Thanks for your feedback across the board and for your ideas on what to test next on the Balance Test Map. While we’re not sure that there are clear issues in these areas so far, we do see merit in getting some more potential changes tested soon in case a balance update is needed. Like we’ve been doing since the release of LotV, we want to be more aggressive in testing out various changes so that we can act quicker when problems actually arise. We would like to remind you once again not to panic however, because these changes are not necessarily even close to final for an actual balance patch to the game. We just want to work with everyone to test and learn about the effects of various changes before making final decisions.
With that said – let’s examine some of the changes we’d like to experiment with in an upcoming Balance Test Map.
Ravager Corrosive bile damage changed from 60 to 45 +15 bio
This is the first proposed change. This was the best suggestion we saw this week from the community, and we agree completely that it could be a good change for a few reasons.
In ZvP, this type of change will definitely help Protoss against early/mid Ravager pushes while on defense.
In ZvT, with the Ravager shots nerfed heavily against mechanical units like Siege Tanks, we may be able to try out the Siege Tank Siege mode pick up removal.
In ZvZ, there will be no change to the unit, which is great since we want to continue to see a variety of units in the matchup.
Liberator ability range down by 1, but give it back with the upgrade
This change was included mostly due to the ZvT case. The biggest issue we see of making the Ravager change in this matchup is the strength of Liberators. We hope that a change such as this one will help Zerg deal with early Liberators with Spore Crawlers or Queens, until they get the proper defenses out.
Medivacs can’t pick up Siege Tanks in Siege Mode
Although sieged pickup has increased micro and early aggression, as many of you point out, removing this ability seems good for three reasons:
This ability takes away from the cool factor of Siege Tanks having a clear weakness vs. strength compared to other units in the game.
The advantages/disadvantages of mech vs. bio is lessened due to this change
This change will give us some room to increase the damage of Siege Tanks, which we agree could have positive effects in terms of Siege Tanks really fulling their fantasy.
Currently in the game, Terran bio-play can have the fire power of Siege Tanks without sacrificing mobility. This seems to be a main reason to play bio instead of mech. By removing this ability, and giving more strength to the Siege Tank, we wonder if we can have this clear distinction between the two playstyles appear once again.
Siege Tank damage increased from 35 (50 vs. armored) to 40 (60 vs. armored)
We wanted to locate numbers that would specifically buff the Siege Tank heavily vs. certain units and not others. For example:
Siege Tanks’ relationship against Marines won’t be changed too significantly, but Marauders that just used Stim Pack to close in on Tanks will be heavily nerfed by this change.
Roaches won’t be affected as heavily, but the number of shots it takes to kill Ravagers is changed from 4 to 3.
Against Protoss, this will change the Siege Tanks’ relationship against most ground units, but we wonder if this is a good thing since Protoss is the most resistant to Siege Tank attacks already.
What’s Next?
Please remember that we just started playtesting these specific numbers this week internally, so feedback regarding both the high level direction of these changes as well as specific number suggestions will definitely be good to get everyone’s thoughts on. Also, please note that none of these changes are final and there’s no need to overreact. Let’s work towards having the best set of changes for the next Balance Test Map!
Poll: Ravager Corrosive bile damage changed from 60 to 45 +15 bio
Good Change (465)
77%
Bad Change (69)
11%
No Change Needed (40)
7%
Wrong Change (31)
5%
605 total votes
Your vote: Ravager Corrosive bile damage changed from 60 to 45 +15 bio
(Vote): Good Change (Vote): Bad Change (Vote): Wrong Change (Vote): No Change Needed
Poll: Liberator ability range down by 1, but give it back with the upgrade
Good Change (387)
66%
No Change Needed (106)
18%
Wrong Change (54)
9%
Bad Change (43)
7%
590 total votes
Your vote: Liberator ability range down by 1, but give it back with the upgrade
(Vote): Good Change (Vote): Bad Change (Vote): Wrong Change (Vote): No Change Needed
Poll: Medivacs can’t pick up Siege Tanks in Siege Mode
Good Change (403)
63%
Wrong Change (106)
17%
Bad Change (85)
13%
No Change Needed (46)
7%
640 total votes
Your vote: Medivacs can’t pick up Siege Tanks in Siege Mode
(Vote): Good Change (Vote): Bad Change (Vote): Wrong Change (Vote): No Change Needed
Poll: Siege Tank damage increased from 35 (50 vs. armored) to 40 (60 vs. arm
Good Change (412)
69%
Bad Change (114)
19%
Wrong Change (37)
6%
No Change Needed (37)
6%
600 total votes
Your vote: Siege Tank damage increased from 35 (50 vs. armored) to 40 (60 vs. arm
(Vote): Good Change (Vote): Bad Change (Vote): Wrong Change (Vote): No Change Needed
I am against the liberator range nerf. This is a large impact on TvP since liberators are essential for holding certain types of all-ins.
Instead of a damage buff, how about a siege tank range buff instead? Also keep the medivac pickup since it is exciting to watch and promotes micro oriented play.
I always thought that Siege Tank pickups could have a place in the game if they were locked behind an end game tech, such as Fusion Core, as an expensive upgrade (like 300/300).
This could allow the other player time to account for the upgrade and allow to counter, keeps an interesting micro and mechanically demanding unit micro in the game, and gives Terran another endgame option to Starport tech; if I'm behind in TvT and cannot breach their tank wall, there is now another option than just to go Skyterran.
I think this damage buff is a bit conservative though. Reddit is saying that this basically means that Siege Tanks start with +2, but if our purpose is to make Mech work like in Brood War where a small force can realistically keep map control (unlike SC2 Mech which must turtle), I think another small damage buff could be necessary.
Siege tank buff is nowhere near enough to mitigate the loss of pickup entirely. Nowhere near.
Look at their example. "Ravagers will take 3 shots to kill down from 4."
3 shots down from 4? In what universe does that make a difference? Terrans don't have 3 Siege tanks out by the time Ravagers hit, and if they did, at least some of those attacks are going to be wasted on Roaches anyway. Except now Tanks can't be evacuated by Medivac, so they don't survive the first one/two volleys regardless. Only place where this matters is the unit tester.
The buff vs Roaches is actually a way bigger deal, although they're playing it down, because it means less cleanup left for the Bio once the tanks are dead.
re: "we wonder if it's good to help Tank vs Protoss because Tanks are not good vs Protoss."
Can someone translate this for me? Are they trying to say that it simply won't change anything? And implying that that's perfectly fine?
On February 19 2016 04:25 Loccstana wrote: I am against the liberator range nerf. This is a large impact on TvP since liberators are essential for holding certain types of all-ins.
Instead of a damage buff, how about a siege tank range buff instead? Also keep the medivac pickup since it is exciting to watch and promotes micro oriented play.
I would be for a damage buff as a zerg player, but i would be against the range though. It goes from a punish zoning type unit to straight abusive.
On February 19 2016 04:33 opisska wrote: Am I the only person in the world who loves tank pickup?
I kinda like it but I see the problems it brings (especially in TvT) too.
TvT is recently getting more and more awesome and tank pickup is one of the reasons. Especially in TvT it's not a mindless ability, you have to calculate and execute perfectly when using it, siege lines are still powerful, but you must always look out for tankivac flying in to places you definitely don't want them to.
On February 19 2016 04:25 Loccstana wrote: I am against the liberator range nerf. This is a large impact on TvP since liberators are essential for holding certain types of all-ins.
Instead of a damage buff, how about a siege tank range buff instead? Also keep the medivac pickup since it is exciting to watch and promotes micro oriented play.
Agreed about the tank 100%. Their damage output isn't the core issue. The fact that other units can close the distance to a tank line basically at a whim is the issue. This was impossible in BW. This is what gave tanks their power.
And that is what Medivac pickup emulated, in a roundabout way. It gave tanks "extra range." That's what they need.
On February 19 2016 04:37 FireCake wrote: Lurker is useless in ZvT Now Ravager is useless in ZvT
YES YES YES §§§
Are Lurkers useless, or are they just completely overshadowed by Ultralisks? What makes them useless?
I would have thought that with bio being so prevalent + no Ravens + MULEs more necessary than ever, they should in theory be pretty effective. Is Terran too good at getting around them?
On February 19 2016 04:35 pure.Wasted wrote: Siege tank buff is nowhere near enough to mitigate the loss of pickup entirely. Nowhere near.
Look at their example. "Ravagers will take 3 shots to kill down from 4."
3 shots down from 4? In what universe does that make a difference? Terrans don't have 3 Siege tanks out by the time Ravagers hit, and if they did, at least some of those attacks are going to be wasted on Roaches anyway. Except now Tanks can't be evacuated by Medivac, so they don't survive the first one/two volleys regardless. Only place where this matters is the unit tester.
The buff vs Roaches is actually a way bigger deal, although they're playing it down, because it means less cleanup left for the Bio once the tanks are dead.
re: "we wonder if it's good to help Tank vs Protoss because Tanks are not good vs Protoss."
Can someone translate this for me? Are they trying to say that it simply won't change anything? And implying that that's perfectly fine?
They mean that in TvT and TvZ they were careful with the numbers so that this is a buff mostly against the units they want, but that in TvP this change is a slight buff across the board, but they are fine with that and interested to see how that turns out since it's less likely that siege tanks turn out to be broken in that match-up of all match-ups due to how bad they are currently.
On February 19 2016 04:30 Lunareste wrote: I always thought that Siege Tank pickups could have a place in the game if they were locked behind an end game tech, such as Fusion Core, as an expensive upgrade (like 300/300).
Well you know that a Fusion Core by itself is a expensive thing ?
Also I'm kinda set they are gone - Not that I'm a Terran Player but it's a very dynamic way to play mech unit's - I wish we had a reworked Warhound for LotV :/ or atleast a kind of goliath.
On February 19 2016 04:35 pure.Wasted wrote: Siege tank buff is nowhere near enough to mitigate the loss of pickup entirely. Nowhere near.
Look at their example. "Ravagers will take 3 shots to kill down from 4."
3 shots down from 4? In what universe does that make a difference? Terrans don't have 3 Siege tanks out by the time Ravagers hit, and if they did, at least some of those attacks are going to be wasted on Roaches anyway. Except now Tanks can't be evacuated by Medivac, so they don't survive the first one/two volleys regardless. Only place where this matters is the unit tester.
The buff vs Roaches is actually a way bigger deal, although they're playing it down, because it means less cleanup left for the Bio once the tanks are dead.
re: "we wonder if it's good to help Tank vs Protoss because Tanks are not good vs Protoss."
Can someone translate this for me? Are they trying to say that it simply won't change anything? And implying that that's perfectly fine?
They mean that in TvT and TvZ they were careful with the numbers so that this is a buff mostly against the units they want, but that in TvP this change is a slight buff across the board, but they are fine with that and interested to see how that turns out since it's less likely that siege tanks turn out to be broken in that match-up of all match-ups due to how bad they are currently.
Oh ok that makes sense. That's a very inappropriate and confusing use of "already" in the OP. Grammar not quite 10/10
On February 19 2016 04:37 FireCake wrote: Lurker is useless in ZvT Now Ravager is useless in ZvT
YES YES YES §§§
I don't think either of those units are going to be useless with this buff. Don't forget, no more flying tanks which is going to make killing siege tanks a million times easier.
I actually think Ravager rushes might potentially be OP now because Terran will have 1 siege tank and now he can't pick it up to micro against the rush.
I may be wrong, but I don't see Ravagers or Lurkers being useless!
I will miss the siege tank being lifted in siege mode, for me it was symbolic of change, it was one of the first time in a while where we saw organic innovation. Now it's gone, siege tank back to being a boring unit.
On February 19 2016 04:25 Loccstana wrote: I am against the liberator range nerf. This is a large impact on TvP since liberators are essential for holding certain types of all-ins.
Instead of a damage buff, how about a siege tank range buff instead? Also keep the medivac pickup since it is exciting to watch and promotes micro oriented play.
Agreed about the tank 100%. Their damage output isn't the core issue. The fact that other units can close the distance to a tank line basically at a whim is the issue. This was impossible in BW. This is what gave tanks their power.
And that is what Medivac pickup emulated, in a roundabout way. It gave tanks "extra range." That's what they need.
high damage was okay back then because of the horrible pathing and lack of clumping that you have so much of in SC2. IOW, the stronger you want to make the tanks, the harder the hard counters would have to be, otherwise you'd make like three and then you could go afk, sortof.
If you guys want BW tanks, then overkill needs to be reintroduced
On February 19 2016 04:33 opisska wrote: Am I the only person in the world who loves tank pickup?
Nope. I am a fan of tank pickup or commonly called "Tankivac". I think it is a "better unit" than the cyclone in LoTV Hard to micromanage it, but with practice, it can become very interesting. I can't even less tell about viewers point of view. Watch some pros play marine-tankivac in a furious TvT is a real pleasure. I will be sad if tank pick up is removed.
The only thing I don't like in the patch is that ZvP ravager rushes really aren't that bad and ravagers don't need to be weakened against archon immortal comps. That is probably not a big deal but ... would be nice if you could find a way around nerfing them in that scenario.
Say "cool factor" one more time. I double dare you...
But frankly, these all seem surprisingly solid ideas, even considering the effect of the changes on one another. Now I'm just hoping they are going to implement these.
On February 19 2016 04:25 Loccstana wrote: I am against the liberator range nerf. This is a large impact on TvP since liberators are essential for holding certain types of all-ins.
Instead of a damage buff, how about a siege tank range buff instead? Also keep the medivac pickup since it is exciting to watch and promotes micro oriented play.
Agreed about the tank 100%. Their damage output isn't the core issue. The fact that other units can close the distance to a tank line basically at a whim is the issue. This was impossible in BW. This is what gave tanks their power.
And that is what Medivac pickup emulated, in a roundabout way. It gave tanks "extra range." That's what they need.
high damage was okay back then because of the horrible pathing and lack of clumping that you have so much of in SC2. IOW, the stronger you want to make the tanks, the harder the hard counters would have to be, otherwise you'd make like three and then you could go afk, sortof.
If you guys want BW tanks, then overkill needs to be reintroduced
Well, don't forget that even a tank with 30 range still needs spotters to take advantage of all range past its vision. That means wasting more scans, or sending more Medivacs ahead of your army, or what have you. And theres a cost to either of those by default. I'm not saying that a nerf to offset extra range wouldn't be necessary, but it's hard to gauge the effect this kind of buff really would have. For example it would have way more impact on defense than offense, but by how much is very unclear.
On February 19 2016 04:50 PickyProtoss wrote: I will miss the siege tank being lifted in siege mode, for me it was symbolic of change, it was one of the first time in a while where we saw organic innovation. Now it's gone, siege tank back to being a boring unit.
In your opinion.
My opinion is that the Tankivac is a terrible design that completely destroys the concept behind the transforming Siege Tank.
The Siege Tank is in my opinion one of the best designed RTS units of all time. Leave its design alone.
Seems a massive buff for P in PvT, and a bit on PvZ.
Honestly, i play zerg, but it P will be so favored with this patch : No siege pickup anymore, so P can completly abuse Tank with mobility of blink/warp prism/adept. + Liberator range nerf....
And Zvt will be even more boring he is with more camping stuff/mass liberator...
i don't like removing tankivacs because they remind me of the shuttle/reaver micro in BW. However, I agree that tankivacs make mech way less desirable.
On February 19 2016 04:37 FireCake wrote: Lurker is useless in ZvT Now Ravager is useless in ZvT
YES YES YES §§§
Ravager deals less damage to Tanks which now will always be hit by corrosive bile with the Terran player out of options to prevent the hit. R.I.P. Ravager in ZvT lol
The Siege Tank is in my opinion one of the best designed RTS units of all time. Leave its design alone
Well maybe it is but the design of pretty much everything else in SCII fucks over the Siege Tank super badly. The concept of siege and being in a fixed position cant possibly work when other units can simply teleport (Stalkers), take the fire and kill the tank with ease (Immortal) or even prevent the fking tank from firing at all (blinding cloud). Also corrosive bile shreks the tank easily now since u cant prevent the hit. And dont forget the Siege Tank costs 125 gas/3 supply and building them takes a long time.
This balance test gives me enough hope to install the game again and start playing. I gave up on the game due many many reasons but this is a good sign again.
So many Protoss progamers say that if Zerg has many Lurkers, Protoss never break the Lurker line and end up losing the game.
Actually in the PvZ game, although Protoss has a number of immortals, high templers, and etc, they can't break the line of Lurkers. Because Lurker's range is very long and its striking power is horrible!
Moreover, although Zerg gets some attacks from Protoss in early, it no matter! Zerg just collects Lurkers and can win!
To solve this problem, please down the Lurker's attack range or down its strength or make its tech time late.
Will be interesting to so how the tank changes plays out. I really don't have any clue on how much the dmg buff will affect anything (first thought was that it was nowhere near enough) but the tankivac removal is an incredibly big nerf, it will fundamentally change the unit, meaning that at least tvz will have to be figured out from scratch again. Tanks may not be viable at all now (a very real possibility).
But I am not really sure removing it is the best way to go about it. I think it worked out fantastic in tvz and tvp. They should have put in more effort in finding a change to only target tvt.
removing tankvacs...why? why make the game more of a turtle fest with buffed tanks? people will just qq even more about the dmg of tanks and tanks will get nerfed again. tankvacs were so cool and awesome when pros used them. Ravager vs tankvac was an awesome relationship and the harass of tankvacs allowed terran to do more things with his apm. now it will be all gone.
Without the accessibility of siege tank pick up, almost all aggression potential in every single matchup is decreased, considering Terran mostly won in competitive play with moves that involve that. This means you're changing back something about the race that has been changed & buffed the least (fundamentally & new units wise). If you propose this to be reality soon, start thinking about a cyclone change that makes it compatible with bio as aggression potential, possibly strengthen bio late game as Terrans in al regions and on all levels are not successful with transitioning to a comfortable late game compositon. Terrans all over Korea will start struggling soon if the balance team doesn't set the priority to carefully examine highest level progames and notice what really wins games instead of taking too much low league community feedback in consideration - professional play is what makes the game unique and keeps the community alive. Many Terrans are complaining about the siege tank pickup because it changes the way they control their standard army which hasn't changed since the last 6 years. I personally think there is a wide range of what siege tank pick up micro can offer, in matter of excitement, ingenuity and map-dependent micro. Many concerned high level Terran players
Well maybe it is but the design of pretty much everything else in SCII fucks over the Siege Tank super badly. The concept of siege and being in a fixed position cant possibly work when other units can simply teleport (Stalkers), take the fire and kill the tank with ease (Immortal) or even prevent the fking tank from firing at all (blinding cloud). Also corrosive bile shreks the tank easily now since u cant prevent the hit. And dont forget the Siege Tank costs 125 gas/3 supply and building them takes a long time.
Just because a unit has counterplay doesn't mean it loses all of it's viability. It's your job to prevent that counterplay from happening.
If your oppoenent blink stalkers on top of your siegetanks, thats a massive commitment. Abuse that. I mean, banelings in theory absolutely demolish Marines, but sometimes infinite amounts of banelings don't do anything. We shall wait and see how this works out.
On February 19 2016 05:19 Glorfindel! wrote: I dont understand the Liberator change, someone cares to explain?
You can't nerf ravagers without nerfing tanks/liberators without killing ZvT. If it takes more corrosive bile to kill a liberator than previously you can't also have liberators effortless removing a mineral line.
On February 19 2016 04:50 PickyProtoss wrote: I will miss the siege tank being lifted in siege mode, for me it was symbolic of change, it was one of the first time in a while where we saw organic innovation. Now it's gone, siege tank back to being a boring unit.
In your opinion.
My opinion is that the Tankivac is a terrible design that completely destroys the concept behind the transforming Siege Tank.
The Siege Tank is in my opinion one of the best designed RTS units of all time. Leave its design alone.
Yep, tankivacs just ruined the game for me, especially TvT. It's a good change for the players and that's what matters in the long run.
On February 19 2016 05:27 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On February 19 2016 05:19 Glorfindel! wrote: I dont understand the Liberator change, someone cares to explain?
There were spots in certain maps where a liberator could give freedom to drones without the queens being able to shoot back.
But is range just decreased by one? That is the change?
Sorry, I misunderstood. i thought you was asking for an explanation. Yes, liberator will get -1 freedom mode. When the fusion core upgrade is researched it will have the same full range it had before with the fusion core upgrade. So compared to previous version it has -1 range and then with the upgrade it will comparitively have +1 range to have +0 difference in range with the upgrade. That's how I have understood it. I don't know why whoever writes these have no idea how to communicate clearly.
On February 19 2016 04:37 FireCake wrote: Lurker is useless in ZvT Now Ravager is useless in ZvT
YES YES YES §§§
I don't think either of those units are going to be useless with this buff. Don't forget, no more flying tanks which is going to make killing siege tanks a million times easier.
I actually think Ravager rushes might potentially be OP now because Terran will have 1 siege tank and now he can't pick it up to micro against the rush.
I may be wrong, but I don't see Ravagers or Lurkers being useless!
id say the opposite the damage nerf on bile pretty much kills proxy hatch ravager cuz you can just repair forever and when you get a tank just put it far back
Still liberators will stay too overpowered (also and especially in air vs. air fights) compared to the other tools terran has. I am sure that ravagers and tanks need more tweaking as well.
Well maybe it is but the design of pretty much everything else in SCII fucks over the Siege Tank super badly. The concept of siege and being in a fixed position cant possibly work when other units can simply teleport (Stalkers), take the fire and kill the tank with ease (Immortal) or even prevent the fking tank from firing at all (blinding cloud). Also corrosive bile shreks the tank easily now since u cant prevent the hit. And dont forget the Siege Tank costs 125 gas/3 supply and building them takes a long time.
I mean, banelings in theory absolutely demolish Marines, but sometimes infinite amounts of banelings don't do anything.
You're misremembering. TRUE definitely won that series.
I agree 100 % with all the changes. They are well thought out and would improve the game.
Mech will still not be playable in TvP due to Adepts shading on top of tanks and Tempest only costing 4 supply, but at least mech should be viable in TvT and TvZ.
On February 19 2016 04:25 Loccstana wrote: I am against the liberator range nerf. This is a large impact on TvP since liberators are essential for holding certain types of all-ins.
Instead of a damage buff, how about a siege tank range buff instead? Also keep the medivac pickup since it is exciting to watch and promotes micro oriented play.
Agreed about the tank 100%. Their damage output isn't the core issue. The fact that other units can close the distance to a tank line basically at a whim is the issue. This was impossible in BW. This is what gave tanks their power.
And that is what Medivac pickup emulated, in a roundabout way. It gave tanks "extra range." That's what they need.
An hp buff or supply/cost reduction could do the same thing. It's not just about closing the distance, units in SC2 deal much more dps than their BW counterparts. That means units that can close the distance can kill the tanks much faster than their equivalent BW counterparts. And with tanks costing more resources and supply, terrans generally have fewer tanks than in BW.
This seems to be a main reason to play bio instead of mech. By removing this ability, and giving more strength to the Siege Tank, we wonder if we can have this clear distinction between the two playstyles appear once again.
As many, I like the idea of flying tanks (see TY vs Solar just amazing game), but also I like that Terran has a wider choice instead of just building only one type of production build and having the other one flying around. I am really not found of them praising this
On February 19 2016 04:25 Loccstana wrote: I am against the liberator range nerf. This is a large impact on TvP since liberators are essential for holding certain types of all-ins.
Instead of a damage buff, how about a siege tank range buff instead? Also keep the medivac pickup since it is exciting to watch and promotes micro oriented play.
Agreed about the tank 100%. Their damage output isn't the core issue. The fact that other units can close the distance to a tank line basically at a whim is the issue. This was impossible in BW. This is what gave tanks their power.
And that is what Medivac pickup emulated, in a roundabout way. It gave tanks "extra range." That's what they need.
An hp buff or supply/cost reduction could do the same thing. It's not just about closing the distance, units in SC2 deal much more dps than their BW counterparts. That means units that can close the distance can kill the tanks much faster than their equivalent BW counterparts. And with tanks costing more resources and supply, terrans generally have fewer tanks than in BW.
Because Tanks 1) have a minimum range and 2) have extremely low mobility, "attacking more" (due to attacking earlier due to range) and "surviving longer" are very, very different things.
There are many contexts in SC2 where tanks are nearly useless, and how much HP they have when they're being nearly useless doesn't really matter.
Cost is a tricky thing, of course lower cost would make tanks more viable but would the gameplay be good? The hard counters would still hard counter them just as hard. Something that increased range is aimed to get around.
The only scenario I can think of where more HP is better for gameplay than more range is vs Adepts, since Protoss wants to blink on top of the Bio ASAP while the adepts are still alive, and tanks surviving longer would force those Adepts to commit to suicide, and forcing commitment is good gameplay. But then I think that Shade is horrendously designed and invincibility is an awful mechanic in general, so this one's on the Adept.
I could be wrong, but I dont see how these changes will suddenly make mech viable. It's a slight buff to tank damage, but the lack of tankivacs will also hurt mech a lot in TvZ and TvP. I'm talking about traditional mech here (units from factory), not "mech" where you build a bunch of banshees/liberators. Overall, imo it's more a nerf than a buff to mech outside TvT.
Well, we will see but I think tanks will be way too strong in the middle game in tvz. After hots, the current design is still pretty depressing, with the addition of Life's case, I guess I am not enough interested by the game to be that dissappointed. But still, the tank buff seems really stupid to me. For ravagers, this is promising, I just hope that the great whiners of TL stop a bit...
OMFG to the Siege Tank buff... can't believe it is real and pickup is gone...
I want to throw the table off the window OMG
Also, very nice nerf to Corrosive Bile in PvZ, there are not really much Bio units for Protoss against that compo, so it should feel easier to survive.
On February 19 2016 06:07 Hotshot wrote: Overall seems good, id be interesting how this pans out.
I also think lurkers are an issue. Too much range and damage.
Thats right. But the true issue behind that is the strength of bio. With marauders and medivacs, lurkers need that extra in order to be used at all. But still we barely see them vs. bio at all now, do we?
The biggest flaw of SC2 in the beginning was to give bio ultimative strength and mobility at the same time. Basically all balance issues derive from that.
On February 19 2016 06:53 AnDro_ wrote: All these ideas sound really good to me. Not sure about precise numbers and all possible consequences of course, but I like the general direction.
i agree. i like siege tank pickups but i'm not married to the ability.
in general they are weakening terran air units while strengthening their ground units. its the general direction that i requested a long time ago and i'm glad Blizz and DK are going in that direction.
some people are addicted to cocaine.. others alcohol. me ? i'm addicted to SC2 Automated TOurnaments.
On February 19 2016 04:35 pure.Wasted wrote: Siege tank buff is nowhere near enough to mitigate the loss of pickup entirely. Nowhere near.
Look at their example. "Ravagers will take 3 shots to kill down from 4."
3 shots down from 4? In what universe does that make a difference? Terrans don't have 3 Siege tanks out by the time Ravagers hit, and if they did, at least some of those attacks are going to be wasted on Roaches anyway. Except now Tanks can't be evacuated by Medivac, so they don't survive the first one/two volleys regardless. Only place where this matters is the unit tester.
The buff vs Roaches is actually a way bigger deal, although they're playing it down, because it means less cleanup left for the Bio once the tanks are dead.
re: "we wonder if it's good to help Tank vs Protoss because Tanks are not good vs Protoss."
Can someone translate this for me? Are they trying to say that it simply won't change anything? And implying that that's perfectly fine?
The change makes tanks stronger against protoss, which they hope might make tanks more prevalent.
"Ravager Corrosive bile damage changed from 60 to 45 +15 bio"
Excellent idea, should go a long way to making Protoss less vulnerable to big Ravager shots which I'm all for, I don't really care about it's relationship against tanks with their coming damage buff, Terran just needs to learn to zone them out better and let the tanks do their job (which admittedly they suck at which is why they getting buffs)
"Liberator ability range down by 1, but give it back with the upgrade"
Thank God, an early Starport unit that can fly around locking down your drone lines? That crap definitely needs to be slowed down and this ia good minimal nerf to accomplish that, Liberators are already fantastic in head to head engagements so they don't really need to be amazing worker killers as well, at least right from the get go.
"Medivacs can’t pick up Siege Tanks in Siege Mode"
Already overdue, this ability shouldn't have made it out of beta, glad to see David coming to his senses. The Tank will never ever get buffed if this ability exists and it's just lazy design, removing the core weakness of something just because it's strength needs a mere number tune up is mildly asinine.
"Siege Tank damage increased from 35 (50 vs. armored) to 40 (60 vs. armored)"
Amazing, this is more like 2 years over due, or like, as soon as Steppes of War was discovered to be a shit map these changes should have went into effect, the Widow Mine wouldn't even exist if the tank could do it's job properly. As a Zerg I'm stoked to play against tanks as they require great skill and micro to use effectively and they are a hall mark Terran unit.
More then a bit suprised to see no Lurker changes on the table, I would be a fan of making them weaker but making the tech more accessible as they currently take forever to get which keeps them somewhat balanced but once they come out Protoss seems to just get fucking stomped hard. Make them come out quicker but make them more vulnerable to Storms so Templar can once again be the proper counter.
This is the best LOTV patch that has come out so far, a few more of these and Starcraft is going to be amazing.
The buff to siege tanks is good, but as others have pointed out even with the Ravager nerf it's not equivalent to the lack of pickup. That said, I kind of like charging into a siege tank line by flanking with two groups of well-spread Marauders and having SOME chance of trading efficiently, so I don't want the damage to be too strong either!
The Liberator nerf I don't get. Is it really such a problem for Zergs with their normal range? I thought the problem was when Terrans do the Nathanias build and rush to get the range upgrade. Shouldn't the nerf be the other way around, -1 to the range WITH the upgrade??
Corrosive Bile needs to be better vs mobile units (less time for the shot to land?) and worse vs immobile units (needs a damage reduction especially if siege tanks are going to be immobile)
Terran probably needs a buff against protoss though, if the tank buff can be that much needed buff or not I don't know but if they nerf terrans crutch in TvP it gets even harder for them to survive to mid-late game vs P.
On February 19 2016 07:18 jalstar wrote: Corrosive Bile needs to be better vs mobile units (less time for the shot to land?) and worse vs immobile units (needs a damage reduction especially if siege tanks are going to be immobile)
+damage vs bio is the wrong change imo
I actually think that it's good for it to not be too great against mobile units. However, I definitely agree with your statement that the damage against bio is the wrong change. Instead, I'd made it so that it's not so unintuitively easy to miss its targets when they're deliberately trying to dodge the shots. The radius is simply too small. I'd love to see the damage nerfed against all units, possibly by an even greater degree, in exchange for a larger radius of effect.
Or perhaps changed so that it deals 40 + 20 air, coupled with the larger radius, of course.
On February 19 2016 04:37 FireCake wrote: Lurker is useless in ZvT Now Ravager is useless in ZvT
YES YES YES §§§
Don't worry, Mutalisk are still... well.
I'm going to miss tankivacs, although it was problematic for TvT, they were fun to watch in the other match up. Gotta practice nyddus and ravager all in now, not going to take a risk to lose my time against mech.
On February 19 2016 04:37 FireCake wrote: Lurker is useless in ZvT Now Ravager is useless in ZvT
YES YES YES §§§
Don't worry, Mutalisk are still... well.
I'm going to miss tankivacs, although it was problematic for TvT, they were fun to watch in the other match up. Gotta practice nyddus and ravager all in now, not going to take a risk to lose my time against mech.
muta is fine in zvt you just can't build 35 of them anymore lol.
Ok 2 things i will write as constructive feedback as a player who's played Mech TvX for literally 95% of my SC2 games over the last 5-6 yrs that the game has been out:
a) Siege tank needs more damage to trade better. It's great blizzard is taking a step here, is it enough damage? Maybe, that's what testing is for to be honest, and if it goes live people will find out pretty fast if it really does make the tank able to hold it's ground better or not.
b) Even a bigger issue with mech...ANTI-AIR. Despite the siege tank sorta sucking...the worse problem is that mech cannot build an auto-attacking anti-air unit like the goliath to dissuade someone from just massing tempest, carrier, liberator, or broodlords.
Mech cyclones/thors need to be strengthened versus air to the point that they actually can kill tempests/carriers/brood/liberators. There previously was a thor change that might have done something like this that was randomly scrapped...
I can tell you 100% that every single mech game played at any decent level always devolves into both players spamming air units because mech can't go up to 8-10 factories and then switch production over to 8-12 goliaths like in SC1.
Along the same lines, tempests are only 4 supply. Liberators are 3 supply. Broodlords are only 4 supply...i have written already two-three long posts about how air units are way too strong in LOTV and in SC2 in general.
I honestly think blizzard has a really easy fix to the late game mass air deathball for all 3 races - increase the supply cost of all major air units in the game. What does this do? It makes it so Terran, Zerg, and Protoss ground armies in lategame always have more supply invested than an army that is pure air.
So if someone wants to turtle to mass air, the player that is making ground units is the one that inherently has more of the advantage, can push the action, and then both players are encouraged to make ground units to constantly fight and trade, rather than turtle into air units that can't be shot at by half of the ground units in the game.
Example changes;
Tempest supply cost increased to 8. Carrier supply / BC supply increased to 8. Broodlord supply increased to 6 (corruptor 2 supply, broodlord morph 4 supply). Liberator supply increased to 4. Raven supply increased to 3 (along with possible revert of some of the previous nerts in some way). Viper supply increased to 4 (and parasitic bomb nerf hammered/removed since all these changes fix air).
If something like the above is done, we would not see air dominating every single match-up in every single game in late game.
It's just really frustrating to me as a Mech Terran that when i want to play Mech and be aggressive, i know that i basically can't be because my opponent sees i'm going mech and then starts massing tempests which invalidates every single unit i've built that's not a viking or raven.
I can show everyone here a replay pack of about 10-20+ Mech TvP that i have attempted and every single one Protoss scouts i'm "going mech" and then the game devolves into 4-10 tempests forcing me to sit in base and turtle into 15-25 vikings because there's not a single unit, including mass mine, that can fight mass tempest that has splash damage underneath. The same applies to TvT - bio Terran will just start spamming 100% liberator+viking and if you do not turtle into mass viking/raven/liberator yourself you autolose the game. Mech needs an auto-attacking anti-air unit, and air needs to be toned down.
Its a well made poll, but its important to note that the sum of all options besides "good change" are the people who are against it, for different reasons. Its also clear that "wrong" and "bad" can overlap.
On February 19 2016 07:39 Poopi wrote: I really really hope mech won't be buffed, it's too strong already in TvT
Mech is only turtle bullshit because a mech Terran can't switch their factories over to mass anti-air production because there's no auto-attacking anti-air unit in the game atm (goliaths don't exist).
99% of Mech games end up being turtling into mass viking/liberator/ravens because there is no way to dissuade your opponent from massing tempest/brood/liberator/carrier/BCS.
If a player decides to start spamming their respective OP air unit...what does a Mech Terran make to counter? Thor? Nope they suck vs massed air. Cyclones? Currently an overpriced trash unit. Mass widow mines? Hello RNGesus.
The only reason turtle mech started is because brood+infestor, and air units in general are overpowered in SC2 versus their ground counter parts.
You can even see this in ZvP where lategame always 100% goes to mass air for both players (mass tempest/carrier/void vs mass corruptor/fungal/viper/brood).
On February 19 2016 08:09 avilo wrote: Ok 2 things i will write as constructive feedback as a player who's played Mech TvX for literally 95% of my SC2 games over the last 5-6 yrs that the game has been out:
a) Siege tank needs more damage to trade better. It's great blizzard is taking a step here, is it enough damage? Maybe, that's what testing is for to be honest, and if it goes live people will find out pretty fast if it really does make the tank able to hold it's ground better or not.
b) Even a bigger issue with mech...ANTI-AIR. Despite the siege tank sorta sucking...the worse problem is that mech cannot build an auto-attacking anti-air unit like the goliath to dissuade someone from just massing tempest, carrier, liberator, or broodlords.
Mech cyclones/thors need to be strengthened versus air to the point that they actually can kill tempests/carriers/brood/liberators. There previously was a thor change that might have done something like this that was randomly scrapped...
I can tell you 100% that every single mech game played at any decent level always devolves into both players spamming air units because mech can't go up to 8-10 factories and then switch production over to 8-12 goliaths like in SC1.
Along the same lines, tempests are only 4 supply. Liberators are 3 supply. Broodlords are only 4 supply...i have written already two-three long posts about how air units are way too strong in LOTV and in SC2 in general.
I honestly think blizzard has a really easy fix to the late game mass air deathball for all 3 races - increase the supply cost of all major air units in the game. What does this do? It makes it so Terran, Zerg, and Protoss ground armies in lategame always have more supply invested than an army that is pure air.
So if someone wants to turtle to mass air, the player that is making ground units is the one that inherently has more of the advantage, can push the action, and then both players are encouraged to make ground units to constantly fight and trade, rather than turtle into air units that can't be shot at by half of the ground units in the game.
Example changes;
Tempest supply cost increased to 8. Carrier supply / BC supply increased to 8. Broodlord supply increased to 6 (corruptor 2 supply, broodlord morph 4 supply). Liberator supply increased to 4. Raven supply increased to 3 (along with possible revert of some of the previous nerts in some way). Viper supply increased to 4 (and parasitic bomb nerf hammered/removed since all these changes fix air).
If something like the above is done, we would not see air dominating every single match-up in every single game in late game.
It's just really frustrating to me as a Mech Terran that when i want to play Mech and be aggressive, i know that i basically can't be because my opponent sees i'm going mech and then starts massing tempests which invalidates every single unit i've built that's not a viking or raven.
I can show everyone here a replay pack of about 10-20+ Mech TvP that i have attempted and every single one Protoss scouts i'm "going mech" and then the game devolves into 4-10 tempests forcing me to sit in base and turtle into 15-25 vikings because there's not a single unit, including mass mine, that can fight mass tempest that has splash damage underneath. The same applies to TvT - bio Terran will just start spamming 100% liberator+viking and if you do not turtle into mass viking/raven/liberator yourself you autolose the game. Mech needs an auto-attacking anti-air unit, and air needs to be toned down.
Great post as usual. Fully agreed, esp on not increasing Muta supply. Muta/Banshee/Phoenix are the rare well designed air units in SC2, with clear strengths and weaknesses, and interesting relations with ground units.
On February 19 2016 08:09 avilo wrote: Ok 2 things i will write as constructive feedback as a player who's played Mech TvX for literally 95% of my SC2 games over the last 5-6 yrs that the game has been out:
a) Siege tank needs more damage to trade better. It's great blizzard is taking a step here, is it enough damage? Maybe, that's what testing is for to be honest, and if it goes live people will find out pretty fast if it really does make the tank able to hold it's ground better or not.
b) Even a bigger issue with mech...ANTI-AIR. Despite the siege tank sorta sucking...the worse problem is that mech cannot build an auto-attacking anti-air unit like the goliath to dissuade someone from just massing tempest, carrier, liberator, or broodlords.
Mech cyclones/thors need to be strengthened versus air to the point that they actually can kill tempests/carriers/brood/liberators. There previously was a thor change that might have done something like this that was randomly scrapped...
I can tell you 100% that every single mech game played at any decent level always devolves into both players spamming air units because mech can't go up to 8-10 factories and then switch production over to 8-12 goliaths like in SC1.
Along the same lines, tempests are only 4 supply. Liberators are 3 supply. Broodlords are only 4 supply...i have written already two-three long posts about how air units are way too strong in LOTV and in SC2 in general.
I honestly think blizzard has a really easy fix to the late game mass air deathball for all 3 races - increase the supply cost of all major air units in the game. What does this do? It makes it so Terran, Zerg, and Protoss ground armies in lategame always have more supply invested than an army that is pure air.
So if someone wants to turtle to mass air, the player that is making ground units is the one that inherently has more of the advantage, can push the action, and then both players are encouraged to make ground units to constantly fight and trade, rather than turtle into air units that can't be shot at by half of the ground units in the game.
Example changes;
Tempest supply cost increased to 8. Carrier supply / BC supply increased to 8. Broodlord supply increased to 6 (corruptor 2 supply, broodlord morph 4 supply). Liberator supply increased to 4. Raven supply increased to 3 (along with possible revert of some of the previous nerts in some way). Viper supply increased to 4 (and parasitic bomb nerf hammered/removed since all these changes fix air).
If something like the above is done, we would not see air dominating every single match-up in every single game in late game.
It's just really frustrating to me as a Mech Terran that when i want to play Mech and be aggressive, i know that i basically can't be because my opponent sees i'm going mech and then starts massing tempests which invalidates every single unit i've built that's not a viking or raven.
I can show everyone here a replay pack of about 10-20+ Mech TvP that i have attempted and every single one Protoss scouts i'm "going mech" and then the game devolves into 4-10 tempests forcing me to sit in base and turtle into 15-25 vikings because there's not a single unit, including mass mine, that can fight mass tempest that has splash damage underneath. The same applies to TvT - bio Terran will just start spamming 100% liberator+viking and if you do not turtle into mass viking/raven/liberator yourself you autolose the game. Mech needs an auto-attacking anti-air unit, and air needs to be toned down.
Great post as usual. Fully agreed, esp on not increasing Muta supply.
Mutalisk, phoenix, and banshee to me represent the three best light harrassment units in the game that can you can still make a lot of and be impactful in the game but aren't oppressive to the point that if you make 100% of them there is no counter.
Banshee intrinsically is fine because it's only an anti-ground unit, and it's light so massed ground can own massed banshee.
Mutalisks are vulnerable to splash and already have counters of liberator, ranged phoenix, storm, archon splash, etc.
Phoenix are energy reliant, and also cannot shoot down, and are light so vulnerable to splash like mutas.
Then look at tempest, carrier, BC, liberator, ravens...these units are absolute trash for gameplay. Because when you start producing these there is absolutely no limiting factor on them. It's just simply better to keep making 100% of these units because they are the best units in the game, have the inherent advantage of being a flying unit, and can shoot both up and down.
I like all of the balance test map suggestions. I hope they all go through and this is coming from a Terran. I am looking forward to testing them out soon. I'm glad to hear that the balance team is finally listening to the community and is willing to make design changes to improve how fun the game is to play rather than simply balancing it out for pro level win rates.
On February 19 2016 08:37 SHODAN wrote: +5 dmg buff isn't enough
Now it deal more damage vs light compare with brood war and it doesn't have overkill. The problem lies more from other unit than siege tank. I don't belive you can defend gateway unit with low number siege tank without vulture. Liberator change is good cause it force terran upgrade.
The tank buff is big for a reason not mentioned: before tanks were only able to one-shot zerglings with an upgrade advantage. With the proposed buff they would be able to do so in any circumstance, even if the lings had +3 armor and the tank had no attack upgrades. Also, tanks would be able to one-shot drones and probes.
I only play Protoss and some Zerg, but I would really, really like to see the Tank lose its mobility in exchange for an even bigger damage buff with overkill. I'm not a diehard "back to BW" freak, but the interactions that you get from a terrifyingly powerful, immobile, overkilling Siege Tank are just huge fun and I'd really like to play games against that unit more than the silly hopabout thing we've got now.
On February 19 2016 09:08 Solar424 wrote: The tank buff is big for a reason not mentioned: before tanks were only able to one-shot zerglings with an upgrade advantage.
No, the only time tanks don't one-shot lings now is when they have no attack upgrades and the lings have carapace upgrades. Once a tank gets +1, it will always one-shot lings, regardless of ling upgrades. The only thing the proposed buff changes is that tanks now always one-shot lings out of the box, instead of needing +1.
On February 19 2016 09:08 Solar424 wrote: The tank buff is big for a reason not mentioned: before tanks were only able to one-shot zerglings with an upgrade advantage. With the proposed buff they would be able to do so in any circumstance, even if the lings had +3 armor and the tank had no attack upgrades. Also, tanks would be able to one-shot drones and probes.
And +1 attack will 2 shot hydralisk too. Siege tank now closely similar to brood war version.
On February 19 2016 09:08 Solar424 wrote: The tank buff is big for a reason not mentioned: before tanks were only able to one-shot zerglings with an upgrade advantage.
No, the only time tanks don't one-shot lings now is when they have no attack upgrades and the lings have carapace upgrades. Once a tank gets +1, it will always one-shot lings, regardless of ling upgrades. The only thing the proposed buff changes is that tanks now always one-shot lings out of the box, instead of needing +1.
the liberator nerf could be really problematic in pvt but otherwise I like all the changes. If only something could be done to disencourage mass air battles...
Yes, they made a mistake - it will still take 4 shots still to kill a ravenger due to their armor. You know... math..
These changes should be fun to play around with. It will change tvt and tvz but will completely eliminate any viability for the tank in tvp. I'm a little concerned about the timer terran currently works with vs zerg and how not having mobile tanks will slow down pushes against roach/ravenger armies. Nonetheless, it is worth testing.
On February 19 2016 07:12 Killmouse wrote: Everything is Fine but why nerf lib Range-.- just increase the time a Little bit for mode switching
i want Terran air weakened and Terran ground strengthened.
so if they keep this Liberator change and Terran is too weak I hope they just keep buffing the Tank or some other ground unit.
either it kinda needed to be changed or the maps needed to be changed cuz theres spots where libs can hit drone line and be out of range of spores even without range upgrade
its silly being forced to open ravagers every game when someone makes a liberator cuz of how much more of a commitment ravagers than a single lib if you dont wanna play roach ravager midgame
On February 19 2016 04:21 BamBam wrote: 25% damage nerf to a unit whose sole purpose in life is the corrosive bio. kay.
That's nowhere near as big as the Colossus nerf whose sole purpose in life is to walk around and autoattack things.
The Ravager has a pretty good autoattack with unusually high range for zerg low tier and also has that ability. The corrosive bile isn't the only thing that a Ravager can do.
-----
Glad to see tank changes finally :D (hell, it's about time)
On February 19 2016 09:47 BowtiesAreCool wrote: Yes, they made a mistake - it will still take 4 shots still to kill a ravenger due to their armor. You know... math..
These changes should be fun to play around with. It will change tvt and tvz but will completely eliminate any viability for the tank in tvp. I'm a little concerned about the timer terran currently works with vs zerg and how not having mobile tanks will slow down pushes against roach/ravenger armies. Nonetheless, it is worth testing.
that's what I'm hoping for. terrans having more difficulty in killing zerg early so that the imbalanced lategame gets into the focus.
On February 19 2016 10:04 Lexender wrote: TANK BUFF!! SIEGE REMOVAL!!! RAVAGER NERF!!!!
YESSSSSSSSSS
MECH IS BACK BOYS
I can't wait to see what wonky stuff mech players like Bbyong will pull off with this :D
I wouldn't be to optimistic. Broodlord viper is still nearly unbeatable for mech and in tvp... well tempests.. As long as mech has no good AA it won't be really a thing. Right now every player who scouts mech just starts spamming air units, a stronger tank doesn't do much vs that.
Ravager Corrosive bile damage changed from 60 to 45 +15 bio
A very good idea. ZvZ compositions are mobile enough to dodge biles, as does terran bio. Problem was that ravagers killed in instants everything that wasn't (mobile). Now they'll be less of a lazer from above on liberators, pylons, tanks, etc.
Liberator ability range down by 1, but give it back with the upgrade
That's fine. Liberator AG is OP as balls, anyone failling to see that is a donkey.
Medivacs can’t pick up Siege Tanks in Siege Mode
Can't stress enough how good this is, I suppose the poll speaks for itself. - TvT used to be a strategic matchup : now defender's advantage got thrown outta the window, and the guy that has "more stuff" just drops everything in your face. Position mistakes are also punished so harshly it's not even fun : on the ladder, we're not PGMs. TvT is already volatile enough with the mediboost, we don't need to randomly loose on a drop because we're a little out of position. About defender's advantage, in HOTS you couldn't go siege a position with 4 tanks that was covered by one without taking losses. Now you just drop them and win the position. The attacker is ALWAYS in a better spot. Oh and mech is dead in this MU. Don't we all agree that korean mech vs bio was BITCHINGLY AWESUM??? - TvZ : why are terran so good midgame? Tankivac. Problem is, terran can harass with virtually no risks (scout spire), with HIS STRONG FRONTAL UNITS. Tanks are head on engagement units. Harassing with them just make it so strong you can builds units that are both very strong in fights and very strong in harass (while risking nothing, which means you build them up instead of trading them) - TvP : we started to see tanks being used, so it's a little sad to see them removed from the MU. UNLESS.... =>
Siege Tank damage increased from 35 (50 vs. armored) to 40 (60 vs. armored)
- TvT : bio nerf against mech, but with the upgrades splitted again, bio can transition into sky much easier (without facing 10 3/3 vikings whenever you get a BC out) - TvZ : like I said, cutting tankivac is a huge terran mid game nerf. But the buff will make tanks better against few things that may allow terran to actually move out with tanks. Which is good, it promotes action, and timing pushes - TvP : yeaaaah, tanks that are actually decent against toss !!!! May bring mech compositions back in the matchup !
I used to spit on community feedbackupdates. But as a terran that likes diversity, I welcome this. Terrans right now are pretty much forced into the same builds and compositions, while you see protoss and zerg being able do to so much different fun things ! It's not about balance, it's about diversity. It's good that in a strategy game, you're not able to predict everything ! Right now : "Oh it's a TvP? Terran will go reaper expo => reactored baracks => 1 cyclone => 3 rax 2 medis => push." EVERY SINGLE TIME. Whereas : "Oh it's a PvT? Protoss can go allin (immo allin, drop allin, SG allin, gate allin, proxy gate allin, blink allin, DT rush allin), 1g expo into robo OR SG OR twilight OR SG + robo OR SG + twilight OR a lot of gate and a fast third... etc."
corosive bile nerf? is that really the problem? you can dodge shots and now it's main strength of being able to siege buildings is reduced. I think ravager attack range could have been reduced or HP nerfed to make them easier to snipe, but we'll see if this works out.
a shame meditanks will be removed, I loved them and I'm a Zerg player. My hope is that maybe we'll get this back as a late game upgrade which I think would be fair and an investment.
Unlike WM, tanks do not require good micro in order to counter them, such a boring unit to play against. I guess the coolest MU for zerg will be zvz and zvp, and people won't be happy that long after the patch. Anyway, some dudes should definetly return in BW.
But I could get wrong, despite my lqck of investissement in sc2, this patch screw my day!
On February 19 2016 10:04 Lexender wrote: TANK BUFF!! SIEGE REMOVAL!!! RAVAGER NERF!!!!
YESSSSSSSSSS
MECH IS BACK BOYS
I can't wait to see what wonky stuff mech players like Bbyong will pull off with this :D
I wouldn't be to optimistic. Broodlord viper is still nearly unbeatable for mech and in tvp... well tempests.. As long as mech has no good AA it won't be really a thing. Right now every player who scouts mech just starts spamming air units, a stronger tank doesn't do much vs that.
I know, but I'm still optimistic. Why? Because mid-game agressive mech could actually be a thing now. Sure spamming air will still be a thing, but mech players will actually be able to punish players who do that, besides mass late mech has some strenght.
Sure it will be a problem that will eventually have to be fixed (not just for mech) but right now this is a huge step in the right direction
On February 19 2016 10:04 Lexender wrote: TANK BUFF!! SIEGE REMOVAL!!! RAVAGER NERF!!!!
YESSSSSSSSSS
MECH IS BACK BOYS
I can't wait to see what wonky stuff mech players like Bbyong will pull off with this :D
Mech TvT viability is guaranteed with this patch and Mech TvZ has improved, but I'm not sure if it's enough to make it viable. All I know is that Mech TvP viability is probably not going to happen in LotV. Pushing for Mech viability in TvT/TvZ like it was in HotS should be the way to go.
@avilo, you have a unit called the widow mine, combine them with better tanks and I bet you will find mech effective. You still have liberators, great anti-light air unit. vikings were always an option too. Aren't your armor upgrades for mech and air shared? maybe you should be making more air units to compensate your army. No race should get away with spamming units from one tech path. Make widow mines and make a damn starport.
Siege Tank change must be to save face vs the circle jerk of Brood War Tanks. The fact is, it's not only Corrosive Bile, it's Liberators, it's Blink, it's Shades, it's Charged Zealots, it's dropped from dropship ontop of them, it's Disruptors, it's Medivac Boost. If this was to succeed, it would need some kind of range buff and the style it would promote would be MASS Siege Tanks + Turrets and it would be a turtle fest. Medivacs NEEDS to be able to save Siege Tanks in Siege Mode, I don't know why they went from, full interaction synergy with Medivacs to no synergy at all.
Siege Tank damage increased from 35 (50 vs. armored) to 40 (60 vs. armored)
Siege Tanks’ relationship against Marines won’t be changed too significantly, but Marauders that just used Stim Pack to close in on Tanks will be heavily nerfed by this change.
It's always been Marine, Tank in TvT, not Marauder, Marine, Tank. Sure we have seen standard Bio (without Tanks) vs Mech in TvT before, but that's actually a cool clash of styles and only happens, because there's pure Mech. The interaction that actually matters is the vs non-armoured. Archons, Zealots, Adepts, Immortals, Marines, Lings (+1 upgrade) and Ravagers. If we want to see Siege Tanks move out on the map, I reckon it needs to be able to be picked up in Sieged Mode and become Unsieged, inside the Medivac allowing there to be 2 Tanks in 1 Medivac and combining it with a +5-10 damage buff to non-armored. Lurkers suffer the same vs the Bio composition, the Marine CAN survive stronger Siege Tanks and stronger Lurkers vs Light.
To finish my thought I think they should also push a Disruptor change through + 55 vs shields is a little too much, but the unit actually HAVE to kill Stalkers to have any importance. So my suggestion would be to buff it's damage to 160 across the board. The new interactions here are that this makes them one shot Stalkers, Siege Tanks (can be picked up in Sieged Mode, creates cool dodge interaction) and Swarm Hosts. While making them not one shot Disruptors any more and deal too much damage to Protoss units in general, splash included.
Terrans right now are pretty much forced into the same builds and compositions, while you see protoss and zerg being able do to so much different fun things !
Im a bit worried about the strenght of bio tank vs roach ravager, biles are not as strong vs tanks and tanks do more damage so even with no medivac picks the tanks might do better. Old muta ling bane is just worse compared to HotS since tank is buffed and mutas are countered by liberators so if meta moves in that direction zerg is screwed.
edit: about ZvP, i guess the ravager timings will die and that might be the intended effect. Since lurkers, hydras and mutas are still good, it might be good for ZvP (balance wise, not too hyped about design), that is zerg favoured.
Not sure I like the proposed tank changes, surely going to try them. Sounds like a huge nerf against Protoss, while vs Z and T both need to be evaluated (it's like starting tanks with +3... sounds pretty strong). One thing I don't like in particular is tanks 2-shooting hydras and 3-shooting ravagers with once they have +1. Even more incentive to mass air units since its' suicide for zerg not to, and a great buff for tank/liberator based turtle play. I think the best solution with that direction would be to keep the base damage the same and only buff the +vs armored and possibly the attack speed (back to HotS level for example).
Thumbs up to the Liberator range nerf. Such an early game air unit should always be able to be fought with autoattacking antiair units in my opinion.
I think the best solution with that direction would be to keep the base damage the same and only buff the +vs armored and possibly the attack speed (back to HotS level for example).
I thought the attack speed hasn't changed since HoTS?
On February 19 2016 11:44 A_Scarecrow wrote: if ur going to nerf the damage of ravager can you you make it cheaper? 4 ravagers to kill a lib and tank now T_T thats 400gas
Ravagers are like uber stalkers with mini storms raining down from the sky. For the utility they provide they are dirt cheap. If they were a Protoss unit, they'd cost like 250/250 a piece.
Now all blizzard has to do is nerf pickup range for warp prism, nerf ultras, look at oracles again, and fix the mfing map pool, and then all the community's prayers will be answered!
How about changing siege tank so that when picked up in siege mode, they revert back to standard mode. All this would do is mitigate losses of siege tanks without negatively impacting any matchups.
On February 19 2016 13:35 huller20 wrote: How about changing siege tank so that when picked up in siege mode, they revert back to standard mode. All this would do is mitigate losses of siege tanks without negatively impacting any matchups.
Really good suggestion, I also like the idea of an end-game upgrade for it, Fusion core.. I hope blizzard hears these ideas! Someone should make a post about it on the blizz forums.
On February 19 2016 13:35 huller20 wrote: How about changing siege tank so that when picked up in siege mode, they revert back to standard mode. All this would do is mitigate losses of siege tanks without negatively impacting any matchups.
Really good suggestion, I also like the idea of an end-game upgrade for it, Fusion core.. I hope blizzard hears these ideas! Someone should make a post about it on the blizz forums.
The idea of removing the siege mode pick up is to add immobility to the unit, which is a weakness the tank should have, so that buffing his damage is justifiable.
Good to see Tankivacs gone, the Siege Tank, as a design, had no business dancing around with Medivacs. Also good to see a damage buff of some sort, but it seems very timid, like they're scared to try a substantial buff. Maybe they increase the numbers if they find Tanks aren't so good without their ridiculous flying spider BS.
I hope all these changes go through especially siege tank change. ZvT and TvT so silly with tankivac. I'm not sure if it would still be too strong to make it so they go back to normal mode when picked up or something, it's hard to find a middle ground. Losing all your tanks every push hurts terran so much, but saving every single one without much punishment is also too strong.
Also good to see a damage buff of some sort, but it seems very timid, like they're scared to try a substantial buff
Since after the tank styles of WOL, their DPS has been improved by 28.6% against armored (in both ROF and alpha damage) and their DPS against light has been improved by ~22.5%. That's a pretty huge buff for a unit that used to be good, but generally fell behind due to changes in meta, maps and balance of other units.
It changes main shot hits-to-kill in some pretty big ways, but since tanks deal splash it also means a lot of units in the second and third splash radius will die faster than before.
For example, if zerglings were not in the primary splash radius (caught in the second splash) they would take 3 hits to die. Now they'll solidly die in 2 hits even if they regen some HP and it fires a hair over 7% faster - that's notable.
i dont understand why people think tank pickup is the reason mech isnt viable in TvT. You dont make tanks to counter mech, but by trading with marauders and being up in bases, or establishing air dominance and making liberators. nobody makes fucking tank bio vs mech. i believe TvT will be infinite times more boring to watch now, playing it im a bit neutral about it.
On February 19 2016 04:11 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Roaches won’t be affected as heavily, but the number of shots it takes to kill Ravagers is changed from 4 to 3.
This isn't true. Ravagers have 120 hp with base 1 armor. Unupgraded tanks still require 4 shots to kill unupgraded ravagers. I think someone just did 120/40 here. Even if ravagers didn't have any armor, regen would still make it 4 shots. And they just edited it out without addressing it.
How can picking a value designed to change the tank/ravager unit relationship that doesn't actually change it at one of the most important points in the game not change their overall evaluation of the siege tank damage buff?
I am very excited for this change.. I think terran is going to be very UP especially on certain maps, but that will make the issues of the race actually get fixed long term rather than have this stupid band-aid mechanic of tankivacs. The only change I dislike is liberators, as spores already deal with them early game... TvP might be a little awkward in certain situations.
Now if they just fix god mode (Ultralisks) and warp prisms we may have a very good game on our hands.
The siege tank changes will make terran quite UP on a lot of maps (good luck moving out with unsieged tanks vs. zerg on most maps), but Ulrena will be hilariously stupid.
On February 19 2016 14:23 Keeemy wrote: I actually like picking up sieged tanks.
Me too. I was against it completely until I saw it in action, it really makes the Tank viable in game where so many units counter it.
Removing it should be combined at the very least with a removal/change of Abduct and Blinding Cloud. Those two abilities counter Tank more than any other unit due to the immobility of Sieged Tanks.
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.
I can see why they don't want tankivacs to be a thing but i think terran will be weak against some zerg timing pushes after the tank pickup removal. Because liberators in low numbers were already easy to kill with ravager shots, now tanks don't have any mobility to run away from them as well. In high numbers, it is really good for terran though.
Watching TY juggle tanks with two medivacs while defending and harassing zergs was fun
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.
After seeing more games, and especially TvT, I think tankivacs should go. But it remains to be seen whether the corresponding attack power buff is sufficient to compensate.
On February 19 2016 08:09 avilo wrote: Ok 2 things i will write as constructive feedback as a player who's played Mech TvX for literally 95% of my SC2 games over the last 5-6 yrs that the game has been out:
a) Siege tank needs more damage to trade better. It's great blizzard is taking a step here, is it enough damage? Maybe, that's what testing is for to be honest, and if it goes live people will find out pretty fast if it really does make the tank able to hold it's ground better or not.
b) Even a bigger issue with mech...ANTI-AIR. Despite the siege tank sorta sucking...the worse problem is that mech cannot build an auto-attacking anti-air unit like the goliath to dissuade someone from just massing tempest, carrier, liberator, or broodlords.
Mech cyclones/thors need to be strengthened versus air to the point that they actually can kill tempests/carriers/brood/liberators. There previously was a thor change that might have done something like this that was randomly scrapped...
I can tell you 100% that every single mech game played at any decent level always devolves into both players spamming air units because mech can't go up to 8-10 factories and then switch production over to 8-12 goliaths like in SC1.
Along the same lines, tempests are only 4 supply. Liberators are 3 supply. Broodlords are only 4 supply...i have written already two-three long posts about how air units are way too strong in LOTV and in SC2 in general.
I honestly think blizzard has a really easy fix to the late game mass air deathball for all 3 races - increase the supply cost of all major air units in the game. What does this do? It makes it so Terran, Zerg, and Protoss ground armies in lategame always have more supply invested than an army that is pure air.
So if someone wants to turtle to mass air, the player that is making ground units is the one that inherently has more of the advantage, can push the action, and then both players are encouraged to make ground units to constantly fight and trade, rather than turtle into air units that can't be shot at by half of the ground units in the game.
Example changes;
Tempest supply cost increased to 8. Carrier supply / BC supply increased to 8. Broodlord supply increased to 6 (corruptor 2 supply, broodlord morph 4 supply). Liberator supply increased to 4. Raven supply increased to 3 (along with possible revert of some of the previous nerts in some way). Viper supply increased to 4 (and parasitic bomb nerf hammered/removed since all these changes fix air).
If something like the above is done, we would not see air dominating every single match-up in every single game in late game.
It's just really frustrating to me as a Mech Terran that when i want to play Mech and be aggressive, i know that i basically can't be because my opponent sees i'm going mech and then starts massing tempests which invalidates every single unit i've built that's not a viking or raven.
I can show everyone here a replay pack of about 10-20+ Mech TvP that i have attempted and every single one Protoss scouts i'm "going mech" and then the game devolves into 4-10 tempests forcing me to sit in base and turtle into 15-25 vikings because there's not a single unit, including mass mine, that can fight mass tempest that has splash damage underneath. The same applies to TvT - bio Terran will just start spamming 100% liberator+viking and if you do not turtle into mass viking/raven/liberator yourself you autolose the game. Mech needs an auto-attacking anti-air unit, and air needs to be toned down.
All these great changes and you are still not satisfied -_- . This is a great step in the right direction of making ground Mech better. One step at a time. First make ground Mech good then we can look into the Anti-Air problem.
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.
Muta switch is still a thing though, and even if you scout it, with how the chrono was nerfed you cannot get out phoenixes(which are the only hard counter to mass muta) fast enough. Mutalisk is a problem in PvZ from WoL and it didn't get any better with fast regen, that's for sure(made the phoenix much required hard counter).
It is a thing that requires attention, it's not a problem only in PvZ. Mutalisk is problem everywhere, look at the patch notes for mutalisk - bio damage on spores, plenty changes on phoenix, liberator, thor change, mine... Mutalisk is a problematic unit but instead of changing the root of the problem they are bending everything around it.
As has been said, tankivacs added more mobility and thus more agressiveness to the game in all terran matchups. Its not easy to control so its a skill ceiling ability, and is also fun to watch. As a terran player, in the first few months of play i believed that the tankivac totally destroyed the matchup but now that i can control it i think its fun and im so I'm sad to see it go. Terran doesn't have many new abilites(cyclone is not fun, liberator is a siege unit, i like having this mobile ability).
The increased tank damage is really needed in tvz and tvp so thats great, as has been said(again), there buff should probably be slightly larger. Now that siege tanks cannot be picked up, its good that the ravager corrosive bile is reduced(but what about other matchups?).
Liberatos are really needed in tvp(as has been said) so nerfing their range will make it harder on terran, zoning the protoss army will be much harder and distruptor/storm/colosus will more easily hit. We will really only see the liberator being used with its range upgrade so only in late game situations. That being said, to be able to siege a mineral line early in the game is insane damage.
What about the cyclone its 150gas but 120hp! why so expensive and weak! so far it has found use only for early game defensive purposes where it completely shuts down banshees/medivacs/decent against warp prism...redesign it? replace it with another unit? would like to see a unit that is more fun, not so expensive and weak.Terran really needs something new and fun from this expansion, and the 2 fun addons (tankivacs and liberators) are being nerfed/removed.
The oracle is a great unit to tag enemy armies but it deals too much damage too quickly, killing workers too fast so its not fun having to play against it early game, having to be so defensive against it. it can force a whole mineral line off mining if there is no anti air building or a lot of units right near it, so why doesn't it get nerfed like the liberator?
People are saying the lurker is bad in zvt thats not true, lurkers are great. There are so many ways to use them defensively and offensively, they are fun.
As has been said, what about the swarm host? redesign it? replace it with new unit?
So for Terran there will be pretty much the same of hots now, no new micro, no new mechanics, maybe is time to switch race cause this is really boring.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this in this thread: what if you left the pickup of sieged tanks in the game, but have the tanks unsieged when they are dropped again. This would help to salvage tanks in peril, but wouldn't be as good offensively and thus improve TvT.
On February 19 2016 18:22 Mugen93 wrote: So for Terran there will be pretty much the same of hots now, no new micro, no new mechanics, maybe is time to switch race cause this is really boring.
I am not talking about balance of these units here but i am also jealous of the new toys protoss and zerg has with lotv. Warp prism range upgrade, lurkers, vipers with parasitic bomb, disruptors, ravagers and adepts are both cool and effective.
Liberators certainly has a lot of utility(short range anti air, mineral line harass, sieging and zoning) but their liberation ability does not need a lot of thought. Reapers are much better now but they are still only viable for a few minutes at the beginning of the game.
On February 19 2016 08:09 avilo wrote: Ok 2 things i will write as constructive feedback as a player who's played Mech TvX for literally 95% of my SC2 games over the last 5-6 yrs that the game has been out:
a) Siege tank needs more damage to trade better. It's great blizzard is taking a step here, is it enough damage? Maybe, that's what testing is for to be honest, and if it goes live people will find out pretty fast if it really does make the tank able to hold it's ground better or not.
b) Even a bigger issue with mech...ANTI-AIR. Despite the siege tank sorta sucking...the worse problem is that mech cannot build an auto-attacking anti-air unit like the goliath to dissuade someone from just massing tempest, carrier, liberator, or broodlords.
Mech cyclones/thors need to be strengthened versus air to the point that they actually can kill tempests/carriers/brood/liberators. There previously was a thor change that might have done something like this that was randomly scrapped...
I can tell you 100% that every single mech game played at any decent level always devolves into both players spamming air units because mech can't go up to 8-10 factories and then switch production over to 8-12 goliaths like in SC1.
Along the same lines, tempests are only 4 supply. Liberators are 3 supply. Broodlords are only 4 supply...i have written already two-three long posts about how air units are way too strong in LOTV and in SC2 in general.
I honestly think blizzard has a really easy fix to the late game mass air deathball for all 3 races - increase the supply cost of all major air units in the game. What does this do? It makes it so Terran, Zerg, and Protoss ground armies in lategame always have more supply invested than an army that is pure air.
So if someone wants to turtle to mass air, the player that is making ground units is the one that inherently has more of the advantage, can push the action, and then both players are encouraged to make ground units to constantly fight and trade, rather than turtle into air units that can't be shot at by half of the ground units in the game.
Example changes;
Tempest supply cost increased to 8. Carrier supply / BC supply increased to 8. Broodlord supply increased to 6 (corruptor 2 supply, broodlord morph 4 supply). Liberator supply increased to 4. Raven supply increased to 3 (along with possible revert of some of the previous nerts in some way). Viper supply increased to 4 (and parasitic bomb nerf hammered/removed since all these changes fix air).
If something like the above is done, we would not see air dominating every single match-up in every single game in late game.
It's just really frustrating to me as a Mech Terran that when i want to play Mech and be aggressive, i know that i basically can't be because my opponent sees i'm going mech and then starts massing tempests which invalidates every single unit i've built that's not a viking or raven.
I can show everyone here a replay pack of about 10-20+ Mech TvP that i have attempted and every single one Protoss scouts i'm "going mech" and then the game devolves into 4-10 tempests forcing me to sit in base and turtle into 15-25 vikings because there's not a single unit, including mass mine, that can fight mass tempest that has splash damage underneath. The same applies to TvT - bio Terran will just start spamming 100% liberator+viking and if you do not turtle into mass viking/raven/liberator yourself you autolose the game. Mech needs an auto-attacking anti-air unit, and air needs to be toned down.
All these great changes and you are still not satisfied -_- . This is a great step in the right direction of making ground Mech better. One step at a time. First make ground Mech good then we can look into the Anti-Air problem.
Seriously. Stop fucking whining.
You can agree with his post or not but I don't see how it is whining. It seems you just don't want him to express his opinion at all which is unreasonable, to put it mildly.
On February 19 2016 18:22 Mugen93 wrote: So for Terran there will be pretty much the same of hots now, no new micro, no new mechanics, maybe is time to switch race cause this is really boring.
Nothing new, except for Liberators(new micro, new mechanics). Nothing new in micro department except for reaper grenades that can, I don't know, move queens of the ramp so your hellions can get into the zerg base. No new cyclone and no new micro with its lock on mechanics...
But yeah, NOTHING NEW.
Blizzard, how dare you! You released Terran expansion first so they don't get too many new goodies later! That's so evil!!
My sarcasm detector is probably off or I really don't know where do these people come from
On February 19 2016 18:22 Mugen93 wrote: So for Terran there will be pretty much the same of hots now, no new micro, no new mechanics, maybe is time to switch race cause this is really boring.
Reaper and cyclone.But it only has use in early game so kinda let down. Right now terran is more positional and i like it.
to pick up siege tank but then they are unsieged would be fine but a complete remove would be boring no mor micro possible to dodge corrosive biles or save them
On February 19 2016 18:56 zakadar wrote: to pick up siege tank but then they are unsieged would be fine but a complete remove would be boring no mor micro possible to dodge corrosive biles or save them
Agree. I think its funny when you use it to dodge skillshots/safe them.
Isn't 40 damage on Siege Tanks literally more damage than it did against light units in BW? Yikes. Zerglings would evaporate.
Blizzard, If you want BW Siege Tanks then do them right - they did massive single target damage along with the splash. If not, do your own thing with them! Flying Tanks are cool!
On February 19 2016 18:56 zakadar wrote: to pick up siege tank but then they are unsieged would be fine but a complete remove would be boring no mor micro possible to dodge corrosive biles or save them
Agree. I think its funny when you use it to dodge skillshots/safe them.
When I see things like that I wanna shoot myself : NO ONE CARES IF IT "LOOKS" COOL. It's been ruining TvT for more than 3 months, that's what matters, and that why it needs to go !
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.
On February 19 2016 08:09 avilo wrote: Ok 2 things i will write as constructive feedback as a player who's played Mech TvX for literally 95% of my SC2 games over the last 5-6 yrs that the game has been out:
a) Siege tank needs more damage to trade better. It's great blizzard is taking a step here, is it enough damage? Maybe, that's what testing is for to be honest, and if it goes live people will find out pretty fast if it really does make the tank able to hold it's ground better or not.
b) Even a bigger issue with mech...ANTI-AIR. Despite the siege tank sorta sucking...the worse problem is that mech cannot build an auto-attacking anti-air unit like the goliath to dissuade someone from just massing tempest, carrier, liberator, or broodlords.
Mech cyclones/thors need to be strengthened versus air to the point that they actually can kill tempests/carriers/brood/liberators. There previously was a thor change that might have done something like this that was randomly scrapped...
I can tell you 100% that every single mech game played at any decent level always devolves into both players spamming air units because mech can't go up to 8-10 factories and then switch production over to 8-12 goliaths like in SC1.
Along the same lines, tempests are only 4 supply. Liberators are 3 supply. Broodlords are only 4 supply...i have written already two-three long posts about how air units are way too strong in LOTV and in SC2 in general.
I honestly think blizzard has a really easy fix to the late game mass air deathball for all 3 races - increase the supply cost of all major air units in the game. What does this do? It makes it so Terran, Zerg, and Protoss ground armies in lategame always have more supply invested than an army that is pure air.
So if someone wants to turtle to mass air, the player that is making ground units is the one that inherently has more of the advantage, can push the action, and then both players are encouraged to make ground units to constantly fight and trade, rather than turtle into air units that can't be shot at by half of the ground units in the game.
Example changes;
Tempest supply cost increased to 8. Carrier supply / BC supply increased to 8. Broodlord supply increased to 6 (corruptor 2 supply, broodlord morph 4 supply). Liberator supply increased to 4. Raven supply increased to 3 (along with possible revert of some of the previous nerts in some way). Viper supply increased to 4 (and parasitic bomb nerf hammered/removed since all these changes fix air).
If something like the above is done, we would not see air dominating every single match-up in every single game in late game.
It's just really frustrating to me as a Mech Terran that when i want to play Mech and be aggressive, i know that i basically can't be because my opponent sees i'm going mech and then starts massing tempests which invalidates every single unit i've built that's not a viking or raven.
I can show everyone here a replay pack of about 10-20+ Mech TvP that i have attempted and every single one Protoss scouts i'm "going mech" and then the game devolves into 4-10 tempests forcing me to sit in base and turtle into 15-25 vikings because there's not a single unit, including mass mine, that can fight mass tempest that has splash damage underneath. The same applies to TvT - bio Terran will just start spamming 100% liberator+viking and if you do not turtle into mass viking/raven/liberator yourself you autolose the game. Mech needs an auto-attacking anti-air unit, and air needs to be toned down.
All these great changes and you are still not satisfied -_- . This is a great step in the right direction of making ground Mech better. One step at a time. First make ground Mech good then we can look into the Anti-Air problem.
Seriously. Stop fucking whining.
You can agree with his post or not but I don't see how it is whining. It seems you just don't want him to express his opinion at all which is unreasonable, to put it mildly.
Read what I wrote. I never said he is not allowed to express his opinion. Please don´t put words in my mouth.
I know he has some good feedback from time to time but in 92% of this time its overshadowed by his constant swearing/complaining. Mech players asked for years for a Tank damage buff. Now we might finally get it and the first thing he writes is: "Tanks need more Damage. " . To me this is whining because he is STILL NOT SATISFIED. If he would have wrote something like: "Damage buff for the Tank, thats great. The next thing you guys should look into is Anti-Air capability for Mech" then it would be much better feedback than :" Moar damage plox. Can´t build 20 Tanks without getting destroyed by 20 Tempests" (I have seen him do that, complaining about it included).
Hey I even agree that Mech needs some tweaks in the ground to air department. But like I said: One step at a time. To me Blizzard showed that they are willing to make Mech better with this Update ( alot of people thought they gave up on it and Mech is a lost cause) and Im sure they will take a look at Anti-Air when this Updates go trough and Ground Mech is stronger in the Zoning department.
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.
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.
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.
even with armour they would survive due to zerg regeneration.
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.
Next step: Hellions and Banshees are no longer Light, but Hellbats are. Study rebalance of the Hellbat.
- Banshees are not hardcountered by Phoenix. - Hellions are no longer hardcountered by Adepts or Banelings (Banelings are not their main counter most of the time Btw)
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.
even with armour they would survive due to zerg regeneration.
On February 19 2016 18:56 zakadar wrote: to pick up siege tank but then they are unsieged would be fine but a complete remove would be boring no mor micro possible to dodge corrosive biles or save them
Agree. I think its funny when you use it to dodge skillshots/safe them.
When I see things like that I wanna shoot myself : NO ONE CARES IF IT "LOOKS" COOL. It's been ruining TvT for more than 3 months, that's what matters, and that why it needs to go !
my problem with tank pickups against Z and P is that it goes one of two ways: either there's an extremely high limit for pro level micro to increase the efficiency of the fight, which lends itself to one-sided outcomes with little counterplay (similar to force fields in HOTS!) or the micro limit is lower and generally the opponent will just have enough army to crush through the fight anyway.
i understand LOTV is supposed to be about more individual unit micro and micro winning fights, but watching someone pull tanks away from you while you hopelessly try to fight isn't fun or good gameplay, and i'm sure on the opposite side if tanks still aren't strong enough it's not much fun to spend all your APM microing them and still lose anyway
i just don't think tank pickups are a stable design, it's too strong/too weak and i am very skeptical that they could ever find the perfect middle ground
Not sure how the tank nerf and buff will play out. Other than that I, personally, will get rekt. But it will be fun to see it used in timings vs P at a higher level.
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.
I am not sure about tank buff will make turtle fest comeback.Zerg right now doesn't need to play on timer vs mech. And map doesn't cover much vs bios.It is more likely bring back WOL than HOTS.
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.
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 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.
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 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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Siege Tank damage increased from 35 (50 vs. armored) to 40 (60 vs. armored)
NO
So if you think the the removal of the Tankivak is good, what don't you like about a damage buff to compensate? Where you suspecting a buff in another area or no compensation at all?
Tanks need to be much better against lings than they currently are if they can't be picked up. Hell tanks needed to be this strong in early HoTS too (instead of the free turbo speed for medivacs).
To those who think the siege tank damage buff is not enough: Remember those things have AOE, any buff means more than just the number says. Also from 50 to 60 against armored is huge lol
On February 20 2016 00:35 Nazara wrote: 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.
You can just try 1/1 roach ravager that is currently stopped by good tankivac micro. If the 4/5 tanks you can get when it hits are enough to stop it while being picked off by ravager they're probably OP. If not well you can get a the very least a decent advantage.
lings should die in one shoot, it was also the case with BW, why here it should be different if the path even help lings to get closer much faster than in BW?
On February 20 2016 00:21 Garmer wrote: the dream come true, damage buff for tanks yay!
i still think it need more buff like 45 versus bio + 15 versus armor
45 will 1-shot Marines.
i don't think 1-shoting Marines will ever be permitted. I think the highest we'll ever see on the base damage is 44.
not with the upgrade of +10 shield which will bring marine to a 55
On February 20 2016 00:45 Salteador Neo wrote: Tanks need to be much better against lings than they currently are if they can't be picked up. Hell tanks needed to be this strong in early HoTS too (instead of the free turbo speed for medivacs).
To those who think the siege tank damage buff is not enough: Remember those things have AOE, any buff means more than just the number says. Also from 50 to 60 against armored is huge lol
This is most likely the best patch in LotV.
remember that right now tank is trash if it was not for that lame thing drop with the medivac, so no those buff are not overkill they are needed if anything
On February 20 2016 00:45 Salteador Neo wrote: Tanks need to be much better against lings than they currently are if they can't be picked up. Hell tanks needed to be this strong in early HoTS too (instead of the free turbo speed for medivacs).
To those who think the siege tank damage buff is not enough: Remember those things have AOE, any buff means more than just the number says. Also from 50 to 60 against armored is huge lol
This is most likely the best patch in LotV.
Some splash radius math.
Pre-Buff, No Upgrades 35 => 17.5 => 8.75
Pre-Buff, +3 Upgrades 44 => 22 => 11
Post-Buff, No Upgrades 40 => 20 => 10
Post-Buff, +3 Upgrades 49 => 24.5 => 12.25
------------------------ 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.
Thanks Magpie for the sweet splash damage breakdown :D Can you do it with the +armored bonus too?
I'm sure the splash damage being buffed will make tanks considerably better against zerg too, even if most "basic relationships" don't seem to change. They are the swarm race after all. Roaches, lings and hydras clump a lot.
Edit: Also the upgrades might go from 3+2 to 4+1, according to someone else in this thread.
This change will give us some room to increase the damage of Siege Tanks
YES
Siege Tank damage increased from 35 (50 vs. armored) to 40 (60 vs. armored)
NO
So if you think the the removal of the Tankivak is good, what don't you like about a damage buff to compensate? Where you suspecting a buff in another area or no compensation at all?
It's not that, I just don't think it goes far enough. 40+20 is an okay change, but it's status quo for the big picture, so I am nonplussed. I want something on the order of 14 range, 3.0 attack period, and flat 60 damage. That's super strong, so I also want a counterbalance like siege mode being research again, or the siege or unsiege animations to take longer. It's also the case that zerg and protoss both have multiple units that are very, very strong against a unit that cannot move, so this wouldn't necessarily break the game, or even any matchup.
Made a mistake in my post on the previous page. I forgot to count vs armored damage in Roaches case lol.
lings should die in one shoot, it was also the case with BW, why here it should be different if the path even help lings to get closer much faster than in BW?
1. Overkill - SC2 Tanks don't. 2. Attack speed - It doesn't matter if Tank does 100 damage or 35 damage to a ling, the speed of killing is dependant on attack speed a lot - SC2 Tank (even pre-buff) has higher DPS then SC1 Tank. It's 2 seconds cooldown vs 3.15. 3. Splash origin. In SC1, Tank's splash and damage zone originates a bit closer to the Tank, not in the center of the unit. Therefore, Tank in SC2 deals more splash to all the lings running behind and to the side of the ling that is being shot at. It means that by default, Tank already does more damage to groups of units and targeting the center of the ball of units is less important (but still important, the focus is on "less") 4. Unit pathing - in SC1, Lings didn't clump, and damaging/killing more then 5 lings with a Tank shot was a rarity. While you can split 5-10 units before battle, good luck trying to split 30-50 lings. Even if you split them in 5 groups, it's still 6-10 lings per ball. 5. Considering that Ling attack speed has been nerfed from SC1 to SC2 (with 40% adrenal included), and Marine got buffed with 15 HP, and Firebat (Hellbat) now has 120 HP, why would you even suggest that Tank needs to be better vs lings? Use the tools the game has for you. Don't spam Tanks. Protect them with other units.
What Tank needs, is a brutal vs armored damage (like 70+), and Ravager HP/range nerf. Tank should be scary to armored units like Ultralisk, Stalker, Roach, Marauder etc. Increasing attack speed helps, but it also contributes to light units being useless, without making the Tank that much better vs armored. It's all about making a composition, not just Tank spam. If anything, Hellbat should get an research upgrade to up it's vs light damage, so they can protect the Tank vs Adepts or Zealots.
You can just try 1/1 roach ravager that is currently stopped by good tankivac micro. If the 4/5 tanks you can get when it hits are enough to stop it while being picked off by ravager they're probably OP. If not well you can get a the very least a decent advantage.
Thanks, but I have yet to try the 2 hatch Lurker cheese build I don't like MOBAgers.
it does not matter how strong tank are versus BW tank, because in sc2 there are so many counters to tanks that is not even funny, that's why they are trash, the direct comparison it's not even worth mentioning
tanks should be stronger by their own, not just building 1-2 for support, tank is for siege not a support unit, in prmis, so it should be able to be massed
Then the problem are the counters to the Tank, not the Tank itself. Blink, Shade, Charge, Bile etc., are all gimmicks. But if you buff Tank to the point where it can handle those gimmicks on its own, then only the gimmicks will be left in the bag of units that are at least somehow efficient vs Tank. And then Blizzard will decide to buff gimmicks, or add gimmicks. Couple of years later, we will see mobacraft, where every unit is a hero with 1-2 active abilities.
well what you suggest to do, to remove those things? not possible and if you nerf them, then it would be a pain in the ass to balance the game, it's better to change one thing than changing 10
Not saying to remove them. Nerf them? Could work, if units where reworked, for example, more health for the Stalker, but shorter blink range, or/and longer cooldown etc. However, like you say, it would need careful and rapid balance patches, and looking how it took Blizzard 5 years to consider Tank damage buff, I wouldn't count on that.
Just pointing out that what has been already built on shaky foundation, is always going to be shaky.
On February 20 2016 01:48 Nazara wrote: Then the problem are the counters to the Tank, not the Tank itself. Blink, Shade, Charge, Bile etc., are all gimmicks. But if you buff Tank to the point where it can handle those gimmicks on its own, then only the gimmicks will be left in the bag of units that are at least somehow efficient vs Tank. And then Blizzard will decide to buff gimmicks, or add gimmicks. Couple of years later, we will see mobacraft, where every unit is a hero with 1-2 active abilities.
That's why some people have started talking about Tanks' range and mobility instead of raw damage output. Tankivac effectively increased Tanks' range, which is why it was such an effective buff even if the gameplay it created wasn't always ideal.
A very similar effect can be reached by bringing tank range up from 13 to... well I won't pretend to know up to how much, but you could start with 16 and see how that works. I think it would make a significant difference vs all their hard counters except Adepts.
+3-5 range, and bring back overkill to punish severe clumping. Definitely worth trying.
These changes are okay on average but I think it's better to reduce the HP of liberator & ravager rather than damage maybe?
Tank damage buff is probably good. If it deals a ton of damage it's okay to have it unable to be lifted. Players would lose a ton of units before reaching it. In the end it's a design choice: Either a bit stronger and pick-up able (removing siege imo) or much much stronger and no pickup. Not sure which one is the best, personally I think no pick-up at all and great damage creates more interesting plays (un-siege is an ability in the game too, don't forget). Early-game tankivac harass will not be missed too much imo, plenty good alternatives like mine drop, lib harass, hellion runby, banshee, hellbat timing..
Not sure about ravager change, i guess it'd be even less useful to make them vs protoss players that eventually go for immortals and archons, or just midgame immortal stalker timings. Shooting down stationary warp prisms would be even more tedious, and ravagers pretty much tickle immo/archon/(well controlled stalkers) as it is. If Bile is nerfed too hard, it would shut down zerg tech options somewhat and force Z into Lurkers. idk how concerned protoss will be about a 45dmg bile compared to a 60 one and how it'd play out ... but I think nerfing ravager HP might be better, if early ZvP/ZvT attacks is the reason. I'm sure terrans would appreciate 360 SCV surrounds being able to kill ravagers somewhat quicker for example :X
On February 20 2016 01:48 Nazara wrote: Then the problem are the counters to the Tank, not the Tank itself. Blink, Shade, Charge, Bile etc., are all gimmicks. But if you buff Tank to the point where it can handle those gimmicks on its own, then only the gimmicks will be left in the bag of units that are at least somehow efficient vs Tank. And then Blizzard will decide to buff gimmicks, or add gimmicks. Couple of years later, we will see mobacraft, where every unit is a hero with 1-2 active abilities.
That's why some people have started talking about Tanks' range and mobility instead of raw damage output. Tankivac effectively increased Tanks' range, which is why it was such an effective buff even if the gameplay it created wasn't always ideal.
A very similar effect can be reached by bringing tank range up from 13 to... well I won't pretend to know up to how much, but you could start with 16 and see how that works. I think it would make a significant difference vs all their hard counters except Adepts.
+3-5 range, and bring back overkill to punish severe clumping. Definitely worth trying.
i like the range buff, it can be done via upgrade i presume, so it make tanks stronger medium-late game when all the hard counter enter in play massively
On February 20 2016 02:06 ivancype wrote: Siege Tank pick up was one of the craziest and coolest ideas Blizzard had for LotV, please dont remove it (at least not entirely).
Some people have suggested being able to pick up tanks in siege mode, but they get dropped in tank mode.
I'm with snute on looking for another solution for the rav and lib. I'm fine with the liberator, and it seems like TvP would be really tough. Rav with 45 damage vs buildings seems rather boring from a playing and spec'ing standpoint. I don't use ravagers much as is, and that would just totally kill it for me. Maybe increasing the morphing time would help for PvZ? I was always surprised by how fast they morph, and plus it doesn't require lair tech.
Mmmm. Tanks. I've been waiting a long time to fulling my fantasy.
#editor #lulz
I think I like all of these changes. Though--and I've been saying this for ages--the Liberator upgrade being on Fusion Core tech is crazy-talk. If you're going to nerf the vast majority of Liberator usage, please at least make the upgrade slightly more accessible. This is going to nerf TvP again.
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.
So the fact that almost every Korean Protoss player goes for double gate into double stargate is "restricts it slightly" in your opinion?
On February 20 2016 03:49 TimeSpiral wrote: Mmmm. Tanks. I've been waiting a long time to fulling my fantasy.
#editor #lulz
I think I like all of these changes. Though--and I've been saying this for ages--the Liberator upgrade being on Fusion Core tech is crazy-talk. If you're going to nerf the vast majority of Liberator usage, please at least make the upgrade slightly more accessible. This is going to nerf TvP again.
Making the upgrade researchable directly at fusion core would help. So you don't have to cut liberator production to get a techlab.
I think Corrosive Bile should deal less damage to structures instead (maybe no damage at all to make it simple). As Snute said it is crucial for fighting against Protoss and as already seen in the balance patch, it is crucial vs Liberators. Yes it's strong vs Tanks, but so many things are strong vs Tanks, which is why I believe you should be able to retreat with them in Medivacs and not drop them in Siege Mode again.
If Corrosive Bile didn't do damage to structures I don't think that it would enable Forge expands, but it would be cool if it did. As in all diversity is good for the game. Banes should be the counter to wallins, not Corrosive Bile. Even Zergs should be able to Spine up and be somewhat safe in ZvZ, this is not achieved by the current change.
On February 20 2016 00:58 Garmer wrote: not with the upgrade of +10 shield which will bring marine to a 55
if the Siege mode were an upgrade then i could see them moving it up to 45+. i'll be surprised if they bump it up to 45+ while still having no upgrade requirement.
i play at about 130 apm and so the first thing i reach for are buffs that require zero micro. so for me that combat shield upgrade is as essential as water and oxygen. so guys like me should really get that shield thing all the time. i'm not so sure that is the case with higher APM play levels though.
I think tanks 1 shotting lings makes total sense....
Marine maybe not.
I just never want to see people picking up tanks in siege mode and boosting them to chase a retreating enemy. That's just... SO NOT what the tank is about...
I'd watch it though with the tank buffs. I played Terran in BW... i had my fair share of tank fun so I get it... But also the tank can always be used with Bio and Liberators. 1/1/1 pushes with super tanks are going to be tough to stop.
On February 20 2016 03:49 TimeSpiral wrote: Mmmm. Tanks. I've been waiting a long time to fulling my fantasy.
#editor #lulz
I think I like all of these changes. Though--and I've been saying this for ages--the Liberator upgrade being on Fusion Core tech is crazy-talk. If you're going to nerf the vast majority of Liberator usage, please at least make the upgrade slightly more accessible. This is going to nerf TvP again.
That would force zerg to go 2 base spire every game.
On February 20 2016 04:32 ejozl wrote: I think Corrosive Bile should deal less damage to structures instead (maybe no damage at all to make it simple). As Snute said it is crucial for fighting against Protoss and as already seen in the balance patch, it is crucial vs Liberators. Yes it's strong vs Tanks, but so many things are strong vs Tanks, which is why I believe you should be able to retreat with them in Medivacs and not drop them in Siege Mode again.
If Corrosive Bile didn't do damage to structures I don't think that it would enable Forge expands, but it would be cool if it did. As in all diversity is good for the game. Banes should be the counter to wallins, not Corrosive Bile. Even Zergs should be able to Spine up and be somewhat safe in ZvZ, this is not achieved by the current change.
It all depends on what exactly Blizzard is comfortable with in terms of bonus damage. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is a reduced damage to x modifier for any unit. For instance, when Blizzard nerfed the old snipe they refashioned it into dealing bonus damage to psionic instead of dealing reduced damage to massive, which was a popular community suggestion. And I don't think there is any unit which deals common bonus damage to structures, similar to how bonus damage to armored/light/bio works. There existed (afaik) two units with special bonus damage to structures in banelings and reapers (with old grenades), but that's about a different choice in targets which triggers a different attack, it's not about the same attack hitting and dealing bonus damage. (though your suggestion of corrosive bile not damaging structures at all could work I guess)
So it might be that bonus damage to bio is Blizzard's only acceptable compromise in nerfing corrosive bile vs structures, and they rationalize it by pointing out the ravager's strength vs protoss. And they might be happy having the ability to target specific match-ups in the future by e.g. changing the bonus damage to bio to +10 or +20 from +15 in the future.
And maybe there is an edict in the SC2 team that you can not have abilities which deal reduced damage to certain targets because 1. players feel like they are punished 2. players will interpret subtraction as addition due to habit and 3. humans are worse at subtraction than addition, since I'm sure this is a piece of player psychology Blizzard is aware of. I don't really know of course, but it's fun to speculate.
I like the liberator nerf. I don't think it was "intended" to be a harassing unit like we see now (as its harassment is pretty boring). It is fine to use units in "uninteded" ways, but right now the liberator seems a little bit too all-purpose, as it is basically never a bad idea to make a liberator. I think a -1 to the ground range will be enough to make liberator harassment a lot less attractive (but still somewhat viable), while still keeping the unit strong as defensive/counter unit.
I'm really on the fence about the tankivac change. I kinda, sorta like seeing tankivac play, but it does basically crush the core identity of the unit. Like other posters have mentioned, maybe it needs a range buff more than a damage buff, if tankivac pick-ups go away. I'll be interested to see how it plays out. Terrans will definitely being doing a lot more 1-1-1 style all ins against protoss if the change goes through (and they might be nearly unstoppable if the liberator range doesn't get nerfed).
It shouldn't be possible for terrans to go mech only, just like it isn't possible for protoss to go robo only. Terrans should have their basic/core units (marines+medivacs) which they supplement with favoured (or situationally necessary) units. This solves many problems, as there's no need for mech AA and no necessity for a hard transition from mech to air, as you have bio to at least half-effectively trade with air and tanks to put pressure on the opponent at the front, while transitioning. With the update, tanks can get to the front faster by medivacs, without engaging unfairly into defenses, since they have to siege first. For this to be viable, MMM shouldn't be AS strong on their own as they are right now and supplementary units should have more impact.
The same holds for protoss, as they aswell produce out of production buildings. Their core unit should be stalker (less so the adepts - they should be a situational/harass unit that trades off well in earlygame), as it can fight against ground and air. It is then supplemented with further tech units.
Due to basically the same unit production method, this matchup is to some degree sort of a mirror matchup, in which it is risky to open with tech, as it can be hardcountered. Against zergs however this is different, as they are not bound to production buildings. As a tradeoff, zergs dont have an early core unit, but can mass-transition easier to put pressure on the oponent later in the game.
Imo this puts the races into perspective and should stop discussions about massive redesigns of certain tech paths.
I have a question, though. Why is it, that an early ravager push is hard to stop and comes with such a low risk? Terrans and protoss can't produce enough air units (or other ravager-countering units) early enough, right? This is the only problem I see currently after this "test update". To avoid this, ravagers should be delayed (eventhough they are a great counter to reapers due to their range) - their damage doesn't need to be reduced. For that cause and to avoid mass ravagers, spamming biles on immobile targets, their supply should be increased.
On February 20 2016 06:18 HardlyNever wrote: I'm really on the fence about the tankivac change. I kinda, sorta like seeing tankivac play, but it does basically crush the core identity of the unit.
The deck seems highly stacked against the siege tank. Smart and self-conscious, it is burdened with expectations by the success of its older brother and lives to disappoint. Ill-suited to the new environment it keeps trying and when it finally does become useful it is accused of selling out and abandoning its core identity. Still we all have a soft spot for it.
On February 20 2016 04:49 DinoMight wrote: I just never want to see people picking up tanks in siege mode and boosting them to chase a retreating enemy. That's just... SO NOT what the tank is about...
as much as i liked Siege Tank hot pickups.. you've got a good point here.
The "siege tank pickup into normal tank mode when dropped" seems like the natural conclusion. Surprised Blizz isn't talking about it.
In any case, if medivacs can't pickup tanks in siege mode, surly phoenix should have the same limitation. They are either bolted to the ground or they are not. I thought this was so weird back in the previous expansion logic-wise.
On February 20 2016 04:49 DinoMight wrote: I just never want to see people picking up tanks in siege mode and boosting them to chase a retreating enemy. That's just... SO NOT what the tank is about...
as much as i liked Siege Tank hot pickups.. you've got a good point here.
Well, Siege Tanks are also really terrible examples of real tanks. It really should be a called something else we are talking about verisimilitude.
On February 20 2016 07:06 quesquecest wrote: The "siege tank pickup into normal tank mode when dropped" seems like the natural conclusion. Surprised Blizz isn't talking about it.
imo, its too convoluted/complicated/awkward.. i would lengthen the time delay for its 1st shot after the Medivac drops it. but really we're splitting hairs here...
i liked the Siege Tank pickup mechanic , but if they just make the Tank a BAMF through buffs i'm happy.
On February 20 2016 06:18 Loccstana wrote: What if they buff the siege tank by giving Terran one of the WoL campaign upgrades?
Maelstrom Rounds Siege tanks do +40 damage to their primary target. Splash damage remains the same.
Maelstrom Rounds have an armor-piercing tip that inflicts devastating damage on the primary target. Splash damage is identical to the standard round.
If siege tanks struck fear into the hearts of our enemies before, they will inspire abject terror when firing the Maelstrom Round.
You cannot buff the tanks with this and don't give them overkill. Can you imagine the mayhem this would create with smart fire? Probably not.
With this, siege tanks will have another type of overkill. If you hit a 35hp ling with a 90 damage attack, you just wasted 60% of the dps of the tank. Now good Terran players will need to target fire their tanks against high hp targets.
On February 20 2016 06:29 CyanApple wrote: Great changes imo.
It shouldn't be possible for terrans to go mech only, just like it isn't possible for protoss to go robo only. Terrans should have their basic/core units (marines+medivacs) which they supplement with favoured (or situationally necessary) units. This solves many problems, as there's no need for mech AA and no necessity for a hard transition from mech to air, as you have bio to at least half-effectively trade with air and tanks to put pressure on the opponent at the front, while transitioning. With the update, tanks can get to the front faster by medivacs, without engaging unfairly into defenses, since they have to siege first. For this to be viable, MMM shouldn't be AS strong on their own as they are right now and supplementary units should have more impact.
The same holds for protoss, as they aswell produce out of production buildings. Their core unit should be stalker (less so the adepts - they should be a situational/harass unit that trades off well in earlygame), as it can fight against ground and air. It is then supplemented with further tech units.
Due to basically the same unit production method, this matchup is to some degree sort of a mirror matchup, in which it is risky to open with tech, as it can be hardcountered. Against zergs however this is different, as they are not bound to production buildings. As a tradeoff, zergs dont have an early core unit, but can mass-transition easier to put pressure on the oponent later in the game.
Imo this puts the races into perspective and should stop discussions about massive redesigns of certain tech paths.
I have a question, though. Why is it, that an early ravager push is hard to stop and comes with such a low risk? Terrans and protoss can't produce enough air units (or other ravager-countering units) early enough, right? This is the only problem I see currently after this "test update". To avoid this, ravagers should be delayed (eventhough they are a great counter to reapers due to their range) - their damage doesn't need to be reduced. For that cause and to avoid mass ravagers, spamming biles on immobile targets, their supply should be increased.
Mech play come from the community who love play mech in brood war and they want it back.Even blizzard accepted and also fucked up as usual... There is nothing to do about logic. That all.
These are some quality changes, looks like they are going in the right direction with some core units and how they operate. I am a fan of the changes made to the Siege Tank. It would start to work like the Siege Tank we all want!
On February 19 2016 04:35 pure.Wasted wrote: Siege tank buff is nowhere near enough to mitigate the loss of pickup entirely. Nowhere near.
Look at their example. "Ravagers will take 3 shots to kill down from 4."
3 shots down from 4? In what universe does that make a difference? Terrans don't have 3 Siege tanks out by the time Ravagers hit, and if they did, at least some of those attacks are going to be wasted on Roaches anyway. Except now Tanks can't be evacuated by Medivac, so they don't survive the first one/two volleys regardless. Only place where this matters is the unit tester.
The buff vs Roaches is actually a way bigger deal, although they're playing it down, because it means less cleanup left for the Bio once the tanks are dead.
re: "we wonder if it's good to help Tank vs Protoss because Tanks are not good vs Protoss."
Can someone translate this for me? Are they trying to say that it simply won't change anything? And implying that that's perfectly fine?
I just can't see this siege tank change making it through in current form.
On February 20 2016 06:18 Loccstana wrote: What if they buff the siege tank by giving Terran one of the WoL campaign upgrades?
Maelstrom Rounds Siege tanks do +40 damage to their primary target. Splash damage remains the same.
Maelstrom Rounds have an armor-piercing tip that inflicts devastating damage on the primary target. Splash damage is identical to the standard round.
If siege tanks struck fear into the hearts of our enemies before, they will inspire abject terror when firing the Maelstrom Round.
You cannot buff the tanks with this and don't give them overkill. Can you imagine the mayhem this would create with smart fire? Probably not.
With this, siege tanks will have another type of overkill. If you hit a 35hp ling with a 90 damage attack, you just wasted 60% of the dps of the tank. Now good Terran players will need to target fire their tanks against high hp targets.
No, they won't, because tanks would be crazy OP with that kind of damage. There is hardly any need to target fire now, why would there be such a need if tanks did even more damage? That simply makes zero sense.
I wonder, do some people want to win w/o breaking a sweat or why do such nonsensical suggestions keep being made?
re: "we wonder if it's good to help Tank vs Protoss because Tanks are not good vs Protoss."
Can someone translate this for me? Are they trying to say that it simply won't change anything? And implying that that's perfectly fine?
They're saying that the damage changes probably affect protoss the most but that's fine because TvP doesn't see a lot of tank usage and tanks have historically done poorly in the matchup (being used a lot more in tvt and tvz while considered too bad to use against protoss)
On February 20 2016 06:18 Loccstana wrote: What if they buff the siege tank by giving Terran one of the WoL campaign upgrades?
Maelstrom Rounds Siege tanks do +40 damage to their primary target. Splash damage remains the same.
Maelstrom Rounds have an armor-piercing tip that inflicts devastating damage on the primary target. Splash damage is identical to the standard round.
If siege tanks struck fear into the hearts of our enemies before, they will inspire abject terror when firing the Maelstrom Round.
You cannot buff the tanks with this and don't give them overkill. Can you imagine the mayhem this would create with smart fire? Probably not.
With this, siege tanks will have another type of overkill. If you hit a 35hp ling with a 90 damage attack, you just wasted 60% of the dps of the tank. Now good Terran players will need to target fire their tanks against high hp targets.
No, they won't, because tanks would be crazy OP with that kind of damage. There is hardly any need to target fire now, why would there be such a need if tanks did even more damage? That simply makes zero sense.
I wonder, do some people want to win w/o breaking a sweat or why do such nonsensical suggestions keep being made?
Because it only buffs the primary target? You know the ONE unit the tank is targeting, repeating ONE, no extra damage the splash.
Tanks should be left alone like they are right now. ANY tweak is gonna take a HUGE amount of time AND REBALANCING ACROSS ALL 3 RACES to make it work (even unsiege after pickup is gonna screw up most timings/terran pressure/most pushes against zerg)
If blizzard wants mech they should look at another direction
(Im a terran and i love the siege pick up micro in tvz specially)
On February 20 2016 06:18 Loccstana wrote: What if they buff the siege tank by giving Terran one of the WoL campaign upgrades?
Maelstrom Rounds Siege tanks do +40 damage to their primary target. Splash damage remains the same.
Maelstrom Rounds have an armor-piercing tip that inflicts devastating damage on the primary target. Splash damage is identical to the standard round.
If siege tanks struck fear into the hearts of our enemies before, they will inspire abject terror when firing the Maelstrom Round.
I've messed around with a mod with that in it. I did two games where I turtled HARD and it really didn't change much at all. Then I did 4 or so games where I was more aggressive and actually attacked with just a handful (5-7) tanks. +40 might be a bit much though.
(Zerg player perspective here) First, I don't think tank pick up should be removed entirely, it should be made an upgrade imo. The only real problem with it right now is that it comes out faster than any reasonable anti-air option. Making it an upgrade makes sense because it will slow it down and also, since tank gets siege mode for free, it gives tanks an essential upgrade again.
Second, I'm a little concerned about the Ravager nerf if only because it makes the Ravager significantly weaker in what I thought was it's original role (siege breaker). I mean, Ravager already lost its range upgrade simply because it was too strong at siege breaking but now I'm predicting it will suck completely vs siege units.
On February 20 2016 13:24 Sif_ wrote: Tanks should be left alone like they are right now. ANY tweak is gonna take a HUGE amount of time AND REBALANCING ACROSS ALL 3 RACES to make it work (even unsiege after pickup is gonna screw up most timings/terran pressure/most pushes against zerg)
If blizzard wants mech they should look at another direction
(Im a terran and i love the siege pick up micro in tvz specially)
Your stance takes for granted the assumption that SC2 is really really close to perfect as it is. Would you be surprised to learn that "rebalancing across all 3 races" is something that a lot of people actively, explicitly, expressly desire?
On February 20 2016 06:29 CyanApple wrote: Great changes imo.
It shouldn't be possible for terrans to go mech only, just like it isn't possible for protoss to go robo only. Terrans should have their basic/core units (marines+medivacs) which they supplement with favoured (or situationally necessary) units. This solves many problems, as there's no need for mech AA and no necessity for a hard transition from mech to air, as you have bio to at least half-effectively trade with air and tanks to put pressure on the opponent at the front, while transitioning. With the update, tanks can get to the front faster by medivacs, without engaging unfairly into defenses, since they have to siege first. For this to be viable, MMM shouldn't be AS strong on their own as they are right now and supplementary units should have more impact.
The same holds for protoss, as they aswell produce out of production buildings. Their core unit should be stalker (less so the adepts - they should be a situational/harass unit that trades off well in earlygame), as it can fight against ground and air. It is then supplemented with further tech units.
Due to basically the same unit production method, this matchup is to some degree sort of a mirror matchup, in which it is risky to open with tech, as it can be hardcountered. Against zergs however this is different, as they are not bound to production buildings. As a tradeoff, zergs dont have an early core unit, but can mass-transition easier to put pressure on the oponent later in the game.
Imo this puts the races into perspective and should stop discussions about massive redesigns of certain tech paths.
I have a question, though. Why is it, that an early ravager push is hard to stop and comes with such a low risk? Terrans and protoss can't produce enough air units (or other ravager-countering units) early enough, right? This is the only problem I see currently after this "test update". To avoid this, ravagers should be delayed (eventhough they are a great counter to reapers due to their range) - their damage doesn't need to be reduced. For that cause and to avoid mass ravagers, spamming biles on immobile targets, their supply should be increased.
Whenever I see a comment like this I want to shoot myself. Stop this stupid argument. If Terran should be played like Protoss then.. we could just play Protoss. Its Iconic to the Terran race to have two Tech paths. Really just stop it with "I can´t go only Zerglings/Robo so Terrans shouldn´t be able too".
Firstly, lets get one thing straight. Terran has never, ever, relied on a single production facility to win the game short of cheesing or 2010 WoL. We always have support from our other two production facilities. Medivacs and Vikings in HotS and WoL, and now Liberators as well (from the Starport). Tanks and Widow Mine support from the Factory in WoL and HotS respectively.
Our CORE units are dependant purely on what tech path we have chosen. Mech is factory based with starport support, while Bio is barracks based with starport, and often factory support too. Note that this doesn't make it BioMech, rather Bio with support.
Secondly, different races have different needs. Terran cannot simply mix our units together like protoss can due to:
A) Upgrades: Expensive, and all the more so when you consider that you have to do two sets of ground upgrades.
B) Production: both the slowest production and also extremely expensive to make. This is part of the reason why Terran sticks to either Bio, or Mech.
C) Playstyle: Bio is squishy. Little to no splash except for what is provided by W/M or Tank support. Relies on mobility and is heavily micro intensive, especially in order to get the most out of your units. High DPS low damage units. Extremely vulnerable to splash damage, including friendly fire.
Mech by contrast is slow, immobile and tanky. Theyre designed to hold positions and be very positional when engaging the enemy army. Lots of power but low DPS, Mech relies on the strength of its Burst damage to win fights. Also will inflict splash damage if used to close to your own army.
Ultimately, Mech and bio don't play nice with each other. They completely lack any synergy, few support units being the exception.
On February 20 2016 15:53 vRadiatioNv wrote: (Zerg player perspective here) First, I don't think tank pick up should be removed entirely, it should be made an upgrade imo. The only real problem with it right now is that it comes out faster than any reasonable anti-air option. Making it an upgrade makes sense because it will slow it down and also, since tank gets siege mode for free, it gives tanks an essential upgrade again.
Second, I'm a little concerned about the Ravager nerf if only because it makes the Ravager significantly weaker in what I thought was it's original role (siege breaker). I mean, Ravager already lost its range upgrade simply because it was too strong at siege breaking but now I'm predicting it will suck completely vs siege units.
Thats an interesting Idea, I'd be curious to see how games would play out if siege pickup was an upgrade.
Or even the Maelstrom round as an upgrade (damage can be adjusted). The Maelstrom round would be a nice answer to Ultras.
Wonder if anything will change with the Thor and Swarm host, 2 units rarely seen nowadays, especially the latter.
On February 20 2016 13:24 Sif_ wrote: Tanks should be left alone like they are right now. ANY tweak is gonna take a HUGE amount of time AND REBALANCING ACROSS ALL 3 RACES to make it work (even unsiege after pickup is gonna screw up most timings/terran pressure/most pushes against zerg)
If blizzard wants mech they should look at another direction
(Im a terran and i love the siege pick up micro in tvz specially)
Your stance takes for granted the assumption that SC2 is really really close to perfect as it is. Would you be surprised to learn that "rebalancing across all 3 races" is something that a lot of people actively, explicitly, expressly desire?
Sure, just fire up a beta then. Theres no point in screwing the game for the future year doing this right now.
Remove siege tank pickup? Have they lost their mind? It can hardly be overstated how exciting the siege tank pickup made every terran matchup. Let them move their stuff around! Did we really like a mech terran sitting on 3 bases for 30 minutes in HotS that much?
They should try increase the damage of the Siege Tank to 45 (60 vs armored) instead of 40 (60 vs armored) so the tank gets more effective against non-armored units like Archons, Zealots and Ravagers where it currently struggles.
But it is a good idea and I have waited for this a long time!
The problem with 45(60) damage is that it would oneshot all marines in the primary splash area and twoshot them in the secondary area at sane upgrade levels
right now it takes 2 hits in the primary area, 3 in the secondary
----
For performance against those units, i'm much more a fan of the maelstrom rounds type of option. That's a big buff against archons, ravagers, ultralisks - that sort of thing - without changing their interactions with many of the low health units like marines very much.
You'll (with maelstrom rounds) now one-shot that one particular marine that you targetted - which isn't a big deal, since most of the damage output was probably via splash both before and after the upgrade.
On February 20 2016 20:46 MJesk wrote: Remove siege tank pickup? Have they lost their mind? It can hardly be overstated how exciting the siege tank pickup made every terran matchup. Let them move their stuff around! Did we really like a mech terran sitting on 3 bases for 30 minutes in HotS that much?
You mean the same boring shit every single game which completely negates the whole point of the siege tank? They made it a tempest where you need to click more.
On February 20 2016 20:51 _Croc wrote: They should try increase the damage of the Siege Tank to 45 (60 vs armored) instead of 40 (60 vs armored) so the tank gets more effective against non-armored units like Archons, Zealots and Ravagers where it currently struggles.
But it is a good idea and I have waited for this a long time!
Then it one-shots stimmed marine/pre-combat marines. Bio would be pretty dead I guess.
The mealstrom rounds with +25 as you say (or main target +50% damage as I have suggested in the past) are by far the most workable idea in my opinion. It would also one-shot a single marine on every shot but bio vs tanks still felt OK in my tests. More importantly, it grants the tank decent dps when attacking bigger/higher health targets. 17.5 dps against beefy units like zealots, adepts or archons is always going to be unimpressive, even the 25 dps vs armored aren't all that scary against big armored targets like Immortals, Colossi or Ultralisks and Thors and that's not really going to change too much by adding 15% overall damage, while the effect against tightly packed units like marines, marauders, stalkers, hellions/hellbats, hydralisks or roaches - the units against which tanks are useful anyways because you splash multiple ones of them, often multiple ones in the 100% damage area - might already be too much.
On February 20 2016 21:07 Cyro wrote: The problem with 45(60) damage is that it would oneshot all marines in the primary splash area and twoshot them in the secondary area at sane upgrade levels
right now it takes 2 hits in the primary area, 3 in the secondary
----
For performance against those units, i'm much more a fan of the maelstrom rounds type of option. That's a big buff against archons, ravagers, ultralisks - that sort of thing - without changing their interactions with many of the low health units like marines very much.
You'll (with maelstrom rounds) now one-shot that one particular marine that you targetted - which isn't a big deal, since most of the damage output was probably via splash both before and after the upgrade.
is it a problem if it one shot marine? why marine should be strong against tanks? that's is the job of marauders not marine
and especially why bio should be available in every match up when mach is not? is really so bad if tvt becomes only mech vs mech
On February 20 2016 20:46 MJesk wrote: Remove siege tank pickup? Have they lost their mind? It can hardly be overstated how exciting the siege tank pickup made every terran matchup. Let them move their stuff around! Did we really like a mech terran sitting on 3 bases for 30 minutes in HotS that much?
On February 20 2016 20:46 MJesk wrote: Remove siege tank pickup? Have they lost their mind? It can hardly be overstated how exciting the siege tank pickup made every terran matchup. Let them move their stuff around! Did we really like a mech terran sitting on 3 bases for 30 minutes in HotS that much?
You mean the same boring shit every single game which completely negates the whole point of the siege tank? They made it a tempest where you need to click more.
Yeah let's get rid of that awful micro... It's boring.
siege tanks are one of the -least- attractive units for that type of micro. Their strengths from unit design should focus on space control, immobility, timing pushes etc.
seriously i can't see how you can win TvT in bio vs mech with this patch . People overestimate how strong bio is vs mech currently its obviously better but put those change and TvT will be Avilo paradise
Depends on the map... On dusk towers, yeah. On orbital shipyard, good luck making mech work.
Overall, maps are awefull right now. Blizzderp would rather add stupid rocks and stuff instead of changing the mappool, but when we get decent maps all the balacing done meanwhile may be pointless.
But I'm all for more open maps in exchange for strong positionnal units ! And this patch would go in the right direction.
On February 20 2016 06:18 Loccstana wrote: What if they buff the siege tank by giving Terran one of the WoL campaign upgrades?
Maelstrom Rounds Siege tanks do +40 damage to their primary target. Splash damage remains the same.
Maelstrom Rounds have an armor-piercing tip that inflicts devastating damage on the primary target. Splash damage is identical to the standard round.
If siege tanks struck fear into the hearts of our enemies before, they will inspire abject terror when firing the Maelstrom Round.
You cannot buff the tanks with this and don't give them overkill. Can you imagine the mayhem this would create with smart fire? Probably not.
With this, siege tanks will have another type of overkill. If you hit a 35hp ling with a 90 damage attack, you just wasted 60% of the dps of the tank. Now good Terran players will need to target fire their tanks against high hp targets.
No, they won't, because tanks would be crazy OP with that kind of damage. There is hardly any need to target fire now, why would there be such a need if tanks did even more damage? That simply makes zero sense.
I wonder, do some people want to win w/o breaking a sweat or why do such nonsensical suggestions keep being made?
Because it only buffs the primary target? You know the ONE unit the tank is targeting, repeating ONE, no extra damage the splash.
You lack some reading comprehension.
My reading comprehension is fine, thank you very much. You wanting terran to be easy mode is not fine, however.
Tanks will probably still not work against protoss even with this damage buff. They'll probably be used only for timing attacks. Do you know why? Because Brood War had spider mines to slow protoss down and to prevent 1a. You have widow mines in sc2, but it's not the same. They cost supply and you have to build them from factory which means less tanks/hellions. So, I don't expect this patch to make mech PvT possible. It'll be bio/tanks at most.
On February 21 2016 00:36 Shield wrote: Tanks will probably still not work against protoss even with this damage buff. They'll probably be used only for timing attacks. Do you know why? Because Brood War had spider mines to slow protoss down and to prevent 1a. You have widow mines in sc2, but it's not the same. They cost supply and you have to build them from factory which means less tanks/hellions. So, I don't expect this patch to make mech PvT possible. It'll be bio/tanks at most.
The thing is, bio was not nearly as viable in TvP in BW. It was only used as part of cheesy builds and all-ins. If the tank was as strong in LotV as it was in BW, bio+tank would be unstoppable.
On February 20 2016 20:46 MJesk wrote: Remove siege tank pickup? Have they lost their mind? It can hardly be overstated how exciting the siege tank pickup made every terran matchup. Let them move their stuff around! Did we really like a mech terran sitting on 3 bases for 30 minutes in HotS that much?
Can't emphasize this enough.
Take tankevac away and you are talking borderline game killer imo.
Does no one remember the end of HOTS?? I wouldn't be surprised if no one did - because no one was watching.
50 min long tvt where turtle mass raven/viking and see who can hold out and not attack longer ftw...
Also tvz was almost as bad - every game was mech (which it will become again) and u got to see the terran turtle for 45 min while the zerg took the whole map - hour long game end in one big engage that only happened when one of the players lost their mind with boredom..
Even at mid masters level - this made me stop playing and watching hots.
Isn't the whole point of starting with more workers and less minerals trying to increase view-ability and game speed / action?
This is going to reverse 100% of that in all terran matchups (except maybe tvp) - please guys - think about it.
On February 20 2016 20:46 MJesk wrote: Remove siege tank pickup? Have they lost their mind? It can hardly be overstated how exciting the siege tank pickup made every terran matchup. Let them move their stuff around! Did we really like a mech terran sitting on 3 bases for 30 minutes in HotS that much?
Can't emphasize this enough.
Take tankevac away and you are talking borderline game killer imo.
Does no one remember the end of HOTS?? I wouldn't be surprised if no one did - because no one was watching.
50 min long tvt where turtle mass raven/viking and see who can hold out and not attack longer ftw...
Also tvz was almost as bad - every game was mech (which it will become again) and u got to see the terran turtle for 45 min while the zerg took the whole map - hour long game end in one big engage that only happened when one of the players lost their mind with boredom..
Even at mid masters level - this made me stop playing and watching hots.
Isn't the whole point of starting with more workers and less minerals trying to increase view-ability and game speed / action?
This is going to reverse 100% of that in all terran matchups (except maybe tvp) - please guys - think about it.
How it looks like: medivac cannot pick up sieged tanks. How it feels like: siege mode damage is reduced to 10.
Come on, terran's medivac drops were already very effective. This will mainly affect TvT.
On February 20 2016 20:46 MJesk wrote: Remove siege tank pickup? Have they lost their mind? It can hardly be overstated how exciting the siege tank pickup made every terran matchup. Let them move their stuff around! Did we really like a mech terran sitting on 3 bases for 30 minutes in HotS that much?
Can't emphasize this enough.
Take tankevac away and you are talking borderline game killer imo.
Does no one remember the end of HOTS?? I wouldn't be surprised if no one did - because no one was watching.
50 min long tvt where turtle mass raven/viking and see who can hold out and not attack longer ftw...
Also tvz was almost as bad - every game was mech (which it will become again) and u got to see the terran turtle for 45 min while the zerg took the whole map - hour long game end in one big engage that only happened when one of the players lost their mind with boredom..
Even at mid masters level - this made me stop playing and watching hots.
Isn't the whole point of starting with more workers and less minerals trying to increase view-ability and game speed / action?
This is going to reverse 100% of that in all terran matchups (except maybe tvp) - please guys - think about it.
I think you guys are right regarding long, boring turtlefest games. But on the other hand, I find being able to DROP sieged tanks extremely dumb. In fact I find that to be the dumbest idea ever implemented in an RTS game. It contradicts every aspect of a siege unit.
If these changes turn out to make terrans unable to hold certain timings/all-ins, I would be ok with introducing siege tank pickup, but without the ability to drop them in siege mode.
On February 20 2016 06:29 CyanApple wrote: Great changes imo.
It shouldn't be possible for terrans to go mech only, just like it isn't possible for protoss to go robo only. Terrans should have their basic/core units (marines+medivacs) which they supplement with favoured (or situationally necessary) units.
It's alot easier to go robo + gates than factory + barracks. It's rather dishonest to try and argue that, considering that robo + gate has a single upgrade path, whereas factory + barracks has two. You can't just sprinkle 0-0 units into your army, not if you want to do something with them. Especially not marines.
So i assume now that you're advocating either: putting mech attack/armor and bio attack/armor into one upgrade, so you only have the two paths of air attack/armor and ground attack/armor (just like protoss), or that protoss should also have to upgrade robo decoupled from warpgate.
On February 20 2016 15:53 vRadiatioNv wrote: (Zerg player perspective here) First, I don't think tank pick up should be removed entirely, it should be made an upgrade imo. The only real problem with it right now is that it comes out faster than any reasonable anti-air option. Making it an upgrade makes sense because it will slow it down and also, since tank gets siege mode for free, it gives tanks an essential upgrade again.
Second, I'm a little concerned about the Ravager nerf if only because it makes the Ravager significantly weaker in what I thought was it's original role (siege breaker). I mean, Ravager already lost its range upgrade simply because it was too strong at siege breaking but now I'm predicting it will suck completely vs siege units.
uhh what?
pretty sure I had ravagers at my base at 3:30 into the game yesterday..
you got any bright ideas about how that's going to be hold-able without being able to move the tank?
On February 20 2016 06:29 CyanApple wrote: Great changes imo.
It shouldn't be possible for terrans to go mech only, just like it isn't possible for protoss to go robo only. Terrans should have their basic/core units (marines+medivacs) which they supplement with favoured (or situationally necessary) units.
It's alot easier to go robo + gates than factory + barracks. It's rather dishonest to try and argue that, considering that robo + gate has a single upgrade path, whereas factory + barracks has two. You can't just sprinkle 0-0 units into your army, not if you want to do something with them. Especially not marines.
So i assume now that you're advocating either: putting mech attack/armor and bio attack/armor back into one upgrade, so you only have the two paths of air attack/armor and ground attack/armor (just like protoss), or that protoss should also have to upgrade robo decoupled from warpgate.
Did i read that right?
You forgot that Protoss units have 3 upgrades and that shields are among the most expensive upgrades in the game. Also compare the cost of stim, CS and combat shields to that of charge, blink and resonating glaives.
On February 20 2016 20:46 MJesk wrote: Remove siege tank pickup? Have they lost their mind? It can hardly be overstated how exciting the siege tank pickup made every terran matchup. Let them move their stuff around! Did we really like a mech terran sitting on 3 bases for 30 minutes in HotS that much?
Can't emphasize this enough.
Take tankevac away and you are talking borderline game killer imo.
Does no one remember the end of HOTS?? I wouldn't be surprised if no one did - because no one was watching.
50 min long tvt where turtle mass raven/viking and see who can hold out and not attack longer ftw...
Also tvz was almost as bad - every game was mech (which it will become again) and u got to see the terran turtle for 45 min while the zerg took the whole map - hour long game end in one big engage that only happened when one of the players lost their mind with boredom..
Even at mid masters level - this made me stop playing and watching hots.
Isn't the whole point of starting with more workers and less minerals trying to increase view-ability and game speed / action?
This is going to reverse 100% of that in all terran matchups (except maybe tvp) - please guys - think about it.
How it looks like: medivac cannot pick up sieged tanks. How it feels like: siege mode damage is reduced to 10.
Come on, terran's medivac drops were already very effective. This will mainly affect TvT.
It will definitely affect TvT - in a horrendous unbearable way (avilo heaven!)
But it will absolutely affect TvZ as well - their are multiple pushes that you 100% need tankivac to hold. Basically any ravager or nydus push before the 6 min mark you will not have enough bio and bile makes the bunkers become moot. Liberators are only good bc you can zone the ravagers with tanks - without that you are gonna get fucked. I think its hilarious that they are talking about changing it because of TvT though.. a matchup that actually can't be imbalanced.. lets make it a turtle fest and fuck up tvz (I don't think it will be too awful tvp except vs some of the early shenan but not too sure about it)
It's alot easier to go robo + gates than factory + barracks. It's rather dishonest to try and argue that, considering that robo + gate has a single upgrade path, whereas factory + barracks has two. You can't just sprinkle 0-0 units into your army, not if you want to do something with them. Especially not marines.
Widow Mines, Cyclones, Tanks don't rely on upgrades nearly as much as units like marines. You can easily - and have done in the past - play a comp like marine tank while upgrading only the marines for a while.
seriously if whats bothering you guys that SIEGE TANKS shouldnt be mobile just rename the unit to COOL TANKS or whatever...i dont mind it being "dumb design" or something along those lines, its fun to watch/play (except to play in tvt lategame) and taking it away would mess with the whole game
On February 21 2016 01:44 Sif_ wrote: seriously if whats bothering you guys that SIEGE TANKS shouldnt be mobile just rename the unit to COOL TANKS or whatever...i dont mind it being "dumb design" or something along those lines, its fun to watch/play (except to play in tvt lategame) and taking it away would mess with the whole game
Except it's not fun to watch or play - especially not play against - for everyone. For me it's as much fun as Colossus deathballs of the past. The same things that make the Colossus a bad and boring unit (siege range paired with mobility) also make Tankivacs bad and boring.
So what i'm getting from this is you nerf ravagers for zvp, that has an effect in all match ups and buff tanks insanely for TvT but not taking into account how they would affect roaches? smh gg
Remove tankivac.... I'll just switch to toss, seriously why? It is the best part of LotV for Terran players. If a Thor can be lifted so should a freaking tank.
There's plenty of room for mobile, microable terran units - just not on the Siege Tank. You can't weaken a unit whose core identity is to be immobile but strong in order for it to be balanced while mobile.
On February 21 2016 01:44 Sif_ wrote: seriously if whats bothering you guys that SIEGE TANKS shouldnt be mobile just rename the unit to COOL TANKS or whatever...i dont mind it being "dumb design" or something along those lines, its fun to watch/play (except to play in tvt lategame) and taking it away would mess with the whole game
Except it's not fun to watch or play - especially not play against - for everyone. For me it's as much fun as Colossus deathballs of the past. The same things that make the Colossus a bad and boring unit (siege range paired with mobility) also make Tankivacs bad and boring.
This is dishonest since Toss had tankivacs in BW that dealt 100 flat damage--and people were fine.
On February 21 2016 03:07 BLAiNER wrote: So what i'm getting from this is you nerf ravagers for zvp, that has an effect in all match ups and buff tanks insanely for TvT but not taking into account how they would affect roaches? smh gg
I already did the math. It takes the same number of shots to kill roaches.
On February 20 2016 06:29 CyanApple wrote: Great changes imo.
It shouldn't be possible for terrans to go mech only, just like it isn't possible for protoss to go robo only. Terrans should have their basic/core units (marines+medivacs) which they supplement with favoured (or situationally necessary) units.
It's alot easier to go robo + gates than factory + barracks. It's rather dishonest to try and argue that, considering that robo + gate has a single upgrade path, whereas factory + barracks has two. You can't just sprinkle 0-0 units into your army, not if you want to do something with them. Especially not marines.
So i assume now that you're advocating either: putting mech attack/armor and bio attack/armor into one upgrade, so you only have the two paths of air attack/armor and ground attack/armor (just like protoss), or that protoss should also have to upgrade robo decoupled from warpgate.
Did i read that right?
Yes, I would recommend combining those upgrades. Also I thought of something like a mobility vs damage tech path, but didn't want to take my comment too far. Ty for reading good intentions in it.
Btw I didn't mean to say that terran has to be designed the same way protoss is, but I saw their common ground in terms of unit production and came to the conclusion that having core units around which the army is built makes more sense, than having 2 or even 3 tech paths that are self-sufficient, i.e. every tech path has equally good AA and AG units.
On February 20 2016 13:24 Sif_ wrote: Tanks should be left alone like they are right now. ANY tweak is gonna take a HUGE amount of time AND REBALANCING ACROSS ALL 3 RACES to make it work (even unsiege after pickup is gonna screw up most timings/terran pressure/most pushes against zerg)
If blizzard wants mech they should look at another direction
(Im a terran and i love the siege pick up micro in tvz specially)
Your stance takes for granted the assumption that SC2 is really really close to perfect as it is. Would you be surprised to learn that "rebalancing across all 3 races" is something that a lot of people actively, explicitly, expressly desire?
Sure, just fire up a beta then. Theres no point in screwing the game for the future year doing this right now.
Good thing that we have a PTR for testing changes before they impact the game, then. Just like a beta.
Edit: that's ignoring the fact that LOTV was launched prematurely and is basically in a beta right now, in all but name.
Your position basically boils down to "so what if the game is only ok, or actually shit? We're stuck with it." I wouldn't agree with that even if there was no PTR.
On February 21 2016 01:44 Sif_ wrote: seriously if whats bothering you guys that SIEGE TANKS shouldnt be mobile just rename the unit to COOL TANKS or whatever...i dont mind it being "dumb design" or something along those lines, its fun to watch/play (except to play in tvt lategame) and taking it away would mess with the whole game
Except it's not fun to watch or play - especially not play against - for everyone. For me it's as much fun as Colossus deathballs of the past. The same things that make the Colossus a bad and boring unit (siege range paired with mobility) also make Tankivacs bad and boring.
This is dishonest since Toss had tankivacs in BW that dealt 100 flat damage--and people were fine.
Yep, in BW. A game with a lot less unit clumping and rather odd pathing. A good percentage of the shots did no damage. And let's not forget that every shot cost minerals and that you needed highest tech to research shuttle speed, whereas medivacs have boost right away.
Also tvz was almost as bad - every game was mech (which it will become again) and u got to see the terran turtle for 45 min while the zerg took the whole map - hour long game end in one big engage that only happened when one of the players lost their mind with boredom..
I hate posts like this. You're ignoring the reason behind this.
It was like this, because where the tank was so bad and the swarm host so broken there was literally no other option but to turtle.
Also tvz was almost as bad - every game was mech (which it will become again) and u got to see the terran turtle for 45 min while the zerg took the whole map - hour long game end in one big engage that only happened when one of the players lost their mind with boredom..
I hate posts like this. You're ignoring the reason behind this.
It was like this, because where the tank was so bad and the swarm host so broken there was literally no other option but to turtle.
That was also because Zerg had no way to break a meching Terran and had to Rely on the swarmhost against a decent meching Terran...
Also tvz was almost as bad - every game was mech (which it will become again) and u got to see the terran turtle for 45 min while the zerg took the whole map - hour long game end in one big engage that only happened when one of the players lost their mind with boredom..
I hate posts like this. You're ignoring the reason behind this.
It was like this, because where the tank was so bad and the swarm host so broken there was literally no other option but to turtle.
It's the other way around, you had way more turtle mech once the SwarmHost had been removed from the game, because it was a guaranteed win if you remained patience. I never bought this argument of terran turtling with tank only because it's too weak, as long as it is the best option they'll keep doing it. Even if it is only viable some will play like this as it is an easy way to play the game, even if the tanks is buffed so much it allow you to move out (which will make bio/tank absolutely broken by the way).
On February 21 2016 06:45 PressureSC2 wrote: So many great changes in this balance map, as supported by these polls. I can't wait for the return of TvT.
I don't think I've ever seen every change get overwhelming support before. David Kim is definitely starting to understand what the community wants.
Also tvz was almost as bad - every game was mech (which it will become again) and u got to see the terran turtle for 45 min while the zerg took the whole map - hour long game end in one big engage that only happened when one of the players lost their mind with boredom..
I hate posts like this. You're ignoring the reason behind this.
It was like this, because where the tank was so bad and the swarm host so broken there was literally no other option but to turtle.
It's the other way around, you had way more turtle mech once the SwarmHost had been removed from the game, because it was a guaranteed win if you remained patience. I never bought this argument of terran turtling with tank only because it's too weak, as long as it is the best option they'll keep doing it. Even if it is only viable some will play like this as it is an easy way to play the game, even if the tanks is buffed so much it allow you to move out (which will make bio/tank absolutely broken by the way).
Tanks where shit in HotS, you turtled because mass BC/raven/viking was strong not because siege tanks was.
If you see the super long turtle mech games the final composition was always more about the mass air and less about the tanks.
i was thinking about cutting the damage to flat 30 (1/2), and reducing cooldown to 2/3 as of now. it would result in 3/4 dps, a bit more responsive bile attack (less counterplay/micro). less damage on static units/defenses, but more consistent shots on slow moving units. a bit better against slow air, maybe.
Also tvz was almost as bad - every game was mech (which it will become again) and u got to see the terran turtle for 45 min while the zerg took the whole map - hour long game end in one big engage that only happened when one of the players lost their mind with boredom..
I hate posts like this. You're ignoring the reason behind this.
It was like this, because where the tank was so bad and the swarm host so broken there was literally no other option but to turtle.
That was also because Zerg had no way to break a meching Terran and had to Rely on the swarmhost against a decent meching Terran...
The period of hots after the sh change clearly demonstrated this wasn't true.
Also tvz was almost as bad - every game was mech (which it will become again) and u got to see the terran turtle for 45 min while the zerg took the whole map - hour long game end in one big engage that only happened when one of the players lost their mind with boredom..
I hate posts like this. You're ignoring the reason behind this.
It was like this, because where the tank was so bad and the swarm host so broken there was literally no other option but to turtle.
After the SH change Terrans meched even more often.. The last few months of HotS TvZ were turtle mech into slow push majority of the time. Pretty much everyone hated it. Especially Zergs I imagine
On February 21 2016 01:44 Sif_ wrote: seriously if whats bothering you guys that SIEGE TANKS shouldnt be mobile just rename the unit to COOL TANKS or whatever...i dont mind it being "dumb design" or something along those lines, its fun to watch/play (except to play in tvt lategame) and taking it away would mess with the whole game
Except it's not fun to watch or play - especially not play against - for everyone. For me it's as much fun as Colossus deathballs of the past. The same things that make the Colossus a bad and boring unit (siege range paired with mobility) also make Tankivacs bad and boring.
This is dishonest since Toss had tankivacs in BW that dealt 100 flat damage--and people were fine.
Yep, in BW. A game with a lot less unit clumping and rather odd pathing. A good percentage of the shots did no damage. And let's not forget that every shot cost minerals and that you needed highest tech to research shuttle speed, whereas medivacs have boost right away.
If you're arguing that you perceive it to be harder that's one thing. But the strategy was EXACTLY the same. People were perfectly fine with a mobile long range aoe unit killing 5-6 units at a time. Siege Tank doesn't even kill that many lings at a time.
On February 21 2016 01:44 Sif_ wrote: seriously if whats bothering you guys that SIEGE TANKS shouldnt be mobile just rename the unit to COOL TANKS or whatever...i dont mind it being "dumb design" or something along those lines, its fun to watch/play (except to play in tvt lategame) and taking it away would mess with the whole game
Except it's not fun to watch or play - especially not play against - for everyone. For me it's as much fun as Colossus deathballs of the past. The same things that make the Colossus a bad and boring unit (siege range paired with mobility) also make Tankivacs bad and boring.
This is dishonest since Toss had tankivacs in BW that dealt 100 flat damage--and people were fine.
Yep, in BW. A game with a lot less unit clumping and rather odd pathing. A good percentage of the shots did no damage. And let's not forget that every shot cost minerals and that you needed highest tech to research shuttle speed, whereas medivacs have boost right away.
If you're arguing that you perceive it to be harder that's one thing. But the strategy was EXACTLY the same. People were perfectly fine with a mobile long range aoe unit killing 5-6 units at a time. Siege Tank doesn't even kill that many lings at a time.
People LOVE the strategy.
reavers didnt have as long range as siegetanks. and because of the nature of the scarab you would try to land as close as possible to your target. honestly its closer to the disruptor drop. On top of that the reaver allowed for interactions that are not possible from the siege tank besides splitting: for example The dmg of the scarab gets applied after it explodes, meaning you only receive half damage if you run away into the 50% splash zone.
Even then, the reaver has a severe overkill compared to the smartfire siegetank(none) and isnt directly designed around space control. Fyi 1 placed cheap (75 minerals) turret prevented a shuttle from passing through that area even with speed upgrade. Medivacs that heal ridiculously strong infantry units and can boost past more expensive defensive structures were bad enough. But now you can drop instantly sieged smartfire tanks. The strategy isnt even close to similiar. And even if it would be: the nature of both games are different enough to say: It worked in BW, it may work in sc2 put people are not happy about it beeing put on a unit, which purpose it is to space control (which is something sc2 loses more and more with every patch/expansion).
On February 21 2016 01:44 Sif_ wrote: seriously if whats bothering you guys that SIEGE TANKS shouldnt be mobile just rename the unit to COOL TANKS or whatever...i dont mind it being "dumb design" or something along those lines, its fun to watch/play (except to play in tvt lategame) and taking it away would mess with the whole game
Except it's not fun to watch or play - especially not play against - for everyone. For me it's as much fun as Colossus deathballs of the past. The same things that make the Colossus a bad and boring unit (siege range paired with mobility) also make Tankivacs bad and boring.
This is dishonest since Toss had tankivacs in BW that dealt 100 flat damage--and people were fine.
Yep, in BW. A game with a lot less unit clumping and rather odd pathing. A good percentage of the shots did no damage. And let's not forget that every shot cost minerals and that you needed highest tech to research shuttle speed, whereas medivacs have boost right away.
If you're arguing that you perceive it to be harder that's one thing. But the strategy was EXACTLY the same. People were perfectly fine with a mobile long range aoe unit killing 5-6 units at a time. Siege Tank doesn't even kill that many lings at a time.
People LOVE the strategy.
It's not exactly the same. Siege tanks and Reavers differ in one very important aspect: target acquisition.
While Reavers can't shoot over cliffs or onto the high ground, STs can do that provided they have vision. Being able to pick up and drop STs in siege mode, without ever risking the units, allows for a huge abuse potential.
As a mech player I don't worry much about the TvZ matchups. Mech is obviously boosted a bit, but terran as race overall got a boost and nerf, so it is fine probably. TvP might see some high level mech games until protoss realise how again they have to kill mech.
Only, despite playing mech myself, I do wonder a bit if this does not kill bio in TvT. Because in the other match ups it is a boost + a nerf. For bio in TvT it is more like a double nerf. On the other hand of course in LotV you need to expand faster, something mech really isn't good at. Still that won't help with defending timing pushes.
On February 20 2016 06:18 Loccstana wrote: What if they buff the siege tank by giving Terran one of the WoL campaign upgrades?
Maelstrom Rounds Siege tanks do +40 damage to their primary target. Splash damage remains the same.
Maelstrom Rounds have an armor-piercing tip that inflicts devastating damage on the primary target. Splash damage is identical to the standard round.
If siege tanks struck fear into the hearts of our enemies before, they will inspire abject terror when firing the Maelstrom Round.
You cannot buff the tanks with this and don't give them overkill. Can you imagine the mayhem this would create with smart fire? Probably not.
With this, siege tanks will have another type of overkill. If you hit a 35hp ling with a 90 damage attack, you just wasted 60% of the dps of the tank. Now good Terran players will need to target fire their tanks against high hp targets.
Funny. When the Colossus did it it was a stupid a-move unit. When tanks do it it's MICRO.
Why do tanks instant hit anyway? They're basically the same as ravagers' corrosive bile, but with auto-cast and instant damge. There should be at least a second delay between the tank firing and the projectile hitting, allowing the target to move out of the way.
On February 22 2016 00:57 Haukinger wrote: Why do tanks instant hit anyway? They're basically the same as ravagers' corrosive bile, but with auto-cast and instant damge. There should be at least a second delay between the tank firing and the projectile hitting, allowing the target to move out of the way.
Lol i just thought of the wc2 ballista and catapult. If we want to keep high dmg and tankivac the shots should be avoidable.
On February 22 2016 00:57 Haukinger wrote: Why do tanks instant hit anyway? They're basically the same as ravagers' corrosive bile, but with auto-cast and instant damge. There should be at least a second delay between the tank firing and the projectile hitting, allowing the target to move out of the way.
yea but also make them able to move while sieged up, hit air, and move faster on creep.
On February 21 2016 04:38 Cyro wrote: There's plenty of room for mobile, microable terran units - just not on the Siege Tank. You can't weaken a unit whose core identity is to be immobile but strong in order for it to be balanced while mobile.
I don't know if that's the case. Many people would say that: micro is what is fun in SC2. SC2 is so defined around super dynamic action with fast-moving units, large armies, high fire power and twitch reactions that if you can't use the tank like that then it can't thrive in SC2. The simple law of: mobile = fun, immobile = boring holds virtually always, this notion that you can just ignore this and try for something different with the siege tank so that it can stay closer to its concept and its BW roots runs the risk of ignoring the evidence of players really enjoying the tankivac micro. I'm not saying it isn't stupid, but if it's fun then it's fun regardless of concept.
On February 21 2016 04:38 Cyro wrote: There's plenty of room for mobile, microable terran units - just not on the Siege Tank. You can't weaken a unit whose core identity is to be immobile but strong in order for it to be balanced while mobile.
I don't know if that's the case. Many people would say that: micro is what is fun in SC2. SC2 is so defined around super dynamic action with fast-moving units, large armies, high fire power and twitch reactions that if you can't use the tank like that then it can't thrive in SC2. The simple law of: mobile = fun, immobile = boring holds virtually always, this notion that you can just ignore this and try for something different with the siege tank so that it can stay closer to its concept and its BW roots runs the risk of ignoring the evidence of players really enjoying the tankivac micro. I'm not saying it isn't stupid, but if it's fun then it's fun regardless of concept.
Hm, I personally enjoy micro a lot and think the tank/medivac combo is quite fun to play with and against, but I also enjoy the strategic aspects (such as composition building) and the tactical aspects of troop movement and unit distributions across the battlefield. The original siege tank offers a ton of these strategical/tactical aspects, while the tank/medivac not only gets rid of the way the siege tank's immobility creates this dynamic for the player building them, but also for the opponent who has to play against a mobile 13 range siege weapon. It feels strategically/tactically very restricting.
On February 21 2016 04:38 Cyro wrote: There's plenty of room for mobile, microable terran units - just not on the Siege Tank. You can't weaken a unit whose core identity is to be immobile but strong in order for it to be balanced while mobile.
I don't know if that's the case. Many people would say that: micro is what is fun in SC2. SC2 is so defined around super dynamic action with fast-moving units, large armies, high fire power and twitch reactions that if you can't use the tank like that then it can't thrive in SC2. The simple law of: mobile = fun, immobile = boring holds virtually always, this notion that you can just ignore this and try for something different with the siege tank so that it can stay closer to its concept and its BW roots runs the risk of ignoring the evidence of players really enjoying the tankivac micro. I'm not saying it isn't stupid, but if it's fun then it's fun regardless of concept.
Hm, I personally enjoy micro a lot and think the tank/medivac combo is quite fun to play with and against, but I also enjoy the strategic aspects (such as composition building) and the tactical aspects of troop movement and unit distributions across the battlefield. The original siege tank offers a ton of these strategical/tactical aspects, while the tank/medivac not only gets rid of the way the siege tank's immobility creates this dynamic for the player building them, but also for the opponent who has to play against a mobile 13 range siege weapon. It feels strategically/tactically very restricting.
There are many different contradicting opinions on them, they have both ruined and improved TvT, invalidated and revolutionized mech, they create fun and exciting micro but don't allow for counterplay. One thing they do seem to be is controversial.
My own personal theory is that in a game which (for terran) expressly revolves around medivacs, where medivacs are the primary way for ground units to acquire mobility, where viewers and Blizzard alike consider that facilitating medivac harassment is the most promising direction to improve gameplay, it means that allowing for some form of synergy between the medivac and siege tank should be seen as restoring parity or normalizing the siege tank.
Based on this it also doesn't surprise me that a lot of people support the combo and think it's great fun. If one starts to ruminate about how the siege tank ought to play out in a certain way based on a unit concept dating to 1998, then that runs the risk of being elitist sentiment which seeks to force SC2 to play out in accordance with one's vision for how a sequel to BW ought to play out, regardless of what people actually find fun and regardless of what would actually be a sound design concept in the highly dynamic environment of SC2.
I don't like this environment, and find the tankivac emblematic for the failures of the game. But ignoring all of that, since that's just my opinion, -- I do think that if something is thought to be fun then it's fun and shouldn't be singled out. And you might be right that it makes the game worse in some ways, but I can't really offer a competing judgment on that since I have no personal experience with it. I'll take your word for it, but I just want to warn people to not try to abandon the modern iteration of the siege tank just because they find it distasteful.
That is to say, would people have the same opinion on the siege tank if it had been newly introduced to SC2 in Legacy of the Void? If they did not have the example of Brood War to compare it by?
On February 22 2016 05:54 Cyro wrote: A race with all super mobile, weak units and no immobile strong units just isn't as varied or fun to watch/play
if you can buff an immobile unit by making it stronger or by making it as mobile as other units, stronger is 1000% the way to go IMO.
But, to belabor my point, where is your evidence for that? I could equally state that diversity is an euphemism for allowing badly designed units to continue to exist, or that by your reasoning for the purpose of diversity random units should get various newly introduced drawbacks. The idea that there should be an exception to mobile, microable units seems a bit arbitrary. The evidence says that people don't enjoy to watch / play turtle mech and don't enjoy playing with immobile units. You have to address these claims in order to convince that your theory will help to improve SC2, since your call for diversity can be twisted to support virtually everything.
-- (just for clarification, when I say "mobility" I don't literally mean unit speed, just the ability of a unit to respond to various dynamic threats such as mutalisks and ravagers, as well as the ability to flee from battle -- I think SC2 is so back and forth with so many dynamic, speedy units, that if you don't possess this sort of ability you don't really fit with the game)
On February 21 2016 04:38 Cyro wrote: There's plenty of room for mobile, microable terran units - just not on the Siege Tank. You can't weaken a unit whose core identity is to be immobile but strong in order for it to be balanced while mobile.
I don't know if that's the case. Many people would say that: micro is what is fun in SC2. SC2 is so defined around super dynamic action with fast-moving units, large armies, high fire power and twitch reactions that if you can't use the tank like that then it can't thrive in SC2. The simple law of: mobile = fun, immobile = boring holds virtually always, this notion that you can just ignore this and try for something different with the siege tank so that it can stay closer to its concept and its BW roots runs the risk of ignoring the evidence of players really enjoying the tankivac micro. I'm not saying it isn't stupid, but if it's fun then it's fun regardless of concept.
Hm, I personally enjoy micro a lot and think the tank/medivac combo is quite fun to play with and against, but I also enjoy the strategic aspects (such as composition building) and the tactical aspects of troop movement and unit distributions across the battlefield. The original siege tank offers a ton of these strategical/tactical aspects, while the tank/medivac not only gets rid of the way the siege tank's immobility creates this dynamic for the player building them, but also for the opponent who has to play against a mobile 13 range siege weapon. It feels strategically/tactically very restricting.
There are many different contradicting opinions on them, they have both ruined and improved TvT, invalidated and revolutionized mech, they create fun and exciting micro but don't allow for counterplay. One thing they do seem to be is controversial.
My own personal theory is that in a game which (for terran) expressly revolves around medivacs, where medivacs are the primary way for ground units to acquire mobility, where viewers and Blizzard alike consider that facilitating medivac harassment is the most promising direction to improve gameplay, it means that allowing for some form of synergy between the medivac and siege tank should be seen as restoring parity or normalizing the siege tank.
Based on this it also doesn't surprise me that a lot of people support the combo and think it's great fun. If one starts to ruminate about how the siege tank ought to play out in a certain way based on a unit concept dating to 1998, then that runs the risk of being elitist sentiment which seeks to force SC2 to play out in accordance with one's vision for how a sequel to BW ought to play out, regardless of what people actually find fun and regardless of what would actually be a sound design concept in the highly dynamic environment of SC2.
I don't like this environment, and find the tankivac emblematic for the failures of the game. But ignoring all of that, since that's just my opinion, -- I do think that if something is thought to be fun then it's fun and shouldn't be singled out. And you might be right that it makes the game worse in some ways, but I can't really offer a competing judgment on that since I have no personal experience with it. I'll take your word for it, but I just want to warn people to not try to abandon the modern iteration of the siege tank just because they find it distasteful.
That is to say, would people have the same opinion on the siege tank if it had been newly introduced to SC2 in Legacy of the Void? If they did not have the example of Brood War to compare it by?
The thing is that we play an RTS game. In general there is no need that every unit can always active to create action. I agree that mobility is a huge part of creating fun gameplay, but you don't need everything to be mobile and active for that. The core problem I see is twofold, for one mobile units/compositions are too strong in combats which forces static units to be even stronger, or not be that static at all. For the other blizzard has not repaired fundamental "win-more" dynamics like 2 supply spellcasters and skydeathballs, Mules and walking 0-supply "static" defenses. Ergo everyone always just sees how fun mobile styles are, because the others like Swarm Hosts, BL/Infestor, Skytoss, Colossus/Templar deathballs, Raven-mech, Ghost-Mech in practice never max out on strenght + Show Spoiler +
still got a hdralisk? make an infestor instead! Still got a hellion? Make a raven instead! Still got 2 stalkers? Make a Tempest instead!
and therefore will never attack against an opponent whose style reaches a maximum strength at some point.
Long story short, I think making slow styles faster and faster styles stronger is just killing a lot of fun gameplay in which you'd mix strong slow units with weaker mobile ones and it doesn't matter whether each component is equally active to create fun. As it is it becomes a bit of a wash what you play besides unit-counter building, when the real problem solutions would either be a scaling economy to put more pressure on turtleplay, or severe supplyefficiency-nerfs to lategame units or just the redesign/removal of certain units.
On February 22 2016 06:09 Big J wrote: Long story short, I think making slow styles faster and faster styles stronger is just killing a lot of fun gameplay in which you'd mix strong slow units with weaker mobile ones and it doesn't matter whether each component is equally active to create fun. As it is it becomes a bit of a wash what you play besides unit-counter building, when the real problem solutions would either be a scaling economy to put more pressure on turtleplay, or severe supplyefficiency-nerfs to lategame units or just the redesign/removal of certain units.
Well, there is a difference between larger scale trends and local improvements to the game. Something can be good locally but still contribute to a worrying trend. I tend to roll my eyes whenever Blizzard suggests a speed improvement to a unit to improve it, and similarly I'm also confused whenever they remove upgrades to make units more valuable. However, they might be good solutions for immediate problems. Maybe the new siege tank does decrease diversity, and maybe it does help destroy the more static and slow-paced styles that are being phased out in LotV. But those are trends; another way to view the change is to ask whether in isolation this change makes the game more enjoyable.
The point is that if someone disagrees with a trend then the trend should be addressed, one shouldn't single out this one change as the moment where one finally makes a stand against Blizzard's direction for the game. Because when you allow this to depend on individual changes, it very quickly starts to pertain primarily to all the pros and cons of a single change, and provokes all sorts of theories based not around the trend but around this one change to this one unit. That is to say, it allows sentiment to play a part and not purely rational analysis.
I just really think that any notion of the siege tank having to play out in a certain way because of certain expectations is a dangerous line of thinking as a developer, or as someone trying to rationally analyze game design.
See also this. When does something constitute a trend? When should one take offense at a single change because it contributes to a trend?
On February 22 2016 06:09 Big J wrote: Long story short, I think making slow styles faster and faster styles stronger is just killing a lot of fun gameplay in which you'd mix strong slow units with weaker mobile ones and it doesn't matter whether each component is equally active to create fun. As it is it becomes a bit of a wash what you play besides unit-counter building, when the real problem solutions would either be a scaling economy to put more pressure on turtleplay, or severe supplyefficiency-nerfs to lategame units or just the redesign/removal of certain units.
Well, there is a difference between larger scale trends and local improvements to the game. Something can be good locally but still contribute to a worrying trend. I tend to roll my eyes whenever Blizzard suggests a speed improvement to a unit to improve it, and similarly I'm also confused whenever they remove upgrades to make units more valuable. However, they might be good solutions for immediate problems. Maybe the new siege tank does decrease diversity, and maybe it does help destroy the more static and slow-paced styles that are being phased out in LotV. But those are trends; another way to view the change is to ask whether in isolation this change makes the game more enjoyable.
The point is that if someone disagrees with a trend then the trend should be addressed, one shouldn't single out this one change as the moment where one finally makes a stand against Blizzard's direction for the game. Because when you allow this to depend on individual changes, it very quickly starts to pertain primarily to all the pros and cons of a single change, and provokes all sorts of theories based not around the trend but around this one change to this one unit. That is to say, it allows sentiment to play a part and not purely rational analysis.
I just really think that any notion of the siege tank having to play out in a certain way because of certain expectations is a dangerous line of thinking as a developer, or as someone trying to rationally analyze game design.
See also this. When does something constitute a trend? When should one take offense at a single change because it contributes to a trend?
As a mathematician a trend is whatever its definition says. If that is not clear, I will try to find one for myself and only then argue whether something is a trend or not. Any other approach is not valid.
If a gameplay element does not play to its intended design (which can be vague enough at the start of the design process to allow for a lot of user-freedom) it is bad design. Since I am not the designer of SC2 - nor is there just a single one of them - I cannot tell what the expectations for the siege tank, any other gameplay element or the game as a whole are. I can only say how I would prefer the game to be designed for and that rather simply in that circumstance is with the tank playing a strong (but obviously not leading to imbalances), slow anti-ground/splash support role. The keyword obviously being strong, since that word can have a variety of meanings, which I don't mind leaving open to the player. The reasoning has nothing to do with Broodwar, but rather my personal enjoyment of SC2-games including the siege tank in this traditional role.
On February 22 2016 07:21 NKexquisite wrote: Back to Ravager all-ins in TvZ. Can't wait.
those are just things they want to test in a balance test map. Disruptor shield nerf is long overdue and they tested it a long time ago but it's not implemented yet -hopefully will be soon. I'm glad they're taking chances and testing things so that they can react quickly if blatant imbalance arises.
On February 22 2016 07:21 NKexquisite wrote: Back to Ravager all-ins in TvZ. Can't wait.
While they'll definitely make a resurgence, no doubt that it will still be weaker, with both marginally stronger tank shot and weaker corrosive bile attack. If it's still too strong, I imagine they'd find a way to nerf the ravager, such as a range upgrade to corrosive bile or something. Keep in mind the bile will be weaker against bunkers, too.
On February 22 2016 05:54 Cyro wrote: A race with all super mobile, weak units and no immobile strong units just isn't as varied or fun to watch/play
if you can buff an immobile unit by making it stronger or by making it as mobile as other units, stronger is 1000% the way to go IMO.
Exactly. Is ok if the tankivac is fun and adds micro and what not, but every other damn terran think already got its mobility boosted and now everything is super fast.
WM can burrow in 1 sec. Medivac can not only be boosted but they even have a upgrade that makes them boost more. Banshees have a speed upgrade. Liberators, are siege units, that fucking fly. Ravens got a speed buff. Cyclones are as fast as hellions. Even fucking BCs can now teleport.
Every fucking thing is fast and mobile, maybe, just maybe, we need a unit, ONE UNIT, that is strong but nor super fast/mobile, not another stupid super mobility unit, god knows terran has enough of that shit.
On February 22 2016 05:54 Cyro wrote: A race with all super mobile, weak units and no immobile strong units just isn't as varied or fun to watch/play
if you can buff an immobile unit by making it stronger or by making it as mobile as other units, stronger is 1000% the way to go IMO.
Exactly. Is ok if the tankivac is fun and adds micro and what not, but every other damn terran think already got its mobility boosted and now everything is super fast.
WM can burrow in 1 sec. Medivac can not only be boosted but they even have a upgrade that makes them boost more. Banshees have a speed upgrade. Liberators, are siege units, that fucking fly. Ravens got a speed buff. Cyclones are as fast as hellions. Even fucking BCs can now teleport.
Every fucking thing is fast and mobile, maybe, just maybe, we need a unit, ONE UNIT, that is strong but nor super fast/mobile, not another stupid super mobility unit, god knows terran has enough of that shit.
BCs are now harass units. You go around the map, attack a base, then teleport back home.
So, if strong and immobile are good for the game (which is a point I don't really agree on at the moment), I guess the next step on which everyone advocating for a strong immobile tank would agree, would be to give a big buff to the Lurker as it is not usable in professional game in the ZvT match up right now, of course in a way that would not fucked up PvZ? Also a rework on the colossi, something like a big damage buff, but with less mobility.
On February 22 2016 20:14 Vanadiel wrote: So, if strong and immobile are good for the game (which is a point I don't really agree on at the moment), I guess the next step on which everyone advocating for a strong immobile tank would agree, would be to give a big buff to the Lurker as it is not usable in professional game in the ZvT match up right now, of course in a way that would not fucked up PvZ? Also a rework on the colossi, something like a big damage buff, but with less mobility.
Lurkers are fantastic in ZvP. Heavy Lurker play actually looks a bit like mech. I've seen them in ZvZ a lot to. I'd be surprised if we don't see them in ZvT some time soon, though probably not against Tank play.
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.
The problem with lurkers in zvt is that the tech route is pretty hard to pull off imo. I don't see why this would change, unless roaches morph into lurkers in the future^^
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.
------------------------ 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.
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?
The problem with the siegetank was that it didnt get used. I hope damage buff is enough. I personally dont think that because siege tanks with medivacs deal a lot more damage than this buff.
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.
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".
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.
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".
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
If a corrosive bile will hit something, such as against immobile units, even 30 damage is still 30 damage. If it does not hit anything, such as against a mobile army or tankivac with normal micro, even 90 damage = 0. 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.
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".
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.
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).
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".
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.
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.
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.
am i missing something? they are taking away a lotv update with the tanks . . . . and most of you are happy with this??? well fuck it, then nerf ravagers into the ground, nerf, libs some more, buff sh again as i dont think anyones ever built one in lotv and what we have is hots 2.2 again with a more worker start.
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.
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.
They are not asking for things to remain the same. They are asking for weaker opponents.
So long as Blizzard gets the gameplay right, and then the balance right eventually - I really do not care whether we get more or less units to work with as Terran. Hopefully we keep what we have, but just removing Tankivac does not beg the addition of anything more to the game so long as gameplay/balance are present.
I think Terran could be fine after this new proposed patch with just subsequent balancing. Maybe more nerfs/buffs are needed later, but at least gameplay looks like it will be much improved after this. You cannot expect balance just yet, with gameplay still needing obvious improvements.
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.
How am I expressing favoritism more than you when I merely put attention to the fact that the unit with the most immobile "mode switch" (aside from PF), that has historically been very immobile in that mode (aka tradeoff) can now completely ignore the siege mode?
Balance aside the gameplay is negatively impacted and this is the main reason to ditch tankivac. Balance considered, we are obviouly getting punished in other ways as terran for having flying siege mode, such as in having weaker factory tech to stop earlier all-ins, aggressive builds, etc.
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.
How am I expressing favoritism more than you when I merely put attention to the fact that the unit with the most immobile "mode switch" (aside from PF), that has historically been very immobile in that mode (aka tradeoff) can now completely ignore the siege mode?
Balance aside the gameplay is negatively impacted and this is the main reason to ditch tankivac. Balance considered, we are obviouly getting punished in other ways as terran for having flying siege mode.
First off--the tankivac strategy is not even new to Starcraft (let alone RTS as a genre) so its a little weird to point out tankivac as specifically "taking away" something. So when you say:
I cannot think of any major RTS title that did not have at least one unit that was considered the "artillery" unit. The current state of the "tankivac" is to a great extent removing this "artillery" unit characteristic from the game.
Its just not that genuine sounding. We already had reaver/shuttle in BW showing people love artillery pieces being carried around the map. But not just that--there is still a tonne of artillery units in the game that are slow moving just like the catapults you talked about in other RTS games.
Your complaint is specifically that here is a specific playstyle that you want to allow a specific race to be able to employ in specific circumstances. That is not really an argument for anything outside of favoritism and nostalgia.
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.
How am I expressing favoritism more than you when I merely put attention to the fact that the unit with the most immobile "mode switch" (aside from PF), that has historically been very immobile in that mode (aka tradeoff) can now completely ignore the siege mode?
Balance aside the gameplay is negatively impacted and this is the main reason to ditch tankivac. Balance considered, we are obviouly getting punished in other ways as terran for having flying siege mode.
First off--the tankivac strategy is not even new to Starcraft (let alone RTS as a genre) so its a little weird to point out tankivac as specifically "taking away" something. So when you say:
I cannot think of any major RTS title that did not have at least one unit that was considered the "artillery" unit. The current state of the "tankivac" is to a great extent removing this "artillery" unit characteristic from the game.
Its just not that genuine sounding. We already had reaver/shuttle in BW showing people love artillery pieces being carried around the map. But not just that--there is still a tonne of artillery units in the game that are slow moving just like the catapults you talked about in other RTS games.
Your complaint is specifically that here is a specific playstyle that you want to allow a specific race to be able to employ in specific circumstances. That is not really an argument for anything outside of favoritism and nostalgia.
The problem with tankivacs is that terran has a ton of medivacs anyway. There really isn't a decision to make more 'dropships' to use tankivacs, you have them no matter what if you play bio. In the end the medivac is the 'problem' pretty much.
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.
How am I expressing favoritism more than you when I merely put attention to the fact that the unit with the most immobile "mode switch" (aside from PF), that has historically been very immobile in that mode (aka tradeoff) can now completely ignore the siege mode?
Balance aside the gameplay is negatively impacted and this is the main reason to ditch tankivac. Balance considered, we are obviouly getting punished in other ways as terran for having flying siege mode.
First off--the tankivac strategy is not even new to Starcraft (let alone RTS as a genre) so its a little weird to point out tankivac as specifically "taking away" something. So when you say:
I cannot think of any major RTS title that did not have at least one unit that was considered the "artillery" unit. The current state of the "tankivac" is to a great extent removing this "artillery" unit characteristic from the game.
Its just not that genuine sounding. We already had reaver/shuttle in BW showing people love artillery pieces being carried around the map. But not just that--there is still a tonne of artillery units in the game that are slow moving just like the catapults you talked about in other RTS games.
Your complaint is specifically that here is a specific playstyle that you want to allow a specific race to be able to employ in specific circumstances. That is not really an argument for anything outside of favoritism and nostalgia.
But Reavers, high templars and other slow moving AoE units do not unlock the splash damage when you CHOOSE to no longer be able to move the unit. They can always move. I have no issue with Thors being carried around. If Colossus had additional damage when you clicked an ability that made them immobile for 3-4 seconds (and more vulnerable to Marauders, etc.), and then you let them remain in that state while being shuttled around, that would be a similar problem (by analogy).
Well, you can call it favoritism and/or nostalgia. I can accept that. But any decision to add/remove abilities would also have nothing to do with facts/math (you are not in the conclusions phase or reasoning), and will always be more of a question of preference. You can always compensate, or create a new ability instead. Imagination is your limit.
I believe that playing Terran has been about mobility tradeoffs with the widow mine (HOTS), liberator (LoTV) and siege tank design. Removing that type of tradeoff from the tank and giving it mobility without choosing to hit that unsiege button (which comes with a risk to be calculated along with scans, etc.) is a very big change to a Terran basic mechanic that has been a part of Terran play for about 20 years.
Maybe if you do not play TvT, you do not care if widow mines can relocated out of Medivacs already pre-burrowed, or if Liberators could fly around at full speed always in ground siege mode - but I can tell you that I would be equally upset with how those decisions would mess up positional strategy in TvT gameplay - just like the Tankivac change.
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.
How do you manage to play the test map? The balance test map is not available in my client.
On February 23 2016 05:44 Naracs_Duc wrote: Its just not that genuine sounding. We already had reaver/shuttle in BW showing people love artillery pieces being carried around the map. But not just that--there is still a tonne of artillery units in the game that are slow moving just like the catapults you talked about in other RTS games.
Though people overwhelmingly dislike them. There are so many complaints about tempests, swarm hosts and mech that I find it perfectly understandable for Blizzard to decide to phase them out to a degree.
Would the game be that much worse if all those artillery units (incl. lurker) were removed from the game? It would be less diverse and would lack certain play styles, the loss would be felt, yes. But would it be overall worse? Or would it be more consistent and more focused on what the majority of the player base enjoys the most? Action and movement and dynamics, that's what people find exciting and that's what allows players to show off their control skills. Artillery units might be strategically interesting, but they slow down the game and interrupt the momentum and they encourage unhealthy game dynamics that remove actions and decisions.
There are many ways to interpret this, one would be to ask for Blizzard to create different game dynamics so that artillery units can function properly, but another way to frame it would be to say that Blizzard should focus on eliminating aspects of the game that the players dislike.
Some personal background for this: when dota was first popularized in 2003 I thought it was distasteful for people to promote it since it was a dumbed down version of WC3 for people that considered macro an inordinately difficult task. History proved me wrong, since the current interpretation is that dota took a piece of core gameplay from WC3 that people enjoyed and built a fully realized new game around it. Applying this example to the SC2 situation you could say that the removal of artillery and space control caters to the core gameplay of action and micro that people find enjoyable. It's no longer the same game as BW, but it need not be worse because it appeals to a different audience.
People say that they want space control and artillery units, but given the choice they don't like watching games that feature these units. Their actions do not support their stated beliefs, so it's tempting to theorize that this belief derives from sentiment rather than a fully realized conviction based on real world experience.
On February 23 2016 05:44 Naracs_Duc wrote: Its just not that genuine sounding. We already had reaver/shuttle in BW showing people love artillery pieces being carried around the map. But not just that--there is still a tonne of artillery units in the game that are slow moving just like the catapults you talked about in other RTS games.
Though people overwhelmingly dislike them. There are so many complaints about tempests, swarm hosts and mech that I find it perfectly understandable for Blizzard to decide to phase them out to a degree.
Would the game be that much worse if all those artillery units (incl. lurker) were removed from the game? It would be less diverse and would lack certain play styles, the loss would be felt, yes. But would it be overall worse? Or would it be more consistent and more focused on what the majority of the player base enjoys the most? Action and movement and dynamics, that's what people find exciting and that's what allows players to show off their control skills. Artillery units might be strategically interesting, but they slow down the game and interrupt the momentum and they encourage unhealthy game dynamics that remove actions and decisions.
There are many ways to interpret this, one would be to ask for Blizzard to create different game dynamics so that artillery units can function properly, but another way to frame it would be to say that Blizzard should focus on eliminating aspects of the game that the players dislike.
Some personal background for this: when dota was first popularized in 2003 I thought it was distasteful for people to promote it since it was a dumbed down version of WC3 for people that considered macro an inordinately difficult task. History proved me wrong, since the current interpretation is that dota took a piece of core gameplay from WC3 that people enjoyed and built a fully realized new game around it. Applying this example to the SC2 situation you could say that the removal of artillery and space control caters to the core gameplay of action and micro that people find enjoyable. It's no longer the same game as BW, but it need not be worse because it appeals to a different audience.
People say that they want space control and artillery units, but given the choice they don't like watching games that feature these units. Their actions do not support their stated beliefs, so it's tempting to theorize that this belief derives from sentiment rather than a fully realized conviction based on real world experience.
Not all long range space control/artillery units are bad. Tempests and swarmhosts, yes they are the pinnacle of bad unit design. But other units like lurkers, disrruptors, liberators or tanks create very interesting unit interaction and are overall really healthy for the game. Having a space control unit that you have to play around instead of just 1aing into promotes multitasking, action all around the map (because you can split your army up better without being just overrun) and makes decisionmaking more important.
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".
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.
then express it in those terms. don't drop the context with a whitewash generalization. just for the record i have 1 account i play as terran and 1 account i play as random.
let's just see how the new Tank works out before we start acting like terran players are burdened with more pain and suffering than the son of god.
People say that they want space control and artillery units, but given the choice they don't like watching games that feature these units. Their actions do not support their stated beliefs, so it's tempting to theorize that this belief derives from sentiment rather than a fully realized conviction based on real world experience.
That could be the case because the game lacks randomness. There is no miss chance when shooting from the low ground. A lot of units do not overkill, even the artillery units themselves (Tank), where you would expect them to overkill the most. There's no Scarabs to bug out. Units don't block each other and derp like alcoholics on a night out, and move smoothly in orderly fashion like Russian army on a parade - in other words, the army movement looks the same in every game, every time, the one same blob of units. It's unattractive visually and boring after a while, compared to games where units can step on each other's toes and behave unexpectedly when moving around (but not as bad as retarded Dragoon).
While randomness is most of the time frowned upon in RTS games, it produces uncertainty. Uncertainty, on the other hand, produces tension. Tension is great for any spectator sport - you want to see what happens next, and even if nothing happens for 2-5 minutes at all, you don't notice it at all, waiting for the big showdown.
Would football (soccer) have more action, if we cut off all the meaningless touching and spinning of the ball before the penalty kick, or if players were required to kick the ball within 5 seconds of a whistle blow which signals the penalty kick? Yes, we would be back with the action quicker. But the tension and expectation would be gone as well. Ok, this may be not the best analogy. Actually it's pretty bad.
Having artillery is no bad per se. But if there is no randomness, the outcome of most battles can be predicted with a good chance of getting it right, just by looking at the composition of units. That's why watching games that features artillery or "turtle friendly" units might be off putting.
overlaying all this ... is the fact that consumers are just plain weird. they say 1 thing. think another..and are looking for something they don't even know they want.
On February 23 2016 05:44 Naracs_Duc wrote: Its just not that genuine sounding. We already had reaver/shuttle in BW showing people love artillery pieces being carried around the map. But not just that--there is still a tonne of artillery units in the game that are slow moving just like the catapults you talked about in other RTS games.
Though people overwhelmingly dislike them. There are so many complaints about tempests, swarm hosts and mech that I find it perfectly understandable for Blizzard to decide to phase them out to a degree.
Would the game be that much worse if all those artillery units (incl. lurker) were removed from the game? It would be less diverse and would lack certain play styles, the loss would be felt, yes. But would it be overall worse? Or would it be more consistent and more focused on what the majority of the player base enjoys the most? Action and movement and dynamics, that's what people find exciting and that's what allows players to show off their control skills. Artillery units might be strategically interesting, but they slow down the game and interrupt the momentum and they encourage unhealthy game dynamics that remove actions and decisions.
There are many ways to interpret this, one would be to ask for Blizzard to create different game dynamics so that artillery units can function properly, but another way to frame it would be to say that Blizzard should focus on eliminating aspects of the game that the players dislike.
Some personal background for this: when dota was first popularized in 2003 I thought it was distasteful for people to promote it since it was a dumbed down version of WC3 for people that considered macro an inordinately difficult task. History proved me wrong, since the current interpretation is that dota took a piece of core gameplay from WC3 that people enjoyed and built a fully realized new game around it. Applying this example to the SC2 situation you could say that the removal of artillery and space control caters to the core gameplay of action and micro that people find enjoyable. It's no longer the same game as BW, but it need not be worse because it appeals to a different audience.
People say that they want space control and artillery units, but given the choice they don't like watching games that feature these units. Their actions do not support their stated beliefs, so it's tempting to theorize that this belief derives from sentiment rather than a fully realized conviction based on real world experience.
Not all long range space control/artillery units are bad. Tempests and swarmhosts, yes they are the pinnacle of bad unit design. But other units like lurkers, disrruptors, liberators or tanks create very interesting unit interaction and are overall really healthy for the game. Having a space control unit that you have to play around instead of just 1aing into promotes multitasking, action all around the map (because you can split your army up better without being just overrun) and makes decisionmaking more important.
There's actually nothing wrong with those two units from a design perspective. Long range flying unit, but expensive and has low DPS is, in the abstract, fairly interesting. A unit that spawns low power units that die over time--also not a bad design, in the abstract.
The problem is not the design of the unit itself, but the design architecture of the race as a whole.
Why does Zerg, the low cost high production high mobility race, get a long range siege unit that is good at controlling space?
Why does protoss, the spellcasting heavy high damage high hitpoint race--get a fucking siege unit?
Do you know what race would make sense having a long range siege unit that is good at controlling space? Terran. You know what race did not get that? Terran.
The reason space control units are good is not because they are tautologically good--but because they exemplify and portray the idea of a faction's core strategic and flavor identity.
What the siege tank really needs is a range buff. In Broodwar, tanks can hit from the left side of the screen to the right side. In SC2, you can only hit only about half a screen distance. This gives the attackers a huge advantage since they can see where the siege tanks are when they attack. Give siege tanks +5 range and suddenly they become useful again. Also another argument is that maps have gotten much bigger since 2010, yet the siege tank range is still the same as when maps were half the current size.
On February 23 2016 19:59 Loccstana wrote: What the siege tank really needs is a range buff. In Broodwar, tanks can hit from the left side of the screen to the right side. In SC2, you can only hit only about half a screen distance. This gives the attackers a huge advantage since they can see where the siege tanks are when they attack. Give siege tanks +5 range and suddenly they become useful again. Also another argument is that maps have gotten much bigger since 2010, yet the siege tank range is still the same as when maps were half the current size.
Early game pushes will be so fun to deal with when tanks have +5 more range. No wall will ever protect you from terran!!! Let´s keep in mind that even tough people love the BW tank, we need to not break the game because of nostalgia.
On February 23 2016 19:59 Loccstana wrote: What the siege tank really needs is a range buff. In Broodwar, tanks can hit from the left side of the screen to the right side. In SC2, you can only hit only about half a screen distance. This gives the attackers a huge advantage since they can see where the siege tanks are when they attack. Give siege tanks +5 range and suddenly they become useful again. Also another argument is that maps have gotten much bigger since 2010, yet the siege tank range is still the same as when maps were half the current size.
+5 range is not enough. Some units could still come close enough to damage them. They should have at least +10 range so everything gets obliterated without doing anything.
... On a serious note, 18 range tanks would just be completely broken.
On February 23 2016 19:59 Loccstana wrote: What the siege tank really needs is a range buff. In Broodwar, tanks can hit from the left side of the screen to the right side. In SC2, you can only hit only about half a screen distance. This gives the attackers a huge advantage since they can see where the siege tanks are when they attack. Give siege tanks +5 range and suddenly they become useful again. Also another argument is that maps have gotten much bigger since 2010, yet the siege tank range is still the same as when maps were half the current size.
Early game pushes will be so fun to deal with when tanks have +5 more range. No wall will ever protect you from terran!!! Let´s keep in mind that even tough people love the BW tank, we need to not break the game because of nostalgia.
It could be argued that tanks have a bit too much range in BW too. That said, tanks have relative less range in SC2 than in BW because other units tend to have more range and tend to breach the distance more quickly. Tanks also shoot faster though.
I hope today's pro league games showed Blizzard how great the new TvT is and tells all the lower league players complaining about it at the moment just to suck it up and learn how to properly play it. I can tell most people in lower leagues are just doing weird 1 base stuff instead of trying to play macro games because they just don't want to learn how to properly play with tankivacs. It would be really sad if this great mechanic gets patched out of the game because the community refuses to adapt ...
Yeah, the game quite perfectly showed the up and downsides of the tankivac (and the mass drops that have been dominating TvT since HotS). You put everything into medivacs, and you fly around your opponent until he makes a positioning mistake. It's supertense and at the same time it's extremely shallow. You cannot deviate at all since nothing besides mass marine/tank loaded in medivacs can deal with mass marine/tank loaded in medivacs .
On February 23 2016 08:30 Naracs_Duc wrote: There's actually nothing wrong with those two units from a design perspective. Long range flying unit, but expensive and has low DPS is, in the abstract, fairly interesting. A unit that spawns low power units that die over time--also not a bad design, in the abstract.
The problem is not the design of the unit itself, but the design architecture of the race as a whole.
I agree with that statement, I think in SC2 there is a problem since the beginning with DustinBrowder, that it is designed with a huge focus on individual units and not much understanding or attention given to the larger architecture of races it's a huge reason why things don't always make very good sense or work that well together and are a pain to modify with no clear direction.. Yes Day9 did ask DustinBrowder "what are you trying to do generally with races in terms of playstyle ?" in an interview and he answered after delaying with laugh for a few seconds "we're not trying to do anything with races in terms of playstyles we're just trying to make each unit that we create feel like they have potential to be really really cool" or something like that. Even when DK talks there is almost nothing more than details about this or that unit, maybe a little something about its interaction with this or that other unit, but no statements at all about the larger picture which is kinda the most important... other than "yeah so it should have a ++ or -- impact in that matchup and maybe a == impact in that other matchup so that's cool"
On February 23 2016 23:33 dNa wrote: I hope today's pro league games showed Blizzard how great the new TvT is and tells all the lower league players complaining about it at the moment just to suck it up and learn how to properly play it. I can tell most people in lower leagues are just doing weird 1 base stuff instead of trying to play macro games because they just don't want to learn how to properly play with tankivacs. It would be really sad if this great mechanic gets patched out of the game because the community refuses to adapt ...
This wouldn't be very smart. SC2 population is already small, you cannot say to lower league players(which is THE MAJORITY of the population) this. It would meant that more and more people would leave and as we can see not that many new players are coming.
On February 23 2016 23:33 dNa wrote: I hope today's pro league games showed Blizzard how great the new TvT is and tells all the lower league players complaining about it at the moment just to suck it up and learn how to properly play it. I can tell most people in lower leagues are just doing weird 1 base stuff instead of trying to play macro games because they just don't want to learn how to properly play with tankivacs. It would be really sad if this great mechanic gets patched out of the game because the community refuses to adapt ...
This wouldn't be very smart. SC2 population is already small, you cannot say to lower league players(which is THE MAJORITY of the population) this. It would meant that more and more people would leave and as we can see not that many new players are coming.
I agree. I would say that HOTS for the most part got it right in terms of creating a pro-level balanced game that was actually fun at the casual level for the 99% of other players. What happened with LOTV that Blizzard should set a lower standard than trying to please as many people as possible while maintaining the pro-level top competitive RTS?
Do people think this Siege Tank change will do enough for TvT? WoL TvT was by far my favourite matchup as a Protoss player, but since Medivac Boost has been introduced, it's just not been the same at all.
On February 23 2016 23:56 Big J wrote: Yeah, the game quite perfectly showed the up and downsides of the tankivac (and the mass drops that have been dominating TvT since HotS). You put everything into medivacs, and you fly around your opponent until he makes a positioning mistake. It's supertense and at the same time it's extremely shallow. You cannot deviate at all since nothing besides mass marine/tank loaded in medivacs can deal with mass marine/tank loaded in medivacs .
Exactly. Probably the best and most simple explanation I have seen. In the end, this will only hold more truth as time goes by and people get better with Tankivac micro/movement. Nothing will be viable other than constantly probing the doom drop. I can see it becoming very painful for those of us that play TvT, and becoming laughable for those that will only spectate TvT.
Although it is only my opinion, the most painful part is that TvT was definitely one of my most favored match-ups to play and spectate in HOTS. Now, it feels more like larger scale baneling wars in ZvZ, only that it does not phase out after the next tier of units enters the field - it continues to be that volatile until the game ends and trumps any further investments in tech or expansions.
On February 23 2016 19:59 Loccstana wrote: What the siege tank really needs is a range buff. In Broodwar, tanks can hit from the left side of the screen to the right side. In SC2, you can only hit only about half a screen distance. This gives the attackers a huge advantage since they can see where the siege tanks are when they attack. Give siege tanks +5 range and suddenly they become useful again. Also another argument is that maps have gotten much bigger since 2010, yet the siege tank range is still the same as when maps were half the current size.
+5 range is not enough. Some units could still come close enough to damage them. They should have at least +10 range so everything gets obliterated without doing anything.
... On a serious note, 18 range tanks would just be completely broken.
I don't think that's true, for a couple of reasons.
1. As Grumbels recently wrote in a different thread, it is very rare for a unit to be objectively broken. What normally happens is that the unit's strength becomes interwoven with the fabric of the race as a whole. Right now the Siege Tank is a niche unit. Between "niche" and "completely broken" theres a lot of room for a balanced, well-designed unit, and that room is "core" - what Marines, Medivacs, and Liberators are, what Lings, Roaches, Mutas, and Ultralisks are, what Adepts, Stalkers, Archons and pre-nerf Colossi are. Units you want to be making all the time because having more of them than you do right now can directly lead to winning the game. That is what people want the tank to be, powerful enough to be worth getting not along with, but instead of, the Marine. Better at early engagements where it currently gets run over before it can do anything at all. Don't forget that the Viper and Ravager are both very good vs the Tank, as is everything Protoss. It will take a "completely broken" Tank to be relevant in a game where Ravagers and vipers exist.
2. If it is broken, really broken, other things CAN be nerfed to keep the tank in check. Bring back overkill, increased production time, increased cost, slow down the sieging process.
3. More range doesn't increase Tanks' vision and Tanks can't shoot where they can't see. Even if we gave Tanks 50 range there would be lots of times when they effectively only have 8. When they don't, it's because they'll be using scans (230 minerals per) or sending flying units ahead as scouts (which means they can be sniped). Maybe flying Barracks would become a problem? Or maybe Corruptors/Stalkers would shut those down extra hard. Hard to theorize.
the key thing that isn't said often enough about tanks is that they must function as part of a duo. If you take the Vulture out of BW, not only does mech die, but it becomes a tedious turtle fest. The mech player must be forced to use some kind of highly mobile unit along with his tanks, be it for space control, harassment, anti air, whatever. Maybe that unit is the Marine. Marines are mineral dumps, provide excellent anti-air, and are as responsive in sc2 as Vultures were in sc1 (read: very). Maybe it's the Banshee. Maybe a revamped Reaper or Cyclone. Maybe the Hellion? It doesn't plant mines, but it does soak up damage a lot better than the Vulture in its Hellbat form. This is a concern... but I hope that Blizzard understands that it's a down-the-line problem, as in let's make Tanks good first and then we'll see if the emerging playstyle is solid or not. If yes: mission accomplished, if no: there are lots of tools at a game designer's disposal to create new weaknesses that some select mobile unit must be produced to shore up.
On February 24 2016 01:15 ejozl wrote: Do people think this Siege Tank change will do enough for TvT? WoL TvT was by far my favourite matchup as a Protoss player, but since Medivac Boost has been introduced, it's just not been the same at all.
It will go a very long way. Time will tell if it will be enough. The more important question is would anything else create strategic options other than what Big J referred to - I can't see anything short of drastic changes to neutralize sieged tank doom drops.
For the record, Mr. Kim created a response to the feedback provided for the February 18th post.
"Thank you for the great discussion around the proposed changes, especially on the Siege Tank proposal.
We definitely hear and agree with many parts of both sides of the argument, and because we're just talking about a balance test map here, let's try it out in actual games so that we can learn more. We'll put up the balance test map as early as tomorrow.
We're not particularly leaning towards either direction at the moment due to the great points many of you bring up, and we've also been in the process of pinging the highest level pro gamers again for more detailed feedback. We are compiling our thoughts and feedback at the moment, and we'll definitely go more in detail on this week's Weekly Update. Thank you."
What the actual fuck. Each community feedback update has been laugh at by the community, EXCEPT THIS ONE. It seems overwhelming how the majority of the community wants these change to happen. Do they actually read the community's feedback?
Just look at the "no change needed" vote percentages in this thread's polls. Why would they say they are not leaning in any direction based on page 1 of this thread?
On February 24 2016 12:58 PressureSC2 wrote: Just look at the "no change needed" vote percentages in this thread's polls. Why would they say they are not leaning in any direction based on page 1 of this thread?
Confusing at best.
Does Blizzard actually read TL though? I haven't seen that much evidence for it.
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
.
![[image loading]](http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/3/2589/9088.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/14/142946/4882402-siege+tank+-+maelstrom+rounds.jpg)
