. The map is too accommodating of all units throughout too much of the map. If an Ultra is too big to go down a certain path, this is not unfair, it just determines a new consideration in the game. Ah? I'm not sure I get your point. The maps being to open is good for anti-tank play, a positional unit like the siege tank is stronger the more details theres in a map that can be exploited. When a map is big and open, the tanks are weaker because, they can no longer cover the ground in the same way, they become less efficient. This already true even for current tanks. | ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
On December 04 2015 12:05 JackONeill wrote: That's actually a very very good idea. I mean the whole point is to actually allow mech players to get out on the map with units that can take a fight with good positioning. No one denies tanks are very strong in late game, but yeah I feel like your idea is very good. Actually, making the maps bigger (without making them more open) would allow mech players to get out on the map to take little niche positions, and the enemy would have to send an appropriate answer, with the mech units still being able to take some kind of a fight if the position is good. So yeah. Make the tanks better in early game - mid game, without making "HURRR DURR MASS TANKS MASS TURRETS" the only way to go mech. Yes improving tanks early game and mid-game without making them any stronger late game is the solution we all have been looking for. The advantage of my solution compared to the one in the OP is that it introduces less changes but still improves tanks at the stage in the game where they need to be improved. I really hope this suggestion reaches Blizzard and that they try it out on the next balance map. | ||
|
HeroMystic
United States1217 Posts
That said I only fooled around with it, so I'll give bullet points. * Tanks are much better in smaller numbers, and doesn't feel overpowered in larger numbers thanks to the lack of smartfiring. I think the range increase is unnecessary though. It makes siege positions that much stronger. * It's probably just me, but I feel Hellion/Hellbats serve no purpose other than being meatshields. Fortunately, now that Tanks actually do their job, Hellbats are able to perform their job better too because Hellbats are less likely to be overrun by sheer power. That said, I feel Marines do the job better than Hellbats and that's a problem imo. * I like the change to the Cyclone. Instead of Lock-on, which takes forever to dish out the damage it needs, it instead has one large burst of damage and serves the Anti-Air role pretty well. Good support unit.to other Anti-Air units like Thors and Vikings. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
If the tank doing its job makes the Hellbat unnecessary (completely unsurprising to me; Hellion mobility is what it brings to the table) then how should the Hellion be changed, assuming the tank is functional? | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
Maybe they should read this thread =/ | ||
|
HeroMystic
United States1217 Posts
On December 05 2015 10:07 ledarsi wrote: Well apart from adding Transformation Servos I didn't touch Hellions or Hellbats. I was sorely tempted, as it would not have been difficult, but I did not. If the tank doing its job makes the Hellbat unnecessary (completely unsurprising to me; Hellion mobility is what it brings to the table) then how should the Hellion be changed, assuming the tank is functional? Hellions need to be better at holding map control. I couldn't tell you how this can work without essentially making it a Vulture though. | ||
|
parkufarku
882 Posts
On December 05 2015 10:10 avilo wrote: So Blizzard just released a "community feedback update..." aaaaaaaaaaand ignored literally everything and anything about mech, tanks, etc. Maybe they should read this thread =/ they're actually working on balance issues, that's why. | ||
| ||
