|
On February 19 2016 21:46 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 21:30 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 19 2016 21:07 Vanadiel wrote:On February 19 2016 20:42 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 19 2016 20:31 Vanadiel wrote:On February 19 2016 19:50 Cyro wrote:On February 19 2016 16:18 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 19 2016 04:28 ArtyK wrote:
Sounds cool but how will the siege tank 3 shot a ravager (120hp and 1 armor) with 40 damage? Sst Blizzard knows their own units!! yeah it would survive with 4hp even if they all fired at the same time ----- As for design: I don't really understand the people who would rather have a weak flying tank instead of a strong immobile tank, given that you can't do both at the same time (adding power in one form means that you have to reduce it in the other for balance reasons) The immobility is very core to the unit design - it's a siege tank. Quite simple, we all have play against mech, and for some people, including me, the experience against it is 95% of the time playing against turtle fest. I enjoy very much a game where it's a battle of mechanics, decision and position and thus I liked tankivacs (although I agree it was problematic in TvT), rather than who is going to be the most patient and turtle better. When I watch this thread and post like those of Avilo, what I learn is that mech terran wants an even bigger buff of the tank, sometimes with a bigger range and less supply, stronger cyclone AA, and a nerf of lategame Air units. Am I wrong in assuming that? Because then what I read, is that they want an unbreakable ground army, especially in defensive position, and no late game solution to play against it. That will lead, in my opinion, only to even more turtle play which is completely boring, or more accurately, that turtle play will be the most efficient way to win the game. I've always thought that the whole "buff the tank and we won't turtle I promise" argument is completely wrong, and thus I fear we're going to get a repeat of the end of HoTS. Did you consider TvT mech vs bio in HOTS and WOL a "turtle fest" ? Because if yes, then it means you just don't like mech; if no, then that is what mech Terrans want in TvZ and TvP, and not what we actually got in HOTS due to Ravens. It depends, mech in TvT is better than TvZ for sure, although some game were turtlefest into skyterran vs Skyterran, especially in mech vs mech. Of course, some mech games were good from times to times, imo mostly because the other player was playing a bio style, but I mean, even some SwarmHost games were good from times to times, that does not make the playstyle overall interesting. I can like mech, as in Brood War, or in general I appreciate when you have a defensive player with positional play vs agressive player like we see in PvT in the current metagames with liberator. What I don't like is when "not attacking" is the best option for you to play against. That's why mech in TvT was a bit more interesting than in TvZ, because Terran has more tools with the dps of stim marauders and medivacs boost. Tanks are just too reliable in its design given the range, IA, pathing, unlimited selection, static defense in Starcraft 2, that a strong enough tank which can hold its ground will force you never to attack. I'm not interested in a game like that. I agree with the reasons for why TvT mech was more interesting. Bio was not as strong in fights but had mobility. I think this is a big part of the reason as to why mech vb z and P is not as cool; instead of a mobile and aggresive army, Z and P, mostly P, can just go mass air and then all the factory units are nullified so the game goes in turtle mode with both massing air. A stronger Tank i think gives Terran the option to punish an early air transition to Tempests or Carriers or BL, and so have a more interesting game where Z/P has to make a lot of ground units and we get to see more fights throughout the game. I think it's true that at first some players will have difficulty with that, because they have been used to 1a "counter" units like Immortals or just skip everything and go to air. It's going to take a bit of time until they get in the mindset of having the superior mobility and probably eco, and make use of that through multitasking and coordinated attacks. Like bio vs mech has to or like P had to in BW. Why do you have the choice but I don't? That sounds aweful. I don't have the superior mobility or eco by default. I can choose them if you choose not to have anything that challenges that. When Mech is viable I also want a slow style to play with against it, like Swarm Hosts or Broodlords, since I really don't want to all-in everygame.
Well, given that mech vs mech at pro level and even amateur can make for great games, there is no reason for why Zerg shouldn't. The problem IMO is that the tools that were meant to do that were woeful design, SHs.
EDIT: and you are throwing a strowman by naming mobility based comps as all in.
|
On February 19 2016 21:57 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 21:46 Big J wrote:On February 19 2016 21:30 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 19 2016 21:07 Vanadiel wrote:On February 19 2016 20:42 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 19 2016 20:31 Vanadiel wrote:On February 19 2016 19:50 Cyro wrote:On February 19 2016 16:18 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 19 2016 04:28 ArtyK wrote:
Sounds cool but how will the siege tank 3 shot a ravager (120hp and 1 armor) with 40 damage? Sst Blizzard knows their own units!! yeah it would survive with 4hp even if they all fired at the same time ----- As for design: I don't really understand the people who would rather have a weak flying tank instead of a strong immobile tank, given that you can't do both at the same time (adding power in one form means that you have to reduce it in the other for balance reasons) The immobility is very core to the unit design - it's a siege tank. Quite simple, we all have play against mech, and for some people, including me, the experience against it is 95% of the time playing against turtle fest. I enjoy very much a game where it's a battle of mechanics, decision and position and thus I liked tankivacs (although I agree it was problematic in TvT), rather than who is going to be the most patient and turtle better. When I watch this thread and post like those of Avilo, what I learn is that mech terran wants an even bigger buff of the tank, sometimes with a bigger range and less supply, stronger cyclone AA, and a nerf of lategame Air units. Am I wrong in assuming that? Because then what I read, is that they want an unbreakable ground army, especially in defensive position, and no late game solution to play against it. That will lead, in my opinion, only to even more turtle play which is completely boring, or more accurately, that turtle play will be the most efficient way to win the game. I've always thought that the whole "buff the tank and we won't turtle I promise" argument is completely wrong, and thus I fear we're going to get a repeat of the end of HoTS. Did you consider TvT mech vs bio in HOTS and WOL a "turtle fest" ? Because if yes, then it means you just don't like mech; if no, then that is what mech Terrans want in TvZ and TvP, and not what we actually got in HOTS due to Ravens. It depends, mech in TvT is better than TvZ for sure, although some game were turtlefest into skyterran vs Skyterran, especially in mech vs mech. Of course, some mech games were good from times to times, imo mostly because the other player was playing a bio style, but I mean, even some SwarmHost games were good from times to times, that does not make the playstyle overall interesting. I can like mech, as in Brood War, or in general I appreciate when you have a defensive player with positional play vs agressive player like we see in PvT in the current metagames with liberator. What I don't like is when "not attacking" is the best option for you to play against. That's why mech in TvT was a bit more interesting than in TvZ, because Terran has more tools with the dps of stim marauders and medivacs boost. Tanks are just too reliable in its design given the range, IA, pathing, unlimited selection, static defense in Starcraft 2, that a strong enough tank which can hold its ground will force you never to attack. I'm not interested in a game like that. I agree with the reasons for why TvT mech was more interesting. Bio was not as strong in fights but had mobility. I think this is a big part of the reason as to why mech vb z and P is not as cool; instead of a mobile and aggresive army, Z and P, mostly P, can just go mass air and then all the factory units are nullified so the game goes in turtle mode with both massing air. A stronger Tank i think gives Terran the option to punish an early air transition to Tempests or Carriers or BL, and so have a more interesting game where Z/P has to make a lot of ground units and we get to see more fights throughout the game. I think it's true that at first some players will have difficulty with that, because they have been used to 1a "counter" units like Immortals or just skip everything and go to air. It's going to take a bit of time until they get in the mindset of having the superior mobility and probably eco, and make use of that through multitasking and coordinated attacks. Like bio vs mech has to or like P had to in BW. Why do you have the choice but I don't? That sounds aweful. I don't have the superior mobility or eco by default. I can choose them if you choose not to have anything that challenges that. When Mech is viable I also want a slow style to play with against it, like Swarm Hosts or Broodlords, since I really don't want to all-in everygame. Well, given that mech vs mech at pro level and even amateur can make for great games, there is no reason for why Zerg shouldn't. The problem IMO is that the tools that were meant to do that were woeful design, SHs. EDIT: and you are throwing a strowman by naming mobility based comps as all in.
A strawman would be if I pretended you said it's allin based. That's not what I said, it's rather my personal believe that mobility based play is either allin/has an allinish dynamic (bio vs Protoss and to some degree bio vs Zerg in HotS; Zerg vs Mech in late-HotS), or you try to get out of it as fast as possible (like TvT Bio vs Mech; you either kill him, or you go to air asap). In SC2 unless you can get an equivalent superarmy, you are on a timer, since there is no economy scaling that would allow you to be costineffecient.
|
Why remove the seiged tank medivac pickup outright and not first try out making pickups force seiged tanks to unseige? I like the damage buff, but I liked the idea of keeping seiged tank medivac pickups in some form.
|
Denmark3552 Posts
On February 19 2016 22:24 14681 wrote:
Why remove the seiged tank medivac pickup outright and not first try out making pickups force seiged tanks to unseige? I like the damage buff, but I liked the idea of keeping seiged tank medivac pickups in some form.
It's actually necessary. Tanks got a 10% speed buff in HotS, because the game was sped up, the amount of stat buff the Tank would need to be viable in a game as fast as LotV would be so ridiculous.
|
On February 19 2016 22:13 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 21:57 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 19 2016 21:46 Big J wrote:On February 19 2016 21:30 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 19 2016 21:07 Vanadiel wrote:On February 19 2016 20:42 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 19 2016 20:31 Vanadiel wrote:On February 19 2016 19:50 Cyro wrote:On February 19 2016 16:18 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 19 2016 04:28 ArtyK wrote:
Sounds cool but how will the siege tank 3 shot a ravager (120hp and 1 armor) with 40 damage? Sst Blizzard knows their own units!! yeah it would survive with 4hp even if they all fired at the same time ----- As for design: I don't really understand the people who would rather have a weak flying tank instead of a strong immobile tank, given that you can't do both at the same time (adding power in one form means that you have to reduce it in the other for balance reasons) The immobility is very core to the unit design - it's a siege tank. Quite simple, we all have play against mech, and for some people, including me, the experience against it is 95% of the time playing against turtle fest. I enjoy very much a game where it's a battle of mechanics, decision and position and thus I liked tankivacs (although I agree it was problematic in TvT), rather than who is going to be the most patient and turtle better. When I watch this thread and post like those of Avilo, what I learn is that mech terran wants an even bigger buff of the tank, sometimes with a bigger range and less supply, stronger cyclone AA, and a nerf of lategame Air units. Am I wrong in assuming that? Because then what I read, is that they want an unbreakable ground army, especially in defensive position, and no late game solution to play against it. That will lead, in my opinion, only to even more turtle play which is completely boring, or more accurately, that turtle play will be the most efficient way to win the game. I've always thought that the whole "buff the tank and we won't turtle I promise" argument is completely wrong, and thus I fear we're going to get a repeat of the end of HoTS. Did you consider TvT mech vs bio in HOTS and WOL a "turtle fest" ? Because if yes, then it means you just don't like mech; if no, then that is what mech Terrans want in TvZ and TvP, and not what we actually got in HOTS due to Ravens. It depends, mech in TvT is better than TvZ for sure, although some game were turtlefest into skyterran vs Skyterran, especially in mech vs mech. Of course, some mech games were good from times to times, imo mostly because the other player was playing a bio style, but I mean, even some SwarmHost games were good from times to times, that does not make the playstyle overall interesting. I can like mech, as in Brood War, or in general I appreciate when you have a defensive player with positional play vs agressive player like we see in PvT in the current metagames with liberator. What I don't like is when "not attacking" is the best option for you to play against. That's why mech in TvT was a bit more interesting than in TvZ, because Terran has more tools with the dps of stim marauders and medivacs boost. Tanks are just too reliable in its design given the range, IA, pathing, unlimited selection, static defense in Starcraft 2, that a strong enough tank which can hold its ground will force you never to attack. I'm not interested in a game like that. I agree with the reasons for why TvT mech was more interesting. Bio was not as strong in fights but had mobility. I think this is a big part of the reason as to why mech vb z and P is not as cool; instead of a mobile and aggresive army, Z and P, mostly P, can just go mass air and then all the factory units are nullified so the game goes in turtle mode with both massing air. A stronger Tank i think gives Terran the option to punish an early air transition to Tempests or Carriers or BL, and so have a more interesting game where Z/P has to make a lot of ground units and we get to see more fights throughout the game. I think it's true that at first some players will have difficulty with that, because they have been used to 1a "counter" units like Immortals or just skip everything and go to air. It's going to take a bit of time until they get in the mindset of having the superior mobility and probably eco, and make use of that through multitasking and coordinated attacks. Like bio vs mech has to or like P had to in BW. Why do you have the choice but I don't? That sounds aweful. I don't have the superior mobility or eco by default. I can choose them if you choose not to have anything that challenges that. When Mech is viable I also want a slow style to play with against it, like Swarm Hosts or Broodlords, since I really don't want to all-in everygame. Well, given that mech vs mech at pro level and even amateur can make for great games, there is no reason for why Zerg shouldn't. The problem IMO is that the tools that were meant to do that were woeful design, SHs. EDIT: and you are throwing a strowman by naming mobility based comps as all in. A strawman would be if I pretended you said it's allin based. That's not what I said, it's rather my personal believe that mobility based play is either allin/has an allinish dynamic (bio vs Protoss and to some degree bio vs Zerg in HotS; Zerg vs Mech in late-HotS), or you try to get out of it as fast as possible (like TvT Bio vs Mech; you either kill him, or you go to air asap). In SC2 unless you can get an equivalent superarmy, you are on a timer, since there is no economy scaling that would allow you to be costineffecient.
Then we have different definitions of what an all in is. A game plan that aims to either end the game or deal big dmg in midgame, or contain the enemy to few bases so you can more safely transition to the end game, is not all in by my definition.
The timer you talk about has always been there and it's critical to get the game going. In BW P was "on a timer" to do something before Terran gets maxed with upgrades, Terran was on a timer to end the game before Protoss gets lots of Carriers, and so on. Games that do not have "a timer" where you both sit and do whatever until you get your prefered death ball and have one big fight where the winner is the one stat spammed the spells the best, are what makes SC2 ugly IMO.
|
On February 19 2016 17:14 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 16:43 pieroog wrote:
I am a little disappointed that there is no info on Mutas in PvZ at all. Protoss is so bound to have it countered blindly even though they can never show up which costs A LOT. The rest of tweaks seem reasonable, especially Tankivac being gone. By 'blind countering' you're either opening Phoenix (usually into Chargelot Archon Immortal) which provide so much value other than just being a Mutalisk deterrent, or using a Blink Stalker-based composition which is totally fine. Protoss has enough choice and nerfing the Mutalisk could make it useless in PvZ.
"Make it useless"...how so when currently they are an auto win for the zerg if protoss don't respond with double stargate immediately?
That being said I'm not for nerfing Mutas, because they are already rather weak in ZvT. I want a Stalker AA buff instead. Something like flat 14 dmg instead of 10+4 vs armored.
|
On February 19 2016 22:31 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 22:13 Big J wrote:On February 19 2016 21:57 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 19 2016 21:46 Big J wrote:On February 19 2016 21:30 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 19 2016 21:07 Vanadiel wrote:On February 19 2016 20:42 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 19 2016 20:31 Vanadiel wrote:On February 19 2016 19:50 Cyro wrote:On February 19 2016 16:18 SC2Toastie wrote:
[quote]
Sst Blizzard knows their own units!! yeah it would survive with 4hp even if they all fired at the same time ----- As for design: I don't really understand the people who would rather have a weak flying tank instead of a strong immobile tank, given that you can't do both at the same time (adding power in one form means that you have to reduce it in the other for balance reasons) The immobility is very core to the unit design - it's a siege tank. Quite simple, we all have play against mech, and for some people, including me, the experience against it is 95% of the time playing against turtle fest. I enjoy very much a game where it's a battle of mechanics, decision and position and thus I liked tankivacs (although I agree it was problematic in TvT), rather than who is going to be the most patient and turtle better. When I watch this thread and post like those of Avilo, what I learn is that mech terran wants an even bigger buff of the tank, sometimes with a bigger range and less supply, stronger cyclone AA, and a nerf of lategame Air units. Am I wrong in assuming that? Because then what I read, is that they want an unbreakable ground army, especially in defensive position, and no late game solution to play against it. That will lead, in my opinion, only to even more turtle play which is completely boring, or more accurately, that turtle play will be the most efficient way to win the game. I've always thought that the whole "buff the tank and we won't turtle I promise" argument is completely wrong, and thus I fear we're going to get a repeat of the end of HoTS. Did you consider TvT mech vs bio in HOTS and WOL a "turtle fest" ? Because if yes, then it means you just don't like mech; if no, then that is what mech Terrans want in TvZ and TvP, and not what we actually got in HOTS due to Ravens. It depends, mech in TvT is better than TvZ for sure, although some game were turtlefest into skyterran vs Skyterran, especially in mech vs mech. Of course, some mech games were good from times to times, imo mostly because the other player was playing a bio style, but I mean, even some SwarmHost games were good from times to times, that does not make the playstyle overall interesting. I can like mech, as in Brood War, or in general I appreciate when you have a defensive player with positional play vs agressive player like we see in PvT in the current metagames with liberator. What I don't like is when "not attacking" is the best option for you to play against. That's why mech in TvT was a bit more interesting than in TvZ, because Terran has more tools with the dps of stim marauders and medivacs boost. Tanks are just too reliable in its design given the range, IA, pathing, unlimited selection, static defense in Starcraft 2, that a strong enough tank which can hold its ground will force you never to attack. I'm not interested in a game like that. I agree with the reasons for why TvT mech was more interesting. Bio was not as strong in fights but had mobility. I think this is a big part of the reason as to why mech vb z and P is not as cool; instead of a mobile and aggresive army, Z and P, mostly P, can just go mass air and then all the factory units are nullified so the game goes in turtle mode with both massing air. A stronger Tank i think gives Terran the option to punish an early air transition to Tempests or Carriers or BL, and so have a more interesting game where Z/P has to make a lot of ground units and we get to see more fights throughout the game. I think it's true that at first some players will have difficulty with that, because they have been used to 1a "counter" units like Immortals or just skip everything and go to air. It's going to take a bit of time until they get in the mindset of having the superior mobility and probably eco, and make use of that through multitasking and coordinated attacks. Like bio vs mech has to or like P had to in BW. Why do you have the choice but I don't? That sounds aweful. I don't have the superior mobility or eco by default. I can choose them if you choose not to have anything that challenges that. When Mech is viable I also want a slow style to play with against it, like Swarm Hosts or Broodlords, since I really don't want to all-in everygame. Well, given that mech vs mech at pro level and even amateur can make for great games, there is no reason for why Zerg shouldn't. The problem IMO is that the tools that were meant to do that were woeful design, SHs. EDIT: and you are throwing a strowman by naming mobility based comps as all in. A strawman would be if I pretended you said it's allin based. That's not what I said, it's rather my personal believe that mobility based play is either allin/has an allinish dynamic (bio vs Protoss and to some degree bio vs Zerg in HotS; Zerg vs Mech in late-HotS), or you try to get out of it as fast as possible (like TvT Bio vs Mech; you either kill him, or you go to air asap). In SC2 unless you can get an equivalent superarmy, you are on a timer, since there is no economy scaling that would allow you to be costineffecient. Then we have different definitions of what an all in is. A game plan that aims to either end the game or deal big dmg in midgame, or contain the enemy to few bases so you can more safely transition to the end game, is not all in by my definition. The timer you talk about has always been there and it's critical to get the game going. In BW P was "on a timer" to do something before Terran gets maxed with upgrades, Terran was on a timer to end the game before Protoss gets lots of Carriers, and so on. Games that do not have "a timer" where you both sit and do whatever until you get your prefered death ball and have one big fight where the winner is the one stat spammed the spells the best, are what makes SC2 ugly IMO.
Mirror matchups don't have a timer and tend to be the most aggressive matchups. The secret is not timers, but swinging timing advantages that you can choose to invest into but don't have to, without an ultimate advantage for one side.
Relying on doing damage and containing and everything you describe is not allin per se, but it becomes somewhat allinish if only one side has to rely on it and there is not really a way to force the other side into playing more greedy or attacking you.
Edit: Maybe I shouldn't discuss this, since I actually don't believe your premise is right. Zergs are still going to rush out T3 against Mech and be fine without heavy harassment play.
|
Do we know when this patch will be live?
|
I wonder if they'll also change how upgrades scale with the Siege Tank buff. Will it stay as +3(+2 vs armor), or will they bump it up to +4(+2 vs armor)?
|
On February 19 2016 23:23 eviltomahawk wrote:
I wonder if they'll also change how upgrades scale with the Siege Tank buff. Will it stay as +3(+2 vs armor), or will they bump it up to +4(+2 vs armor)?
The "rule" for upgrades is 10% (rounded to the nearest integer), with a min of +1 and a max of +5. So I'd expect +4 (+1 vs armor).
|
On February 19 2016 22:54 CheddarToss wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 17:14 ZAiNs wrote:On February 19 2016 16:43 pieroog wrote:
I am a little disappointed that there is no info on Mutas in PvZ at all. Protoss is so bound to have it countered blindly even though they can never show up which costs A LOT. The rest of tweaks seem reasonable, especially Tankivac being gone. By 'blind countering' you're either opening Phoenix (usually into Chargelot Archon Immortal) which provide so much value other than just being a Mutalisk deterrent, or using a Blink Stalker-based composition which is totally fine. Protoss has enough choice and nerfing the Mutalisk could make it useless in PvZ. "Make it useless"...how so when currently they are an auto win for the zerg if protoss don't respond with double stargate immediately? That being said I'm not for nerfing Mutas, because they are already rather weak in ZvT. I want a Stalker AA buff instead. Something like flat 14 dmg instead of 10+4 vs armored.
You don't need to response with double Stargate immediately if you are using a Stalker-based composition. They need to commit hard to a ridiculous number of Mutalisks in order to make Phoenix necessary, and Zerg can't really do that without dying unless the Protoss never even tries to be aggressive or scout. The only time you need to be really careful is when going Chargelot Archon Immortal without a Stargate, then yes it's extremely difficult to play if they surprise you with Mutalisks, but if you skip the Stargate tech then be sure you have the game sense to sniff out Muta play.
Protoss currently has enough variety in unit composition against Zerg that it's not a problem that the Mutalisk restricts it slightly.
|
On February 19 2016 23:01 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 22:31 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 19 2016 22:13 Big J wrote:On February 19 2016 21:57 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 19 2016 21:46 Big J wrote:On February 19 2016 21:30 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 19 2016 21:07 Vanadiel wrote:On February 19 2016 20:42 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 19 2016 20:31 Vanadiel wrote:On February 19 2016 19:50 Cyro wrote:
[quote]
yeah it would survive with 4hp even if they all fired at the same time
-----
As for design: I don't really understand the people who would rather have a weak flying tank instead of a strong immobile tank, given that you can't do both at the same time (adding power in one form means that you have to reduce it in the other for balance reasons)
The immobility is very core to the unit design - it's a siege tank. Quite simple, we all have play against mech, and for some people, including me, the experience against it is 95% of the time playing against turtle fest. I enjoy very much a game where it's a battle of mechanics, decision and position and thus I liked tankivacs (although I agree it was problematic in TvT), rather than who is going to be the most patient and turtle better. When I watch this thread and post like those of Avilo, what I learn is that mech terran wants an even bigger buff of the tank, sometimes with a bigger range and less supply, stronger cyclone AA, and a nerf of lategame Air units. Am I wrong in assuming that? Because then what I read, is that they want an unbreakable ground army, especially in defensive position, and no late game solution to play against it. That will lead, in my opinion, only to even more turtle play which is completely boring, or more accurately, that turtle play will be the most efficient way to win the game. I've always thought that the whole "buff the tank and we won't turtle I promise" argument is completely wrong, and thus I fear we're going to get a repeat of the end of HoTS. Did you consider TvT mech vs bio in HOTS and WOL a "turtle fest" ? Because if yes, then it means you just don't like mech; if no, then that is what mech Terrans want in TvZ and TvP, and not what we actually got in HOTS due to Ravens. It depends, mech in TvT is better than TvZ for sure, although some game were turtlefest into skyterran vs Skyterran, especially in mech vs mech. Of course, some mech games were good from times to times, imo mostly because the other player was playing a bio style, but I mean, even some SwarmHost games were good from times to times, that does not make the playstyle overall interesting. I can like mech, as in Brood War, or in general I appreciate when you have a defensive player with positional play vs agressive player like we see in PvT in the current metagames with liberator. What I don't like is when "not attacking" is the best option for you to play against. That's why mech in TvT was a bit more interesting than in TvZ, because Terran has more tools with the dps of stim marauders and medivacs boost. Tanks are just too reliable in its design given the range, IA, pathing, unlimited selection, static defense in Starcraft 2, that a strong enough tank which can hold its ground will force you never to attack. I'm not interested in a game like that. I agree with the reasons for why TvT mech was more interesting. Bio was not as strong in fights but had mobility. I think this is a big part of the reason as to why mech vb z and P is not as cool; instead of a mobile and aggresive army, Z and P, mostly P, can just go mass air and then all the factory units are nullified so the game goes in turtle mode with both massing air. A stronger Tank i think gives Terran the option to punish an early air transition to Tempests or Carriers or BL, and so have a more interesting game where Z/P has to make a lot of ground units and we get to see more fights throughout the game. I think it's true that at first some players will have difficulty with that, because they have been used to 1a "counter" units like Immortals or just skip everything and go to air. It's going to take a bit of time until they get in the mindset of having the superior mobility and probably eco, and make use of that through multitasking and coordinated attacks. Like bio vs mech has to or like P had to in BW. Why do you have the choice but I don't? That sounds aweful. I don't have the superior mobility or eco by default. I can choose them if you choose not to have anything that challenges that. When Mech is viable I also want a slow style to play with against it, like Swarm Hosts or Broodlords, since I really don't want to all-in everygame. Well, given that mech vs mech at pro level and even amateur can make for great games, there is no reason for why Zerg shouldn't. The problem IMO is that the tools that were meant to do that were woeful design, SHs. EDIT: and you are throwing a strowman by naming mobility based comps as all in. A strawman would be if I pretended you said it's allin based. That's not what I said, it's rather my personal believe that mobility based play is either allin/has an allinish dynamic (bio vs Protoss and to some degree bio vs Zerg in HotS; Zerg vs Mech in late-HotS), or you try to get out of it as fast as possible (like TvT Bio vs Mech; you either kill him, or you go to air asap). In SC2 unless you can get an equivalent superarmy, you are on a timer, since there is no economy scaling that would allow you to be costineffecient. Then we have different definitions of what an all in is. A game plan that aims to either end the game or deal big dmg in midgame, or contain the enemy to few bases so you can more safely transition to the end game, is not all in by my definition. The timer you talk about has always been there and it's critical to get the game going. In BW P was "on a timer" to do something before Terran gets maxed with upgrades, Terran was on a timer to end the game before Protoss gets lots of Carriers, and so on. Games that do not have "a timer" where you both sit and do whatever until you get your prefered death ball and have one big fight where the winner is the one stat spammed the spells the best, are what makes SC2 ugly IMO. Mirror matchups don't have a timer and tend to be the most aggressive matchups. The secret is not timers, but swinging timing advantages that you can choose to invest into but don't have to, without an ultimate advantage for one side. Relying on doing damage and containing and everything you describe is not allin per se, but it becomes somewhat allinish if only one side has to rely on it and there is not really a way to force the other side into playing more greedy or attacking you.Edit: Maybe I shouldn't discuss this, since I actually don't believe your premise is right. Zergs are still going to rush out T3 against Mech and be fine without heavy harassment play.
You force them to move out by expanding a lot or by going BLs. Then they HAVE to move out or they loose in the long run.
In that situation they either kill you, or they kill some of your eco so that you can't afford the transition or make it less strong. The poor Tank of today can not do this, especially against P.
I don't know what you think my premise is.
EDIT: mirror MUs do have a timers; the exception is if they both go for the exact same strategy.
|
Why not making the medivac not be able to boost when picking up a tank in siege mode?
|
I'm okay with this patch.
Though I would have preferred an increase to the Ravager's cooldown instead of a damage nerf. It's a spam ability right now... it's stupid.
|
United Kingdom12056 Posts
SIEGE TANK DAMAGE BUFF YEEEEEEEEEEEAH!
|
I think all the changes are putting the game into the right direction. It will make mech more viable than it is now - without making it too strong.
Although i would love to see some changes to Terran lategame. Eg nerf liberators / ghost strength late game (vs Zerg), and touch BC / Thor / Raven.
If they want to make mech more viable they have to think about Mechs Anti air which is still poor imo.
The dangerous part is that the game is getting closer to Heart of the Swarm.
|
This is actually the only one of these that hasn't left me scratching my head.
The logic is sound, the changes are reasonable.
Good job Blizzard.
|
the dream come true, damage buff for tanks yay!
i still think it need more buff like 45 versus bio + 15 versus armor
|
My computer gets here next week / first time playing legacy and I better get to use sieged up siege tanks is all I'm sayin.
|
While I agree that tank needs a damage buff, flat 40 instead of more vs armored is not the way to go.
Vs Z
Lings die in 1 shot regardless of upgrades
Second splash zone 2 shots lings instead of 3
Because of unit clumping lings are already bad vs tank, they are also bad vs marines and hellbats.
Hydralisks die in 2 instead of 3 shots.
Roaches die in 3 instead of 5. (no issue here, vs armored should go up anyway)
Ravagers (the only early unit that can be too good vs tank) is still 4 shot, no change there whatsoever.
Mutalisks need to clump to pick off tanks, meaning they get shredded by liberators/mines even more.
Flat damage should be kept at 35, if anything, it's the Ravager health that should go down, not tanks flat damage up.
My guess is we gonna see a lot of marine tank liberator pushes killing z before the hive is even started.
Or zerg being locked to all in or go Ravager heavy every single game, because other compositions are just going to be so bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
