EPTI don't see why this would change, unless roaches morph into lurkers in the future^^
Community Feedback Update - February 18 - Page 20
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
I don't see why this would change, unless roaches morph into lurkers in the future^^ | ||
|
Gwavajuice
France1810 Posts
There seems to be absolutely no way to deviate from this ultra mobile, ultra strong composition, therefore even if tankivac in TvZ was a great addition to the game, it has to be removed. TvT is just too unidimensional atm. I will be sad to see tankivac micro disappear in TvZ, but when a limb is gangrenous, you have to cut it off. | ||
|
PressureSC2
122 Posts
------------------------ This buff means tanks start out almost as strong as current +3 upgrade tanks--and only get better from there. Some other cool break points: Killing Zealots Old Tank: 5 shots New Tank: 4 shots Killing Stalkers Old Tank: 4 Shots New Tank: 3 Shots Killing Roaches Old Tank: 3 Shots New Tank: 3 Shots Killing Hydralisk: Old Tank: 3 Shots New Tank: 2 Shots (3 with Regen) Killing Zergling: Old Tank: 1 Shot (Upgrades matter) New Tank: 1 Shot (Upgrades don't matter) This means that the new tank is at the right benchmark to be stronger against Protoss, but not *that* much stronger against Zerg. These numbers showing that the patch would be stronger in TvP but not too much of a buff in the other match ups get me even more excited. I can't wait. | ||
|
Gwavajuice
France1810 Posts
Would this be enough to make other unit compositions viable? | ||
|
todespolka
221 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On February 22 2016 21:28 PressureSC2 wrote: I cannot think of any major RTS title that did not have at least one unit that was considered the "artillery" unit. If you think back to SC1, BW, RA, Warcraft 3, etc., it has always been. I feel that it is a necessity and staple to the RTS genre because of the fact that play occurs on a set map, with positioning and map design offering opportunities for mobility and static defense. You can not claim to have mobile units in a game that does not have immobile units - it would be like referring to air units in a game like World of Warplanes - what is the point if everything is an air unit? The current state of the "tankivac" is to a great extent removing this "artillery" unit characteristic from the game. The one unit that actually has the most defining "artillery mode" to extend its range and power in exchange for utmost immobility is technically removed from the game. This drastically impacts territorial and map driven strategies, and also indirectly takes away from the strategic decision to make mobile units. It is beyond me how many are willing to have the tankivac continue to exist. If the game could have existed with only one mirror matchup, I would think that most players would get the most fun out of playing and spectating HOTS TvT. Currently, TvT is completely changed from a strategic positional game to a twitch reflex Blitz Chess type matchup where the pressure of one second decision making can trump 5-10 minutes of well thought out and flawless gameplay from a macro and micro perspective. Mistakes should hurt, but the extent of the punishment in TvT tankivac play makes the prior minutes of a game less exciting to watch because they are in a sense less meaningful. At least in ZvZ the action is more spread out into "mini-battles" with several being able to occur on the same screen with more spread out baneling play, etc. If you spread out your units somewhat in ZvZ, it is possible to deal with the volatility and still have your solid play/macro determine a great deal of the outcome. In a game with Thor, Tempest, Lurker, Broodlord--the whine for lack of slow moving long range units is on the Siege Tank... Get your favoritism and nostalgia out of an actual discussion. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17737 Posts
On February 22 2016 09:31 FabledIntegral wrote: with both marginally stronger tank shot its 10/50 or 10/60 stronger for armoured units and 5/35 or 5/40 for all other units. its more than just "marginally stronger". | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On February 23 2016 00:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote: its 10/50 or 10/60 stronger for armoured units and 5/35 or 5/40 for all other units. its more than just "marginally stronger". No it isn't. Or rather - it might be when we're dealing with a ful mech army, but when we're talking about a tank or two defending an early Roach or Ravager timing, or a player just starting his mech transition - mech's most vulnerable phase - the buff is doubtless outweighed by the nerf. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On February 23 2016 00:53 pure.Wasted wrote: No it isn't. Or rather - it might be when we're dealing with a ful mech army, but when we're talking about a tank or two defending an early Roach or Ravager timing, or a player just starting his mech transition - mech's most vulnerable phase - the buff is doubtless outweighed by the nerf. Tanks are better Liberators are worse But that does not mean that the total strength of a terran is better or worse on any given timing--until heavy playtesting of sequence variants, compositions, and micro tactics is implemented. Conclusions come after research, not before. Don't be so fundamentalist. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On February 22 2016 23:37 Gwavajuice wrote: Dunno if that has been talked about yet, but I would be curious to see what happens to TvT if you don't change anything but the medivac boost ability and make it unavailable when a tank in siege mode is lifted (cause, you know, it's so heavy...) Would this be enough to make other unit compositions viable? I had an earlier theory that if you would remove or weaken the ignite afterburners ability while carrying heavy units you would also have to add this same effect to the Thor for consistency. (though to be honest Blizzard doesn't usually care about consistency much) On a side note, curiously, Thors have a very high damage point and this interferes with their drop potential since they take too long to shoot after dropping. Anyhow, personally I think your idea makes more sense as a nerf than the other idea of getting siege tanks to drop in tank mode, but the drawback is that it requires new design for the medivac and for ignite afterburners, which Blizzard might not like. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 23 2016 00:53 pure.Wasted wrote: No it isn't. Or rather - it might be when we're dealing with a ful mech army, but when we're talking about a tank or two defending an early Roach or Ravager timing, or a player just starting his mech transition - mech's most vulnerable phase - the buff is doubtless outweighed by the nerf. Which is why they started off talking about nerfing the ravager and only then saying that this might allow them to change the tank. | ||
|
klup
France612 Posts
On February 22 2016 21:33 Gwavajuice wrote: I understand how some people think TvT is fun to watch nowadays but the real questions is : how much will they like it in 6 monthes after seeing 500 times the same game? There seems to be absolutely no way to deviate from this ultra mobile, ultra strong composition, therefore even if tankivac in TvZ was a great addition to the game, it has to be removed. TvT is just too unidimensional atm. I will be sad to see tankivac micro disappear in TvZ, but when a limb is gangrenous, you have to cut it off. And when you will be witness of the 500 times TvT turtlemech mexican standoff duel that will be TvT after the patch, will you like it? To watch maybe as it will make caster expert in jokes and unrelated stories. But to play every single time you start a TvT on ladder you have to decide between cheese and mexican standoff...... I did 2 TvT last night master level on the test map the two matches were 1h15 long and were very slow paced with not much action except helion runbys and viking small trades. Tried to engage with marauder into small tank force got utterly shrekt. The problem with this patch is that it makes mech way too strong vs bio where in the end of Hots the matchup was already close to balanced. Today Bio is much more predominant than mech it is really embarassing but the changes proposed just turns the problem on the other side. I can't see anybody play bio after patch. It's just my opinion but I prefer marine tankivac vs marine tankivac to mech vs mech just for the duration of the games. More games, more fun, more iteration to improve your playstyle. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On February 23 2016 00:56 Thieving Magpie wrote: Tanks are better Liberators are worse But that does not mean that the total strength of a terran is better or worse on any given timing--until heavy playtesting of sequence variants, compositions, and micro tactics is implemented. Conclusions come after research, not before. Don't be so fundamentalist. Tanks are not better. Tanks are "better" if you perceive their problem to be "dealing slightly not enough damage." I instead perceive their problem to be "dying too quickly once other units decide to engage them, especially when there are few of them." Consequently, a 13%/18% damage buff at the cost of all of their new mobility is a Just do the math. To get the same value out of a siege tank now, as you would from picking up a siege tank after a Ravager volley/it firing ONCE and taking no damage, the new Siege Tank has to survive for 7.5/5.5 more attacks. Does "survive for 7.5 more attacks against Ravagers" sound like a lot of early midgame skirmishes you see in TvZ? Just to get the SAME value! I'll be very very happy to be proven wrong. I don't see any reason to be optimistic, however, except maybe the idea itself that Blizz is open to buffing the tank's stats. | ||
|
pzlama333
United States282 Posts
Another problem of all immobile units is, if you can beat your enemy head-on, your opponent may just run away and you dont have good method to chase them; however if your cannot beat them, they will just surround you and kill them all, and you have no way to retreat. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On February 23 2016 01:15 Big J wrote: Which is why they started off talking about nerfing the ravager and only then saying that this might allow them to change the tank. But it's very arguable that the Ravager was nerfed in TvZ. Against Bio and liberators it deals exactly the same damage, and against Tanks it deals 25% less but it's now guaranteed to hit, as opposed to pre-patch which had a good chance of doing zero. So if Blizzard only intends to change the Tank once the Ravager is nerfed, they might want to go back to the drawing board on their Ravager nerf. Besides, the ravager/tank issue is just emblematic of the tank's woes in SC2. Sure you can brute force a solution by bumping the damage high enough, give Tanks +100 damage and tanks will dominate the ground as they're meant to do. But as long as we remain in the land of reason, damage buffs do nothing to help them fight back against Ling flanks/Ravager/Viper/Adept/Immortal/Disruptor/Tempest. Either they need more mobility (Tankivac) or their counters need less mobility (in BW the engine itself was half of the solution/in SC2 I don't see a better solution than increasing their range). | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 23 2016 02:24 pure.Wasted wrote: But it's very arguable that the Ravager was nerfed in TvZ. Against Bio and liberators it deals exactly the same damage, and against Tanks it deals 25% less but it's now guaranteed to hit, as opposed to pre-patch which had a good chance of doing zero. So if Blizzard only intends to change the Tank once the Ravager is nerfed, they might want to go back to the drawing board on their Ravager nerf. How does it deal the same vs liberators? I obviously don't know if the ravager nerf/tank buff "is enough" for tanks to be universally good vs ravager rushes, but quite frankly, the medivac pick up doesn't seem necessary to begin with to defend roach or roach/ravager rushes. Banshee play deals very well with basically all variations of them. For more specific timings/specific maps there may be other reasonable solutions as well like plain siege tanks without medivacs, liberators or very straight bio openings and some may work quite universally as well too. On February 23 2016 02:24 pure.Wasted wrote:Besides, the ravager/tank issue is just emblematic of the tank's woes in SC2. Sure you can brute force a solution by bumping the damage high enough, give Tanks +100 damage and tanks will dominate the ground as they're meant to do. But as long as we remain in the land of reason, damage buffs do nothing to help them fight back against Ling flanks/Ravager/Viper/Adept/Immortal/Disruptor/Tempest. Either they need more mobility (Tankivac) or their counters need less mobility (in BW the engine itself was half of the solution/in SC2 I don't see a better solution than increasing their range). Of course it helps them against each of those on the ground. Tanks outrange each one of the listed ground units, and with more damage the units die faster against them. I guess adept's can still shade on top of them, but they still die faster and it's not always recommended to shade half of your army into the complete enemy army. Even then the Viper on its own does exactly zero damage to a tank so at some point there are probably going to be targets for the tank, blinding cloud can be preempted efficiently with proper positioning (you know, the whole reason why players even ask for tanks... positional play) and vipers can be zoned very efficiently with vikings or ghosts by using the cover that siege tanks give you. The higher their damage the better that cover. Air units are alwasy going to be a threat to the siege tank, dunno why you even list them. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
How about making it 30+30 or 25+35? Maybe it sucks too much against protoss then? Can we give it +damage against shields, or some other property like "the target takes +X% damage for the next Y seconds"? It's hard to come up with a simple elegant solution really. | ||
|
beheamoth
44 Posts
so . .am i missing something? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 23 2016 03:08 Salteador Neo wrote: Wasted and other terrans raise a good point in that guaranteed 45 damage against a tank might very well be better than big damage that can be dodged easy. How about making it 30+30 or 25+35? Maybe it sucks too much against protoss then? Can we give it +damage against shields, or some other property like "the target takes +X% damage for the next Y seconds"? It's hard to come up with a simple elegant solution really. That is pretty obvious. But that's not the question. The question is whether the whole balance package works out and is a step towards the desired gameplay. Of course if ravager rushes became undefendable or tanks just unplayable that would be a step in the wrong direction. But that's what we have the testmap for to begin with. If we wanted everything to remain exactly the same, the only solution is to leave everything exactly the same. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On February 23 2016 03:27 Big J wrote: That is pretty obvious. But that's not the question. The question is whether the whole balance package works out and is a step towards the desired gameplay. Of course if ravager rushes became undefendable or tanks just unplayable that would be a step in the wrong direction. But that's what we have the testmap for to begin with. If we wanted everything to remain exactly the same, the only solution is to leave everything exactly the same. They are not asking for things to remain the same. They are asking for weaker opponents. | ||
| ||
