|
This thread is important lets try to be respectful. Also, Blizz has too much invested in the franchise/brand to donate control over balance - I doubt that is even a possibility at all for business/investor reasons.
A few point to add:
- Tankivac removes the TvT high ground advantage to the defender in many cases. We used to have to siege up on the edge of bases and scan or rely on a flying unit that could be picked off for vision. This was already a game ending strategy in many cases without need to doom drop. It could end a turtle.
- Blizzard has recognized the need to preserve this high ground advantage as a core mechanic when the MS core had vision reduced to reduce blink all ins. Blizzard used more high ground advantage to solve an early-mid game issue.
- Terrans and Protoss probably didn't see a need to buff spores in HOTS. But it was the zerg feedback that was most relevant because the change was needed because all we saw were Muta wars in ZvZ. Here, terrans want a nerf to tankivac to fix TvT. Two thirds of the feedback being offered may not actually be aimed at the real problem with tankivac, which is in playing TvT. This has to be considered.
- The tankivac change will probably create more need for balance changes not solve them. That is ok because the game needs a big GAMEPLAY change. It may take longer to see the metagame settle. Do you want an average sc2 or the best sc2 for the next 10 years?
|
On February 25 2016 05:58 Spinoza wrote:
Personally, I think we need to wrestle the balance tweaks from Blizzards hands. This can not go on any longer, it is like watching a headless duck wandering about the yard.
Give balance tweaks over to the community where it actually belongs.
They tested majority vote with dreampool. The only map pool I've seen a large-scale major emergency reversion on. Just because people play a game doesn't mean they're experts at game design.
|
On February 25 2016 12:22 PressureSC2 wrote:
This thread is important lets try to be respectful. Also, Blizz has too much invested in the franchise/brand to donate control over balance - I doubt that is even a possibility at all for business/investor reasons.
A few point to add:
- Tankivac removes the TvT high ground advantage to the defender in many cases. We used to have to siege up on the edge of bases and scan or rely on a flying unit that could be picked off for vision. This was already a game ending strategy in many cases without need to doom drop. It could end a turtle.
- Blizzard has recognized the need to preserve this high ground advantage as a core mechanic when the MS core had vision reduced to reduce blink all ins. Blizzard used more high ground advantage to solve an early-mid game issue.
- Terrans and Protoss probably didn't see a need to buff spores in HOTS. But it was the zerg feedback that was most relevant because the change was needed because all we saw were Muta wars in ZvZ. Here, terrans want a nerf to tankivac to fix TvT. Two thirds of the feedback being offered may not actually be aimed at the real problem with tankivac, which is in playing TvT. This has to be considered.
- The tankivac change will probably create more need for balance changes not solve them. That is ok because the game needs a big GAMEPLAY change. It may take longer to see the metagame settle. Do you want an average sc2 or the best sc2 for the next 10 years? The question is whether a big game-changing patch on siege tanks is a proper start to creating more balance changes that it solves. If other units need a nerf because they overrun tank play easily, will it happen or just stop there? Every next iteration of balance testing will be viewed in how it affects XvT and ALSO ZvZ ZvP and PvP. I say this is the wrong change to start a healthy future round of balancing. Blizzard is obviously unwilling to return to WoL level siege tanks (50 damage flat, REALLY crushed ling/blings running through). I give that example just to show you the other side: an overbuff to compensate for the nerf would also "create more need for balance changes" in a game that "needs a big GAMEPLAY change." It would in this case spur other units to be buffed, versus other units to be nerfed.
|
I'm hoping for a late game upgrade at the fusion core for tankivac
|
Where is the cyclone buff? The unit is nigh useless right now.
|
If you remove Tankivac at least let me pick them up sieged so that I have a chance of saving them. It is still a big nerf as the Medivac is not healing units whilst boosting away, the tank drops unsieged and is still very vulnerable to being chased down, it is not contributing firepower for a good while, it sinks APM. It also helps against the retarded blinding cloud later game.
|
Really want to see Tankivacs go, especially in TvT. Positional play nowadays is just looking at a spot on a map, thinking "yup looks nice" and boosting dem Tankivacs into position to drop, giving the defender too little time to react or reposition accordingly.
I'm a long time Terran player with my best MU being TvT by far (at least in Wings and Hots) which came down to me often having a better understanding of abusing positional advantages with mech. Out of all MU it felt the most rewarding, but with Lotv I could no longer keep up with all the high speed doom dropping with Tanks. It nullifies the defender's advantage and forces you to go bio to give your army the mobility and synergy with Medivacs. This is all my personal experience, of course, so feel free to disagree.
On February 25 2016 16:57 DeadByDawn wrote:
If you remove Tankivac at least let me pick them up sieged so that I have a chance of saving them. It is still a big nerf as the Medivac is not healing units whilst boosting away, the tank drops unsieged and is still very vulnerable to being chased down, it is not contributing firepower for a good while, it sinks APM. It also helps against the retarded blinding cloud later game.
The proposed idea of being able to defensively lift a Tank in siege mode but only unload it in tank mode may be a really good compromise, should tone down the power of doom drops with Tanks a lot, which currently is my biggest concern in the matchup without removing the defensive APM sink which also makes for exciting plays to watch. The versatility of current Tankivacs is just too good and too easy for the attacking player to execute, which makes it frustrating to play against as you rarely feel like having been outplayed.
|
On February 25 2016 17:49 Creager wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Really want to see Tankivacs go, especially in TvT. Positional play nowadays is just looking at a spot on a map, thinking "yup looks nice" and boosting dem Tankivacs into position to drop, giving the defender too little time to react or reposition accordingly. I'm a long time Terran player with my best MU being TvT by far (at least in Wings and Hots) which came down to me often having a better understanding of abusing positional advantages with mech. Out of all MU it felt the most rewarding, but with Lotv I could no longer keep up with all the high speed doom dropping with Tanks. It nullifies the defender's advantage and forces you to go bio to give your army the mobility and synergy with Medivacs. This is all my personal experience, of course, so feel free to disagree. On February 25 2016 16:57 DeadByDawn wrote:
If you remove Tankivac at least let me pick them up sieged so that I have a chance of saving them. It is still a big nerf as the Medivac is not healing units whilst boosting away, the tank drops unsieged and is still very vulnerable to being chased down, it is not contributing firepower for a good while, it sinks APM. It also helps against the retarded blinding cloud later game. The proposed idea of being able to defensively lift a Tank in siege mode but only unload it in tank mode may be a really good compromise, should tone down the power of doom drops with Tanks a lot, which currently is my biggest concern in the matchup without removing the defensive APM sink which also makes for exciting plays to watch. The versatility of current Tankivacs is just too good and too easy for the attacking player to execute, which makes it frustrating to play against as you rarely feel like having been outplayed.
As you said, you were a mech player in HotS, so this might not have occured to you, but in marine/tank vs marine/tank doom drops were also insanely strong in HotS already and the tanks had to be picked up and dropped unsieged back then. To me, they were stronger then actually because without tankivacs, any doom drop that lands and sets itself up when you're not perfectly in position gets a better position because your units have to get past your buildings if you want to defend. And you couldn't just counter drop or all your shit dies.
Once I switched to mech in TvT I never lost to another doom drop in HotS again. But I'm not so sure mech is going to be all that good even with the tank changes.
|
On February 25 2016 16:45 Loccstana wrote:
Where is the cyclone buff? The unit is nigh useless right now.
Underused and useless are not the same thing
|
On February 25 2016 13:51 Danglars wrote:
The question is whether a big game-changing patch on siege tanks is a proper start to creating more balance changes that it solves. If other units need a nerf because they overrun tank play easily, will it happen or just stop there? Every next iteration of balance testing will be viewed in how it affects XvT and ALSO ZvZ ZvP and PvP. I say this is the wrong change to start a healthy future round of balancing. Blizzard is obviously unwilling to return to WoL level siege tanks (50 damage flat, REALLY crushed ling/blings running through). I give that example just to show you the other side: an overbuff to compensate for the nerf would also "create more need for balance changes" in a game that "needs a big GAMEPLAY change." It would in this case spur other units to be buffed, versus other units to be nerfed.
This is why for a potential SC3 I propose matchup-specific solutions. F.e. purely hypothetically the first marine attack upgrade gives +1 in TvZ and +1.2 in TvP and +1.1 in TvT. Or different build times for things. Stuff like that would make it very easy to finetune matchups without problems.
|
On February 25 2016 18:13 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 13:51 Danglars wrote:
The question is whether a big game-changing patch on siege tanks is a proper start to creating more balance changes that it solves. If other units need a nerf because they overrun tank play easily, will it happen or just stop there? Every next iteration of balance testing will be viewed in how it affects XvT and ALSO ZvZ ZvP and PvP. I say this is the wrong change to start a healthy future round of balancing. Blizzard is obviously unwilling to return to WoL level siege tanks (50 damage flat, REALLY crushed ling/blings running through). I give that example just to show you the other side: an overbuff to compensate for the nerf would also "create more need for balance changes" in a game that "needs a big GAMEPLAY change." It would in this case spur other units to be buffed, versus other units to be nerfed. This is why for a potential SC3 I propose matchup-specific solutions. F.e. purely hypothetically the first marine attack upgrade gives +1 in TvZ and +1.2 in TvP and +1.1 in TvT. Or different build times for things. Stuff like that would make it very easy to finetune matchups without problems.
It would also make the game very convoluted and difficult to learn for new players. DKim repeatedly stated that his intentions were to avoid weird or difficult to comprehend behaviour. That line of thinking also is the reason why we won't see the unsieged drop from sieged pickup, or the pickup from animation.
I do think that making a lot of exceptions and making upgrades behave differently in different cirumstances is convoluted design aswell. If you take a time tested game like chess the rules for Rook movement are: as many squares as you want in a straigh direction. Not something like: 4 squares when attacking a pawn, 3 when attacking a knight, and 3 squares in one and 1 into another direction when not attacking.
|
On February 25 2016 19:15 Branch.AUT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 18:13 Magic Powers wrote:On February 25 2016 13:51 Danglars wrote:
The question is whether a big game-changing patch on siege tanks is a proper start to creating more balance changes that it solves. If other units need a nerf because they overrun tank play easily, will it happen or just stop there? Every next iteration of balance testing will be viewed in how it affects XvT and ALSO ZvZ ZvP and PvP. I say this is the wrong change to start a healthy future round of balancing. Blizzard is obviously unwilling to return to WoL level siege tanks (50 damage flat, REALLY crushed ling/blings running through). I give that example just to show you the other side: an overbuff to compensate for the nerf would also "create more need for balance changes" in a game that "needs a big GAMEPLAY change." It would in this case spur other units to be buffed, versus other units to be nerfed. This is why for a potential SC3 I propose matchup-specific solutions. F.e. purely hypothetically the first marine attack upgrade gives +1 in TvZ and +1.2 in TvP and +1.1 in TvT. Or different build times for things. Stuff like that would make it very easy to finetune matchups without problems. It would also make the game very convoluted and difficult to learn for new players. DKim repeatedly stated that his intentions were to avoid weird or difficult to comprehend behaviour. That line of thinking also is the reason why we won't see the unsieged drop from sieged pickup, or the pickup from animation. I do think that making a lot of exceptions and making upgrades behave differently in different cirumstances is convoluted design aswell. If you take a time tested game like chess the rules for Rook movement are: as many squares as you want in a straigh direction. Not something like: 4 squares when attacking a pawn, 3 when attacking a knight, and 3 squares in one and 1 into another direction when not attacking.
I really dislike the idea too, but new players would just know "get the upgrade & dont get the upgrade", its already a lot more complicated than just 1 attack anyway.
Zealots actually attack twice, so it gives them 2 attack, making them weaker against armor upgrades.
Zealots also take 2 hits to kill a zergling now, increasing their damage by 1/3rd against them.
Damage upgrades are actually completely pointless if they dont change the number of hits required to kill something.
|
United Kingdom20274 Posts
Damage upgrades are actually completely pointless if they dont change the number of hits required to kill something.
This is rarely the case though - in a situation like 100% zergling vs 100% zealot, sure. They're both melee no-splash units.
Usually there is a mix of units and things will often die earlier because of more damage having been inflicted. With a unit like the siege tank, there is the main splash radius, secondary and then tertiary splash which is a % of the damage written on tooltip, so you're likely changing interactions there whenever you change damage
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On February 25 2016 16:57 DeadByDawn wrote:
If you remove Tankivac at least let me pick them up sieged so that I have a chance of saving them. It is still a big nerf as the Medivac is not healing units whilst boosting away, the tank drops unsieged and is still very vulnerable to being chased down, it is not contributing firepower for a good while, it sinks APM. It also helps against the retarded blinding cloud later game.
I agree, let's do it step by step.
|
If Blizzard is really on the fence with this, then they must compromise.
Example:
-Medivac Boost now costs 25 energy.
-Siege Tank deals +4 damage to non-armoured (no Probe/Drone one shot.)
-Return of 2 cargo space Hell Bats.
mb other minimal buff to Mech if needed? Thor? Assault Viking? Cyclone?
The reason I target Medivac Boost is because it would severely nerf doom dropping and energy usage is most targeted at Bio, or Bio&Tank, therefore if you Mech you can spam the ability a lot more. So a huge buff to Mech in TvT.
|
This is something different but i think its important too as we all like our progaming players:
We all know what the change of the tankivac will bring- balance is shaking.
What i fear is the future for some progamers.
In my opinion it would be a good thing to introduce some minor Mirror cups in korea
to help the best players of each race getting some salary even if their race is UP for a few month because i think
that is what will happen.
I know that these cups would not be as entertaining as normal cups for the majority but we also have to think about the pros.
|
On February 25 2016 21:38 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 16:57 DeadByDawn wrote:
If you remove Tankivac at least let me pick them up sieged so that I have a chance of saving them. It is still a big nerf as the Medivac is not healing units whilst boosting away, the tank drops unsieged and is still very vulnerable to being chased down, it is not contributing firepower for a good while, it sinks APM. It also helps against the retarded blinding cloud later game. I agree, let's do it step by step.
I think this is the way this always should have been. No tankivac, but you can pick up sieged tanks. When dropped back they're not sieged anymore. Simple.
|
I've been testing the balance test map on TvZ and TvT. In TvZ, bio tank is still strong. The increased damage and weakened ravager helps compensate. I don't think Mech is viable in TvZ with this change though. TvT is way better, marine tank vs. marine tank has more emphasis on positioning like in HotS.
I think Mech is viable in TvT with this change and Bio is still capable of tearing apart a Mech player. I would not be opposed to allowing siege tanks to be picked up in siege mode and dropped off in tank mode only if the increased siege damage is retained. I don't think they will become OP, probably makes TvZ more balanced if anything IMO.
|
On February 26 2016 00:25 RavingRaver wrote:
I've been testing the balance test map on TvZ and TvT. In TvZ, bio tank is still strong. The increased damage and weakened ravager helps compensate. I don't think Mech is viable in TvZ with this change though. TvT is way better, marine tank vs. marine tank has more emphasis on positioning like in HotS.
I think Mech is viable in TvT with this change and Bio is still capable of tearing apart a Mech player. I would not be opposed to allowing siege tanks to be picked up in siege mode and dropped off in tank mode only if the increased siege damage is retained. I don't think they will become OP, probably makes TvZ more balanced if anything IMO.
Maybe but you can't nerf ravagers when you can still pickup tanks
|
On February 26 2016 02:45 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2016 00:25 RavingRaver wrote:
I've been testing the balance test map on TvZ and TvT. In TvZ, bio tank is still strong. The increased damage and weakened ravager helps compensate. I don't think Mech is viable in TvZ with this change though. TvT is way better, marine tank vs. marine tank has more emphasis on positioning like in HotS.
I think Mech is viable in TvT with this change and Bio is still capable of tearing apart a Mech player. I would not be opposed to allowing siege tanks to be picked up in siege mode and dropped off in tank mode only if the increased siege damage is retained. I don't think they will become OP, probably makes TvZ more balanced if anything IMO. Maybe but you can't nerf ravagers when you can still pickup tanks
That's entirely debatable. Ravagers are strong units and even with Tankivac, the Tank is relegated strictly to supporting roles.
What you mean to say is that you can't nerf the Ravager with pick-uppable Tanks without fundamentally altering the landscape of TvZ. That's probably true!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
