Ravager’s Corrosive Bile Damage changed from 60 to 45 damage (+15 vs bio) Siege Tank Damage increased from 35 (+15 vs armored) to 40 (+20 vs armored) Liberator Casting range of Defender Mode reduced from 5 to 4 Medivac No longer can lift Siege Tanks that are in Siege Mode
We encourage you to head on into the Balance Test Map to test these changes out! To do so, simply click this link if you have StarCraft II installed. To find it manually instead, enter Multiplayer and navigate to Custom. The Balance Test Map will be at the top of the list under ‘Top Played.’
We’ve also updated the Extension Mod for balance testing, so that you can play around with these changes on a variety of maps. Those of you who are interested in trying out the Extension Mod can do the following to get started:
Navigate to Browse Maps on the Custom Games menu
Select a map and click the Create with Mod button in the lower right corner
Choose to sort by Blizzard Mods from the dropdown list at the top of the screen
Select the “Balance Test Mod” Extension from the list and then hit Create Game
If you're interested in the StarCraft II Balance Team's reasoning behind these potential changes, you can check out Senior Designer David Kim's Community Feedback Update.
We’d like to remind you that feedback based on playtesting is the most helpful information you can share with us at this time. We kindly ask that you spend some time playing games on the test map before offering your thoughts on the changes listed above. We look forward to hearing your feedback and please remember that none of these changes are final.
Remove siege tank pick up is not good imo. Very interesting games with that option. And certainly not the good way to buff mech. For buffing mech they should combine air and ground attack back and buff thors because they suck too much. But will see.
My computer broke a month before Legacy released and haven't played the game since, and my computer gets here tomorrow...first thing I planned on doing was install sc2 and play my main race terran, really excited to try the medivac tank micro vs all races...and THIS happens? Serious?
Not sure if blizzard saw how intense the TvT was alive vs ty @ proleague last night, without tankivac, might as well play heart of the swarm version? This was one of the very few GOOD changes from Hots, please dont take it away!
On February 24 2016 16:03 bObA wrote: Remove siege tank pick up is not good imo. Very interesting games with that option. And certainly not the good way to buff mech. For buffing mech they should combine air and ground attack back and buff thors because they suck too much. But will see.
And I guess that's the end of Liberator's harass
How do you know that will be the end of Liberator harass?
Games without "get out of jail free" card Siege Tanks are even more interesting:
I'm going to be completely honest here and say that I think tankivacs should stay in the game. The concept was highly criticized at first but I think enough time has passed that players have learned to adapt to it and furthermore, utilize the strategy to its most optimal level. Just look at aLive vs TY during yesterday's afreeca vs KT match. That match was so invigorating and exciting. I think keeping tankivacs will make for much more action packed games in the long run.
On February 24 2016 16:03 bObA wrote: Remove siege tank pick up is not good imo. Very interesting games with that option. And certainly not the good way to buff mech. For buffing mech they should combine air and ground attack back and buff thors because they suck too much. But will see.
And I guess that's the end of Liberator's harass
No, I always hated merging upgrades the most, made it so easy to just play turtle mech.
I doubt blizzard can make mech viable and fun in sc2 anyway.
I can't wait to see tankivacs gone. It was annoying in TvZ even if it wasn't particularly OP but it made TvT absolutely atrocious to watch. It will be nice to have positioning mean something again in the matchup -_-
On February 24 2016 16:21 Seeker wrote: I'm going to be completely honest here and say that I think tankivacs should stay in the game. The concept was highly criticized at first but I think enough time has passed that players have learned to adapt to it and furthermore, utilize the strategy to its most optimal level. Just look at aLive vs TY during yesterday's afreeca vs KT match. That match was so invigorating and exciting. I think keeping tankivacs will make for much more action packed games in the long run.
Keep it as a late game upgrade I guess? Requires armory and a hefty cost.
On February 24 2016 16:26 KrazyTrumpet wrote: I can't wait to see tankivacs gone. It was annoying in TvZ even if it wasn't particularly OP but it made TvT absolutely atrocious to watch. It will be nice to have positioning mean something again in the matchup -_-
I think it is comparable to PvP disruptor wars. Sure initially it looked like something new and interesting. But now it just means everyones tanks are flying all the time and actually taking care of position is pretty much irrelevant (unless you count not dropping your siege tanks on top of his army as positioning).
Also Liberator range reduction is good imo, or it should have been modified on every single map, since there simply also were a bunch of spots which were abusive with the liberators.
Siege tank medivac micro is one of the coolest things to watch in LotV. Would be a terrible decision to remove that, just find another way to balance it.
On February 24 2016 16:08 ProBell wrote: My computer broke a month before Legacy released and haven't played the game since, and my computer gets here tomorrow...first thing I planned on doing was install sc2 and play my main race terran, really excited to try the medivac tank micro vs all races...and THIS happens? Serious?
Not sure if blizzard saw how intense the TvT was alive vs ty @ proleague last night, without tankivac, might as well play heart of the swarm version? This was one of the very few GOOD changes from Hots, please dont take it away!
Holy crap that was an Amazing game! if you havent seen it you should check out the VOD; Here's the link + Show Spoiler +
Honestly though, im on the fence about the tankivac, I just don't know one way or the other. I can see good aspects from both sides and kinda stumped as to which route is better.
I really really wish Ultralisk armor tweak was on this balance map...
On February 24 2016 16:26 KrazyTrumpet wrote: I can't wait to see tankivacs gone. It was annoying in TvZ even if it wasn't particularly OP but it made TvT absolutely atrocious to watch. It will be nice to have positioning mean something again in the matchup -_-
I think it is comparable to PvP disruptor wars. Sure initially it looked like something new and interesting. But now it just means everyones tanks are flying all the time and actually taking care of position is pretty much irrelevant (unless you count not dropping your siege tanks on top of his army as positioning).
Also Liberator range reduction is good imo, or it should have been modified on every single map, since there simply also were a bunch of spots which were abusive with the liberators.
Yeah, don't even get me started on how obnoxious Disruptor PvP is...
On February 24 2016 16:47 Ctesias wrote: What worries me with these proposed changes is how Terran will fare. A small buff to tank damage hardly compensates for the major nerfs.
It's not a "small" buff, though. And specifically the damage buff helps tanks be better vs units like Marauders that were a particular threat to them.
On February 24 2016 16:26 KrazyTrumpet wrote: I can't wait to see tankivacs gone. It was annoying in TvZ even if it wasn't particularly OP but it made TvT absolutely atrocious to watch. It will be nice to have positioning mean something again in the matchup -_-
I think it is comparable to PvP disruptor wars. Sure initially it looked like something new and interesting. But now it just means everyones tanks are flying all the time and actually taking care of position is pretty much irrelevant (unless you count not dropping your siege tanks on top of his army as positioning).
Also Liberator range reduction is good imo, or it should have been modified on every single map, since there simply also were a bunch of spots which were abusive with the liberators.
Yeah, don't even get me started on how obnoxious Disruptor PvP is...
On February 24 2016 16:47 Ctesias wrote: What worries me with these proposed changes is how Terran will fare. A small buff to tank damage hardly compensates for the major nerfs.
It's not a "small" buff, though. And specifically the damage buff helps tanks be better vs units like Marauders that were a particular threat to them.
Marauders are nerfed quite hard in LoTV and it is not TvT we worry about with Balance
On February 24 2016 16:26 KrazyTrumpet wrote: I can't wait to see tankivacs gone. It was annoying in TvZ even if it wasn't particularly OP but it made TvT absolutely atrocious to watch. It will be nice to have positioning mean something again in the matchup -_-
When neither player goes mech it'll just end up being the same shit, just with unsieged tanks. Boosting a doom drop into your opponent's main was the move in late HotS bio vs bio TvT. That was way more atrocious to watch and play imo.
Yeah I think Siegevacs can be compared to the strength of Disruptors in PvP. Both are highly exciting and skillful to use, but comes at the cost of more shallow strategy.
I really don't think Siege Tanks can find a sweet spot without allowing Medivacs to pick up Sieged Tanks for the much important evacuation the unit needs in LotV, however, I'll be happy to be proved wrong.
On February 24 2016 16:47 Ctesias wrote: What worries me with these proposed changes is how Terran will fare. A small buff to tank damage hardly compensates for the major nerfs.
PvZ is one of the worst it has ever been lately and Blizzard nerfed Protoss twice. I don't think balance is their priority right now.
why can't blizzard just leave the game develop on it's own without them patching every 30 days or so? that way players would actually need to learn to adapt & overcome, like it was in brood war. instead what tthey do now is whine until david kim says "k, time to fix what ain't broken part 999"
Why do not try an intermediate nerf of the tankivac ? So far :
-What we like in tankivacs : good micro is rewarded, you can save your tanks in a lot of situations, making the tank less of an timing-attack unit, because they are not dead as fuck as soon as you go out on the map with them (that was the previous situation, except TvT ). Tankivacs are also nice vs powerful Z and P timings/all-in, the mobility is kinda needed versus corrosive bile/warp-prism/nydus.
-What we don't like in tankivacs : TvT. That seems like there is now an 'offensive advantage', very frustrating to play, plus, forced to keep all the medivacs with the tanks, and forced to scan constantly your opponent even if you are in a kinda nice defensive set-up, multi-task is dying in macro TvT. It's death-ball-micro vs death-ball micro.
The glory days of TvT, from WoL to HotS, was possible thanks to the local defensive advantage brought by Siege Tanks. With even sized armies, 80% of an sieged army could hold 100% of the opponent army : so, counter-attacks was a powerful play, punishing hard F2-deathball play. Repeat this process recursively, and we got the glorious late-WoL Korean TvT, with 4+ hot fighting areas on the map, increasing positional and strategical play !
-Proposed Solution: Leave the full-cargo Siege Tank Pick-up, but drop it unsieged !
This way we keep the good parts and avoid the flows !
Poll: What do you think this proposed change ?
Good Idea (53)
63%
Bad Idea (31)
37%
84 total votes
Your vote: What do you think this proposed change ?
The sieged load and unsieged drop has been suggested a thousand times already (by many and myself too) but it's probably just too confusing and not elegant.
On February 24 2016 16:47 Ctesias wrote: What worries me with these proposed changes is how Terran will fare. A small buff to tank damage hardly compensates for the major nerfs.
It's not a "small" buff, though. And specifically the damage buff helps tanks be better vs units like Marauders that were a particular threat to them.
It is a small buff considering you won't be able to pick them up. The damage hardly matters beyond TvT if you can't save them from Ravager shots, for instance. I can see us returning to the tank not being used at all outside of TvT with these changes.
On February 24 2016 16:21 Seeker wrote: I'm going to be completely honest here and say that I think tankivacs should stay in the game. The concept was highly criticized at first but I think enough time has passed that players have learned to adapt to it and furthermore, utilize the strategy to its most optimal level. Just look at aLive vs TY during yesterday's afreeca vs KT match. That match was so invigorating and exciting. I think keeping tankivacs will make for much more action packed games in the long run.
Exciting to you as a viewer but not a great experience when you play it.
A lot of people like the tankivac style micro, but the siege tank is absolutely the wrong unit to do it on. There's potential to add similar stuff with other units, even other mech units.
The entire design of the siege tank is based around strength at the cost of immobility - to take away strength in order to balance it while being super mobile is an insult to that design.
It is a small buff considering you won't be able to pick them up.
The biggest strengths of the siege tank in the past were in the WOL metas, pre-widow mine etc. Marine-tank vs zerg. It was heavily used in the era of TvP dominance (1-1-1 etc). It was a core unit in TvT FOREVER. The tanks DPS has been increased by ~23-28% depending on what it's shooting at since then and it no longer requires an upgrade to siege, those are massive buffs and it's more than ready to break out into being an extremely powerful unit with these changes.
New counters exist and may be too accessible but if that's the case and even a super buffed tank doesn't work, then it's an obvious and easy thing to fix - it sounds like it will only be an issue vs Zerg if at all, and zerg is a little wonky against more than just terran at the moment.
Tanks will still be used vs terran and protoss, 100%.
On February 24 2016 16:21 Seeker wrote: I'm going to be completely honest here and say that I think tankivacs should stay in the game. The concept was highly criticized at first but I think enough time has passed that players have learned to adapt to it and furthermore, utilize the strategy to its most optimal level. Just look at aLive vs TY during yesterday's afreeca vs KT match. That match was so invigorating and exciting. I think keeping tankivacs will make for much more action packed games in the long run.
I completely agree, although I don't believe there is a majority thinking like you and me.
I am also afraid that a stronger tank without the mobility of tankivacs and its ability to save the tank would encourage turtle play for mech player and terran not moving out on the map, which might leads to a similar way of playing as TvZ WoL during the broodLord infestor era, with only one big marine tank attack to hit a pre-Hive timing from terran.
I can't believe they aren't even considering removing Nydus Invulnerability, like seriously wtf, we've already seen some absolutely atrocious games thanks to it.
On February 24 2016 20:24 Destructicon wrote: I can't believe they aren't even considering removing Nydus Invulnerability, like seriously wtf, we've already seen some absolutely atrocious games thanks to it.
On February 24 2016 16:21 Seeker wrote: I'm going to be completely honest here and say that I think tankivacs should stay in the game. The concept was highly criticized at first but I think enough time has passed that players have learned to adapt to it and furthermore, utilize the strategy to its most optimal level. Just look at aLive vs TY during yesterday's afreeca vs KT match. That match was so invigorating and exciting. I think keeping tankivacs will make for much more action packed games in the long run.
Exciting to you as a viewer but not a great experience when you play it.
I'm having more fun with marine/tank TvT than I did in HotS. I hated TvT in HotS until I switched to playing mech every time. And the reason for that was that all marine/tank vs marine/tank ended up being was dropping 6 or 8 or however many medivacs full of units in your opponent's main. At least with tankivacs I can get together a good defense in my own main base.
I guess if this change goes through it'll be back to mech every TvT for me but I'm not sure how well that's gonna work on the new economy and with liberators. But people have to stop thinking that removing tank pickups = return of WoL TvT.
On February 24 2016 20:24 Destructicon wrote: I can't believe they aren't even considering removing Nydus Invulnerability, like seriously wtf, we've already seen some absolutely atrocious games thanks to it.
Definitely agree on this one. Immunity has always been a really bad feature in gaming (e.g. Diablo 2, unplayable in single player mode). Resistence >>> Immunity.
Nydus invulnerability HAS.TO.GO. Why is blizzard not fixing this broken mechanic?
And I love tankivacs, it has made me interested again and actually is what convinced me to purchase this iteration.
IF they want to remove the tankivac, that is simply not enough of a damage increase. There needs to be either more damage or buff to shot speed, or a decrease in the time required to seige and unseige as well.
I honestly think if they remove the tankivac, you can say goodbye to seeing the tank regularly except in TvT... mech will still not be viable except maybe in TvT (and who wants to see mech when you can see Alive vs TY), and with the reduction in liberator range Terrans will be back to MMMM just like HotS. So might as well just revert the game, apparently Blizzard is uncomfortable with change.
Hmm another change that might be interesting is: Remove the ability to pick up Sieged Tanks, but give the ability to pick up Siege Tanks when they're in the animation of either becoming Sieged; or becoming Unsieged. The outcome will always be: Siege Tank is Unsieged inside the Medivac. So you like cancel the action, or speed up the action, instead of changing mode instantly inside the Medivac.
Remove the damn thing already. It absolutly removes all strategy from TvT. No game plan, no baits, no diversions, just get out on the map with marines and 4 tankivacs and take an abusive position.
If you remove the pickup, they can make the tank useful. But with the pickup in they will always need to balance it around being a highly mobile flying unit.
Heavy turtling in general is alot harder with LotV mining (not impossible, but definately not easier than hots). And with a few exceptions, really no one turtles because they like their deathball mech army. People turtle with mech because moving out is instant suicide, and late game skyterran actually does work. So turtling with mech is only an intermediate step until skyterran. If this deathball army is too strong, then you should nerf that, and not blame it on mech.
Why don't all the people who are so excited from these changes just go play HotS? Because that's what we are heading to, just nerf everything new in LotV.
On February 24 2016 20:43 JackONeill wrote: Remove the damn thing already. It absolutly removes all strategy from TvT. No game plan, no baits, no diversions, just get out on the map with marines and 4 tankivacs and take an abusive position.
Indeed, for example TY vs aLive earlier this week in proleague. No game plan, no baits, no diversions.
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.
Then why not just do just that..? Brood War tanks did extra damage to Ultralisks and Protoss Shields. They were designed in such a way so they would be equally strong against everything on the ground.
I don't mean to invoke SC1 for no reason. But that's what I assume Dayvie means when he talk about tanks "fulfilling their fantasy" by being stronger against Marauders - that they shouldn't be countered by any rock-paper-scissors kind of unit. If that's the goal, then across-the-board buffs to splash is a crude way of going about it. Against many unit compositions, Siege Tanks are already very strong.
(But tbh I think flying siege tanks are cool and there's no real reason they have to be changed)
On February 24 2016 21:02 opisska wrote: Why don't all the people who are so excited from these changes just go play HotS? Because that's what we are heading to, just nerf everything new in LotV.
Well that is obviously because the strongest stuff in LoTV is most of the new stuff (tankivacs, adepts, libs, ravagers, lurkers, early reapers in TvZ, pylon cannon...)
On February 24 2016 21:38 BLinD-RawR wrote: can't siege pickup be an upgrade instead? like on a starport techlab?
Yes and I believe this would be the right move and a good middleground between removing or keeping the siege pick up. Would be nice to see some more showmatches do get a better picture of this potential changes.
On February 24 2016 21:29 IcemanAsi wrote: So, nobody bothered by tanks with zero upgrades one shooting lings with +1 carapace ? Cause that's not exactly a small buff.
Two shotting in the first splash radius instead of 3, as well - it is a big buff
make drilling claws affect unsiege time for tanks. That way in mid-late game if you want to dodge biles or something, you can unsiege quickly and pick up (yes it will be difficult to pull off). Keep sieging up time the same.
On February 24 2016 21:29 IcemanAsi wrote: So, nobody bothered by tanks with zero upgrades one shooting lings with +1 carapace ? Cause that's not exactly a small buff.
Two shotting in the first splash radius instead of 3, as well - it is a big buff
Surprised by the people who like tankivacs but I guess none of those plays terran at all and just want to see fancy micro in progames. If those people would play terran they'd know how cancerous tvt is to play. Strategy, positioning etc doesn't matter at all it's just 2 players boosting their tankivacs around and the first one who drops them in an abusive position wins. This is really an insult to the name RTS and it should be removed immediately.
On February 24 2016 16:21 Seeker wrote: I'm going to be completely honest here and say that I think tankivacs should stay in the game. The concept was highly criticized at first but I think enough time has passed that players have learned to adapt to it and furthermore, utilize the strategy to its most optimal level. Just look at aLive vs TY during yesterday's afreeca vs KT match. That match was so invigorating and exciting. I think keeping tankivacs will make for much more action packed games in the long run.
Maybe try remove boost from medivac when something is hanging under it
Also, with liberator range being reduced but the upgrade being unaffected ( upgraded liberator retain range from before ) and the ravager nerf, liberator range openings are gonna be insane.
On February 24 2016 21:29 IcemanAsi wrote: So, nobody bothered by tanks with zero upgrades one shooting lings with +1 carapace ? Cause that's not exactly a small buff.
Two shotting in the first splash radius instead of 3, as well - it is a big buff
I think nerfing Ravager Corrosive Bile to 45 damage is the wrong way to go. A better way would be to make buildings not take any damage from Corrosive Bile, just like storm doesn't hurt structures. In that way Protoss would have a much easier way of defending Ravager pushes. If they implemented this the nerf to Liberators would not be necessary.
I would like the proposed changes to buff Siege Tanks damage. Medivacs should still be able to pick up tanks in siege mode but that would instantly unsiege them.
On February 24 2016 21:29 IcemanAsi wrote: So, nobody bothered by tanks with zero upgrades one shooting lings with +1 carapace ? Cause that's not exactly a small buff.
Two shotting in the first splash radius instead of 3, as well - it is a big buff
As if LBM was not dead enough
In what world is LBM dead, I see it all the time in pro games. Only because you can't make it work on ladder it doesn't mean it's dead.
On February 24 2016 22:52 Disease_ wrote: I think nerfing Ravager Corrosive Bile to 45 damage is the wrong way to go. A better way would be to make buildings not take any damage from Corrosive Bile, just like storm doesn't hurt structures. In that way Protoss would have a much easier way of defending Ravager pushes. If they implemented this the nerf to Liberators would not be necessary.
Agreed, this way Terran can also rely on base setup and Bunkers to fend of Ravager rushes. Let Corrosive Bile be a proper zoning tool and let Banelings be what you use to bust a building wall.
I think nerfing Ravager Corrosive Bile to 45 damage is the wrong way to go. A better way would be to make buildings not take any damage from Corrosive Bile
1.33x damage nerf is partially because of the interactions that they have with siege tanks as well as libs - and many protoss units
On February 24 2016 22:52 Disease_ wrote: I think nerfing Ravager Corrosive Bile to 45 damage is the wrong way to go. A better way would be to make buildings not take any damage from Corrosive Bile, just like storm doesn't hurt structures. In that way Protoss would have a much easier way of defending Ravager pushes. If they implemented this the nerf to Liberators would not be necessary.
Agreed, this way Terran can also rely on base setup and Bunkers to fend of Ravager rushes. Let Corrosive Bile be a proper zoning tool and let Banelings be what you use to bust a building wall.
On February 24 2016 21:29 IcemanAsi wrote: So, nobody bothered by tanks with zero upgrades one shooting lings with +1 carapace ? Cause that's not exactly a small buff.
Two shotting in the first splash radius instead of 3, as well - it is a big buff
As if LBM was not dead enough
In what world is LBM dead, I see it all the time in pro games. Only because you can't make it work on ladder it doesn't mean it's dead.
I saw Soulkey use it today also. Not in Code S anymore Less gas and more minerals mean that there is less banes and more marines. Freedom also shuts down muta plays hardcore nowadays.
On February 24 2016 23:19 MiCroLiFe wrote: Now Terrans actually have no chance vs zerg late game. Cant lift up vs ultralisk? cant early harass whit liberator? gg
You can still lift tanks, you can still make ghost or liberators and you can still harras with liberators but they will be a bit less effective.
On February 24 2016 20:43 JackONeill wrote: Remove the damn thing already. It absolutly removes all strategy from TvT. No game plan, no baits, no diversions, just get out on the map with marines and 4 tankivacs and take an abusive position.
Indeed, for example TY vs aLive earlier this week in proleague. No game plan, no baits, no diversions.
/sarcasm
What a load of crap.
exactly. Removing the only exciting thing about terran.
I am worried about Tank oneshoting Lings, I think it could be OP but I am not sure about it. Excluding that I think it is an incredible good patch overall, but if you ask me I think they could do some changes to the Tank (not all together anyway)
- Reduce the set-up time for Siege/Unsiege - Increase the attack delay if they buff its damage - Reduce the attack delay if they don't buff its damage - Let them pickup in Siege but remove it while loading them
Overall I think it is an incredible good patch until now, I hope it works and go live ASAP
On February 24 2016 23:19 MiCroLiFe wrote: Now Terrans actually have no chance vs zerg late game. Cant lift up vs ultralisk? cant early harass whit liberator? gg
late game? how the hell do you even make it to late game?
On February 24 2016 21:02 opisska wrote: Why don't all the people who are so excited from these changes just go play HotS? Because that's what we are heading to, just nerf everything new in LotV.
Because the Tank was rubbish in HOTS, and with this buff it might become good.
On February 24 2016 19:51 Big-t wrote: Yes! Bye bye tankivacs But I don´t think the tank dmg buff is enough to make up for that.
That's ok. I'd rather be a nerfed Terran playing a great game like Starcraft, than an OP Terran until I race switch. It's that big of a deal for me in TvT. Choose your race according to the mirror matchup you hate the less they said. I would prefer PvP or ZvZ even now. In the long run if the gameplay is ok, the balance will come.
On February 24 2016 20:43 JackONeill wrote: Remove the damn thing already. It absolutly removes all strategy from TvT. No game plan, no baits, no diversions, just get out on the map with marines and 4 tankivacs and take an abusive position.
True.
Most any terran tankivac should stay is probably worried more about Balance versus other races (particularly zerg), than thinking about the betterment of Terran gameplay. At 3 months after LOTV launch, I would suggest that getting the gameplay right is much more important.
I believe that it was Big J that mentioned in another thread that the only thing that will beat probing for a doom drop with tankivac will be probing for a doom drop with tankivac. This begins to look alot like Hellbat use early HOTS, or Mutalisk wars before the spore buff. There were gameplay and strategic diversity issues in those situations as well.
On February 24 2016 21:29 IcemanAsi wrote: So, nobody bothered by tanks with zero upgrades one shooting lings with +1 carapace ? Cause that's not exactly a small buff.
Two shotting in the first splash radius instead of 3, as well - it is a big buff
As if LBM was not dead enough
In what world is LBM dead, I see it all the time in pro games. Only because you can't make it work on ladder it doesn't mean it's dead.
I saw Soulkey use it today also. Not in Code S anymore Less gas and more minerals mean that there is less banes and more marines. Freedom also shuts down muta plays hardcore nowadays.
One player lost with it. Surely that means it's not viable anymore. By that logic bio is also not viable anymore because players lost with it. Also get your facts right. Mineral to gas ratio is the same as in HotS
On February 24 2016 22:52 Disease_ wrote: I think nerfing Ravager Corrosive Bile to 45 damage is the wrong way to go. A better way would be to make buildings not take any damage from Corrosive Bile, just like storm doesn't hurt structures. In that way Protoss would have a much easier way of defending Ravager pushes. If they implemented this the nerf to Liberators would not be necessary.
That would make protoss early game defense even more dependent on cancer core, though.
Avilo (mech player) tested those new changes and we all saw how the tanks alone can't stop ultras+lings. Also, there is no tankivac option so it feels less micro and more slowly games (specially TvT) when this is a contradiction on what Lotv should be.
Bad patch because it makes TvT really boring and feels more Hots than Lotv again.
These things need to be rebalanced and fixed: Ultras, Tanks, Ghosts, Cyclone, Nydus and Thor. Terran needs a better AA mech or every Terran player is gonna use 80% bio army which is super strong with the properly micro.
On February 24 2016 22:52 Disease_ wrote: I think nerfing Ravager Corrosive Bile to 45 damage is the wrong way to go. A better way would be to make buildings not take any damage from Corrosive Bile, just like storm doesn't hurt structures. In that way Protoss would have a much easier way of defending Ravager pushes. If they implemented this the nerf to Liberators would not be necessary. .
Liberators are not only too strong in TvZ but also TvP. On many maps there are spots, where you can't reach them with a sufficient number of units, in order to kill them fast enough or you can't reach them at all.
On February 25 2016 00:43 liberatorgtb wrote: Avilo (mech player) tested those new changes and we all saw how the tanks alone can't stop ultras+lings. Also, there is no tankivac option so it feels less micro and more slowly games (specially TvT) when this is a contradiction on what Lotv should be.
Bad patch because it makes TvT really boring and feels more Hots than Lotv again.
These things need to be rebalanced and fixed: Ultras, Tanks, Ghosts, Cyclone, Nydus and Thor. Terran needs a better AA mech or every Terran player is gonna use 80% bio army which is super strong with the poperly micro.
Are you really posting that tanks alone cannot stop ultras + lings? Seriously?
Tankivac was the worst design change in lotv along with the invincible nydus & warp prism range. I wish the other two would go as well. Terran players are frustrated because it was one of the few "new" things they had compared to other 2 races.
Tankivac needs to go, it has destroyed TvT which used to be the most interesting matchup in the game.
I played a few games on the balance test map. I was worried if it would be too hard to hold roach/ravager rushes without the tankivac but so far it seems possible to hold if you put a few bunkers in front of your tanks and fill them with marines.
It is possible that the tanks damage increase may need to be higher, but I am not sure yet.
Are you really posting that tanks alone cannot stop ultras + lings? Seriously?
200/200 Tanks on siege mode with perfect position can't stop Ultras+Lings which don't make sense. At least a draw don't you think? but not an a-move win for the Zerg vs the strongest Terran unit on the field.
Disregarding balance, tankivacs just look silly and are frustrating to play against. Sure they can be skillful, but it turns the iconic siege tank into just another twitch-style unit.
If Blizzard/community won't let it happen, I would be willing to meet halfway and have pickup unsiege the tank.
Are you really posting that tanks alone cannot stop ultras + lings? Seriously?
200/200 Tanks on siege mode with perfect position can't stop Ultras+Lings which don't make sense. At least a draw don't you think? but not an a-move win for the Zerg vs the strongest Terran unit on the field.
At least combine tanks with hellbats to counter the lings. If the zerg still wins you might have a point but I think the problem is more wizh ultras then with tanks.
Are you really posting that tanks alone cannot stop ultras + lings? Seriously?
200/200 Tanks on siege mode with perfect position can't stop Ultras+Lings which don't make sense. At least a draw don't you think? but not an a-move win for the Zerg vs the strongest Terran unit on the field.
At least combine tanks with hellbats to counter the lings. If the zerg still wins you might have a point but I think the problem is more wizh ultras then with tanks.
With hellbats we can talk about the same thing we were talking in WoL - tank focus. In WoL Terran had to focus banelings with tanks, good player received praise for it. So now we can talk about focusing ultras with tanks. It may not help, but if tanks are trying to counter whole composition, this is just wrong. Mono battles are fun, but they are not supposed to be a source of balancing or designing.
On February 25 2016 00:43 liberatorgtb wrote: Terran needs a better AA mech or every Terran player is gonna use 80% bio army which is super strong with the properly micro.
So you're saying Terran needs even more super strong mech so he doesn't use bio? That's a ridiculous strange argument. What about a nerf to bio instead, like cooldown for "attack" and "stop" and "move" commands? Then, when the first level 1 Terran unit isn't the answer to everything anymore, we can think of buffing something Terran...
Terrible, terrible patch. After these changes get properly patched into the game T will suffer again. As someone said, not enough buff (small tank damage buff), doesn't compensate for the rest of the major nerfs. It's not like Terrans are having a walk in the park lately with the Adept nerf and Ultra chitinous plating still reigning supreme. Ghost snipe doesn't apply here, the amount of effort micro and macro-side is abysmal.
Liberator range being a pain in the ass/harass was countered recently by Z and P (spore positioning and phoenix), players adapting to bullshit as always. In comparison we still have, P side: Warp Prism unbelievable range w/adepts, 2 oracle harass (turrets, right?). Z side: invincible nydus, ravager/roach 2 base timing which doesn't get enough nerf with corrosive bile DPS (stack 3 or 4 rav and melt supplies at second volley)
Tankivacs is getting a lot of finesse lately, watch aLive vs TY yesterday and you'll get it. Awesome playstile when done right! If you remove that you leave T without a lot of positioning micro which is needed with ravagers and disruptors and no proper units to counter those mid-late game. Doom drop being a problem? Always was since WoL, again players adapting.
Pardon my salt and I hope I'm wrong, after all I'm more of a viewer/fan than a player, but I sense a disturbance in the force, Luke.
If those people would play terran they'd know how cancerous tvt is to play. Strategy, positioning etc doesn't matter at all it's just 2 players boosting their tankivacs around and the first one who drops them in an abusive position wins. This is really an insult to the name RTS and it should be removed immediately.
Actually that's the name of the game and it doesn't disturb me much. I m top gold/low plat terran player, I like play with Tankivac even if it requires sick micro, I love even more watch TvT from pro players atm cause I think this matchup gives the most amazing games. At this point you understand I am totally against Tank pickup removal. The only thing disturb me in TvT is, as said Nathanias, 80% of games (or maybe 90 :/ ) end on a tradebase, but this is not due to tankivac.
If those people would play terran they'd know how cancerous tvt is to play. Strategy, positioning etc doesn't matter at all it's just 2 players boosting their tankivacs around and the first one who drops them in an abusive position wins. This is really an insult to the name RTS and it should be removed immediately.
Actually that's the name of the game and it doesn't disturb me much. I m top gold/low plat terran player, I like play with Tankivac even if it requires sick micro, I love even more watch TvT from pro players atm cause I think this matchup gives the most amazing games. At this point you understand I am totally against Tank pickup removal. The only thing disturb me in TvT is, as said Nathanias, 80% of games (or maybe 90 :/ ) end on a tradebase, but this is not due to tankivac.
This is due to the boost of medevacs, since tankivac is made of medevac is is partially responsible for this problem. Boost is the root of that evil, without boost you cannot go in so fast to do the doom drop. But maybe my rose glasses won't let me see the WoL TvT the same way as HotS(when the doom drops started to be a thing)
Siegevacs def brings more dynamic fights and save Terrans in many circumstances but we losing tactical and timing in TvT games, so the removal isnt that bad after all...same goes for Pylon Overcharge i cant believe 90% of Protoss users are shortsighted and biased to the race and still supporting the concept behind attacking Pylons at this game.
Devs should remove/disable lots of legacy units like Carrier, Battlecruiser, etc SC2 is way different than BW,, BW is pure strategy built from early to end game(being zerg the most OP race) while in SC2 LOTV is less strategic is way simpler they removed many different early game styles in the name of "E$PORT$ VIEWER$" so easy/safe/fast to cap 200 units, you barely develop micro in games due this economy if DavidKims team wanted to elevate quality gameplay they should have increased the limit to 400 or more from 200 for more complex macro games...instead we got this rushed weird fast paced strategy game called SC2 with rock-paper-scissors matchups.
As someone said, not enough buff (small tank damage buff)
Why do you think tanks doing ~23-28% more DPS than WOL and sieging without an upgrade requirement are insignificant buffs?
Other races have changed some, but either way the siege tank is WAY better than it used to be back when it was most used and a powerful unit. If the counters are really THAT good and invalidate tanks rather than just allowing micro-based counterplay, they can be adjusted.
-------
i cant believe 90% of Protoss users are shortsighted and biased to the race and still supporting the concept behind attacking Pylons at this game.
I think that most people don't want it (aside from to have a defenders advantage in pvp) but the race is too weak in the early game to function well without it. Even the overcharge nerf made pvz a bit of a nightmare because it was a P nerf without proper compensation.
On February 25 2016 01:51 Cyro wrote: Why do you think tanks doing ~23-28% more DPS than WOL and sieging without an upgrade requirement are insignificant buffs?
Other races have changed some, but either way the siege tank is WAY better than it used to be back when it was most used.
Not enough DPS to justify it returning to stationary/positional unit with the current meta.
On February 25 2016 01:51 Cyro wrote: Why do you think tanks doing ~23-28% more DPS than WOL and sieging without an upgrade requirement are insignificant buffs?
Other races have changed some, but either way the siege tank is WAY better than it used to be back when it was most used.
Not enough DPS to justify it returning to stationary/positional unit with the current meta.
If that's really the case then it can be fixed with further buffs or nerfs to counters. Having a situation where terran "needs" mobile tanks to live (even super powerful tanks not being enough) and protoss "needs" overcharge etc just because of a few zerg capabilities is pretty silly
On February 24 2016 16:47 Ctesias wrote: What worries me with these proposed changes is how Terran will fare. A small buff to tank damage hardly compensates for the major nerfs.
On February 25 2016 01:51 Cyro wrote: Why do you think tanks doing ~23-28% more DPS than WOL and sieging without an upgrade requirement are insignificant buffs?
Other races have changed some, but either way the siege tank is WAY better than it used to be back when it was most used.
Not enough DPS to justify it returning to stationary/positional unit with the current meta.
If that's really the case then it can be fixed with further buffs or nerfs to counters. Having a situation where terran "needs" mobile tanks to live (even super powerful tanks not being enough) and protoss "needs" overcharge etc just because of a few zerg capabilities is pretty silly
Almost everything in legacy makes mobility a must, New units, random warp prism buffs or the economy
And without overkill there is 0 way to have strong but not OP tanks anyway
On February 25 2016 02:07 Cyro wrote: Having a situation where terran "needs" mobile tanks to live (even super powerful tanks not being enough) and protoss "needs" overcharge etc just because of a few zerg capabilities is pretty silly
I concur. LoTV as fun as it is (having nerd shivers every week through tournament viewings here) could benefit from a whole 3-race review and further balance. Doing it bit by bit, reactionary, endangers the overall experience again and again. But hey, I'm being overly unrealistic!
Well I`m abit so and so about this balancing considerations.
TvT will be really better to play with a more static Tank play, BUT i feel there is a compromise, that the tanks can still be lifted but become unsieged and put INTO the medivac. On the other hand the damage buff will hurt TvT much. Marauders are useless. You are forced to go air against tank heavy play. With one or two early tanks one is able shut down any early game agression from barracks play. So Mech and air should be the way to go. So TvT will be (again) all about who has more tanks and who will get the better transition into Air.
In TvZ Marine Tank will rule the early game vs. the high percentage of roach ravenger play, but there is no way to punish fast 3rd hatches anymore, and with that said, T3 Tech to Ultras will still rule the Terran.
In TvP I dont see any big issues, as Protoss always had good couterplay to tanks and tankdrops.
In general I think the Liberator range nerf is obsolete, early game Liberator harass is not that big of an issue as I would consider it as very high risk play, that is well defendable, and involves much micro to position liberators well.
On February 25 2016 01:51 Cyro wrote: Why do you think tanks doing ~23-28% more DPS than WOL and sieging without an upgrade requirement are insignificant buffs?
Other races have changed some, but either way the siege tank is WAY better than it used to be back when it was most used.
Not enough DPS to justify it returning to stationary/positional unit with the current meta.
If that's really the case then it can be fixed with further buffs or nerfs to counters. Having a situation where terran "needs" mobile tanks to live (even super powerful tanks not being enough) and protoss "needs" overcharge etc just because of a few zerg capabilities is pretty silly
Almost everything in legacy makes mobility a must, New units, random warp prism buffs or the economy
And without overkill there is 0 way to have strong but not OP tanks anyway
Well, you can always buff immobile strategies to the point that they have equal win chances. You don't have to have mobility if you have enough firepower to just kill the opponent without trying to play "their game". Question being if that leads to interesting gameplay and if you can really buff immobile units so exclusively that mobile styles of the same race do not greatly benefit as well, making them imbalanced (and the only way to play properly to begin with).
Using an overlord to instantly pick up Swarm Hosts or Lurkers, while they are burrowed, only to re-drop them pre-burrowed in a new location - would also be a ridiculous mechanic. Why create a unit around having to burrow and become immobile to access its strong primary attack if you are going to give it limitless mobility in that mode? Well, actually, tankivacs are even worse, because the overlords do not heal the support units (marines/hydralisks) that would accompany to defend against air so you are actually using a combat unit to move the siege tanks around.
Anyhow, based on the same logic, why would this be acceptable for a "sieged up" tank? Maybe we could extend flight to burrowed mines and planetary fortresses and call it good design? This is only a game design opinion of course.
As someone said, not enough buff (small tank damage buff)
Why do you think tanks doing ~23-28% more DPS than WOL and sieging without an upgrade requirement are insignificant buffs?
Because they've had 7-9% more DPS than WOL and sieging without an upgrade requirement throughout HOTS, and they were dead useless in TvP during that time and in 99% of cases only useful in TvZ as a stopgap to Ravens or an all in push. Now there's no scary Raven to tech up to but there is a Ravager to hard counter the tank.
Other races have changed some, but either way the siege tank is WAY better than it used to be back when it was most used and a powerful unit.
Was it a powerful unit? I didn't watch much WOL, but my understanding is the tank was not a core unit in TvP even then. It got stronger in HOTS and.... became even more niche. That doesn't sound like a powerful unit to me.
If the counters are really THAT good and invalidate tanks rather than just allowing micro-based counterplay, they can be adjusted.
And what if it turns out that the problem isn't one or two units per race, but four or five? Including core units like Roaches, Adepts, Zealots? Still worth it or are you ready to give up on the tank yet?
why is the siege tank useless in TvP while the Lurker often seems unstoppable in PvZ?! I think that it is largely because tanks' minimum range and friendly splash makes "just run into them" the optimal counter tactic. And P/Z have a LOT of units that are very very good at just running into things and surviving to tell about it. Of all the ways of trying to solve this problem, I genuinely think that giving tanks more range is the simplest.
On February 25 2016 02:35 PressureSC2 wrote: Anyhow, based on the same logic, why would this be acceptable for a "sieged up" tank? Maybe we could extend flight to burrowed mines and planetary fortresses and call it good design? This is only a game design opinion of course.
I would definately support your proposal to make PFs fly. Maybe for balance sake they can only attack air targets when flying. So late game I can have an air armada of PFs flying around and defending my bases. Make it happen.
On February 25 2016 00:43 liberatorgtb wrote: Also, there is no tankivac option so it feels less micro and more slowly games (specially TvT) when this is a contradiction on what Lotv should be.
Says who? I for one am interested in a strategy game where not all units move with the speed of boosted medivacs (or faster).
Are you really posting that tanks alone cannot stop ultras + lings? Seriously?
200/200 Tanks on siege mode with perfect position can't stop Ultras+Lings which don't make sense. At least a draw don't you think? but not an a-move win for the Zerg vs the strongest Terran unit on the field.
At least combine tanks with hellbats to counter the lings. If the zerg still wins you might have a point but I think the problem is more wizh ultras then with tanks.
Avilo tested the fight using hellbats plus tanks too but when lings are behind ultras then the tanks auto focus lings and ultras roflstomp the hellbats and tank line so easy. Im not a pro buff or pro nerf player because like some ppl say all the problems with starcraft 2 comes to the root of the design concept (limit cap, hardcounters, weird maps)
IMO Lotv spirit is fantastic because games are aggressive and promotes micro and different type of skill but this patch is a journey to the past.
If medivacs can't pick up sieged tanks, ravagers will counter them completely. Good luck unsieging and microing them away from corrosive biles. There won't be a reason to make them in TvZ.
It might make TvT more interesting - depending on your preferences - but saying the damage buff is enough to compensate the nerfs in TvZ is just wrong.
Are you really posting that tanks alone cannot stop ultras + lings? Seriously?
200/200 Tanks on siege mode with perfect position can't stop Ultras+Lings which don't make sense. At least a draw don't you think? but not an a-move win for the Zerg vs the strongest Terran unit on the field.
At least combine tanks with hellbats to counter the lings. If the zerg still wins you might have a point but I think the problem is more wizh ultras then with tanks.
Avilo tested the fight using hellbats plus tanks too but when lings are behind ultras then the tanks auto focus lings and ultras roflstomp the hellbats and tank line so easy. Im not a pro buff or pro nerf player because like some ppl say all the problems with starcraft 2 comes to the root of the design concept (limit cap, hardcounters, weird maps)
IMO Lotv spirit is fantastic because games are aggressive and promotes micro and different type of skill but this patch is a journey to the past.
Just like Avilo I am a mech player. And let me say one thing as mech player about Avilo. Avilo whines alot. It just never stops. His good points are hidden behind his whines. For some reason I watched his stream ones. Constant whining about zerg air being overpowered, while completely thrashing his opponents zerg air. Ultras are supposed to beat that (imo). A more proper counter would be hellbat thor.
LotV only promotes micro. Just make a Moba where you can control armies if thats the goal.
I don't know why people say the tank damage buff is insignificant. SC2 is a well balanced game, and even small tweaks change the proportions significantly
And the tank damage buff is not a small tweak, it's a 14%-20% spike of AoE hellfire
Hope they now also allow the liberators to hit buildings. It doesn't make sense that they decimate everything but the buildings
On February 25 2016 02:54 Ctesias wrote: It might make TvT more interesting - depending on your preferences - but saying the damage buff is enough to compensate the nerfs in TvZ is just wrong.
I do not think that anyone is saying that. I think most are saying - we will see if any further TvZ balance changes are necessary after the gameplay makes sense.
One thing everyone has to realize is that Terran will not be fixed with this patch. The race needs some sort of an overhaul particularly with respect to Thor, Cyclone, Tank and maybe Ghost/Marauder depending on how the Ultralisk thing plays out. So, even if everything is not 100% perfect if we just slighly change the tank, it's ok - we can deal with balance on many levels a bit later on in the process.
At least working on the tank is a step closer. Hopefully the Thor or Cyclone will be next so that we have a better answer to Broodlords and/or Tempest than "your race isn't meant to win a Starcraft game very often after the other player is able to produce 6 of unit X". Because those do not make for very exciting games to watch until the end.
Because they've had 7-9% more DPS than WOL and sieging without an upgrade requirement throughout HOTS
They were generally overshadowed by bio+mine and other stuff in the early HOTS that i watched a lot of. It was about a ~7.2% DPS buff on the ROF.
Was it a powerful unit? I didn't watch much WOL, but my understanding is the tank was not a core unit in TvP even then. It got stronger in HOTS and.... became even more niche. That doesn't sound like a powerful unit to me.
It was one of the core units in TvZ play and saw some usage in TvP for certain strategies. During the highest TvP winrate in the history of the game, siege tanks were used quite a lot against Protoss - especially with 1-1-1 strategies. Those were both before any buffs - so yeah, the counterplay has become better but with such huge buffs, there's plenty of room for it to leap out and become a popular and powerful unit.
Love it love it, by far the best balance patch for LOTV yet, these are the changes we need to keep the game improving.
I really don't understand Terran players love for the tankivac, it is a gimmick ability that was literally only put in the game for one reason, because tanks suck at their intended job of holding ground while immobile in siege mode. If they didnt suck, tankivac would have never been on the table anyways.
What makes the unit interactions in Starcraft so awesome to watch is that some units generally have clearly defined roles. The Siege Tanks role is to siege up and be a position that you can't really attack into. Not something that has to be micro managed away in a unit that is meant to help bio armies.
Plus, now Ravagers can be properly nerfed.
Can't wait to see more tank play in action, Koreans make it look easy but it's hard as hell leap frogging tanks while macroing while microing, I think tanks might even become OP with siege mode not being a research!
On February 25 2016 03:16 QzYSc2 wrote: fuck these changes. siege tank pick up was awesome, people who couldnt control them want them gone so they can win too.
Properly control them? you mean load up 4 tanks and 2 medivacs full of marines and doom drop the enemy terrans main? yea sick control dude.
On February 24 2016 22:37 geokilla wrote: Why not make picking up Seige Tanks an upgrade? That way it'll be reserved for mid to late game TvT.
Then we're on a timer to win in tvt before the game devolves into a cancerfest.
How is it a cancer fest? It takes out the power of early game Seige Tank harassment, which when I last read about two weeks ago, was a huge complaint by many. It also allows TvT to be less gimmicky while still keeping the ability to provide insane games like TY vs aLive. Plus it won't hurt late game Terran games either because the ability to do Tankivacs is still there.
Sad to see the siege tank nerf, not only because now you can't play tank against zerg anymore but also because it will buff mech in tvt which is boring to play/play against/watch. Blizzard keeping on their favorite hobby : nerfing terran.
I'm all for tweaking siege tank damage but I'd be cautious of crazy damage increases. It seem silly that the logic for buffing tank damage is primarily due to other mechanics introduced in the expansion, at least from a game design standpoint. Tweaks should be made to the new mechanics themselves. For example, how come nobody is really mentioning decreasing the speed of unsieging tanks, or increasing corrosive bile delay, both which would allow tanks to micro out of the ability w/o the need for medevac pickups, similar to how lurkers can unburrow much faster than they burrow which allows them to dodge disruptor balls.
On February 25 2016 03:16 QzYSc2 wrote: fuck these changes. siege tank pick up was awesome, people who couldnt control them want them gone so they can win too.
Properly control them? you mean load up 4 tanks and 2 medivacs full of marines and doom drop the enemy terrans main? yea sick control dude.
yeah see you at gsl just doing 1 doom drop every game
On February 25 2016 03:16 QzYSc2 wrote: fuck these changes. siege tank pick up was awesome, people who couldnt control them want them gone so they can win too.
Properly control them? you mean load up 4 tanks and 2 medivacs full of marines and doom drop the enemy terrans main? yea sick control dude.
he's totally right you're describing hots not lotv.
I really really really hope tankivac stays dead. Too many TvTs and TvZs revolved completely around that mechanic, which is kind of a gimmick that defeats the purpose of a siege unit.
I find it interesting that people have so very different opinions on the tankivac issue, with one post against and the next one in favor. It's even more interesting to think about what the hell Blizzard will/can do with feedback like this.
Was it a powerful unit? I didn't watch much WOL, but my understanding is the tank was not a core unit in TvP even then. It got stronger in HOTS and.... became even more niche. That doesn't sound like a powerful unit to me.
It was one of the core units in TvZ play and saw some usage in TvP for certain strategies. During the highest TvP winrate in the history of the game, siege tanks were used quite a lot against Protoss - especially with 1-1-1 strategies. Those were both before any buffs - so yeah, the counterplay has become better but with such huge buffs, there's plenty of room for it to leap out and become a popular and powerful unit.
1-1-1 was an all-in that was defendable once Protoss learned to prepare zealot flanks. Then, +1 immortal range buff killed 1-1-1.
As for TvZ, zergs at that time didn't know the power of spread creep. Just look at the idra game you linked yourself. In that very same game, you also notice how his engagements are just head-on. Modern zergs now know the power of using ling mobility to set up flanks.
Tanks weren't overshadowed for nothing. Bomber famously used tanks in TvZ HotS when mines were nerfed, and lost even to Scarlett (who is a favourite foreigner of mine, but not top Korean level). Mines, despite their tendency to heavily friendly-fire (ForGG vs Stephano, mines killing loaded medivacs), were still a better option than tanks.
After testing the map, I'd say mech is still crappy against toss, but mainly because revelation + tempest destroys any attempt to go mech (which may be looked into later).
As a whole the changes are good. The siege tank damage buff seems reasonable. And the necessary tankivac remove is a fucking blessing
On February 25 2016 03:29 Ctesias wrote: I find it interesting that people have so very different opinions on the tankivac issue, with one post against and the next one in favor. It's even more interesting to think about what the hell Blizzard will/can do with feedback like this.
Well the main difference in opinion is a difference in activity. I mean people who only watch TvT are glad and praise the tankivac, while people who play it hate it. The difference also lies in whether you like starcraft to be a strategy game or a micro game. If you watch the Alive vs Ty game, which was very tense and interesting because the two players were so evenly matched, there was no strategy whatsoever. Get out on the map with tankivacs, and try to wiggle and take an abusive position. TY gained a lead in the game because he was the first to move out, and since tankivacs pretty much throw defender's advantage through the window, alive had to play the game from behind.
On February 25 2016 02:35 PressureSC2 wrote: Using an overlord to instantly pick up Swarm Hosts or Lurkers, while they are burrowed, only to re-drop them pre-burrowed in a new location - would also be a ridiculous mechanic. Why create a unit around having to burrow and become immobile to access its strong primary attack if you are going to give it limitless mobility in that mode? Well, actually, tankivacs are even worse, because the overlords do not heal the support units (marines/hydralisks) that would accompany to defend against air so you are actually using a combat unit to move the siege tanks around.
Anyhow, based on the same logic, why would this be acceptable for a "sieged up" tank? Maybe we could extend flight to burrowed mines and planetary fortresses and call it good design? This is only a game design opinion of course.
This. 1000x. Overlords also don't have a free 'get out of jail card' as well.
If we distinguish between picking up sieged tanks and dropping sieged tanks, then what happens to community preferences? Suppose you could eliminate one without affecting the other. Because both serve different functions and might have different proponents.
On February 25 2016 03:05 Cyro wrote: It was one of the core units in TvZ play and saw some usage in TvP for certain strategies. During the highest TvP winrate in the history of the game, siege tanks were used quite a lot against Protoss - especially with 1-1-1 strategies. Those were both before any buffs - so yeah, the counterplay has become better but with such huge buffs, there's plenty of room for it to leap out and become a popular and powerful unit.
Regarding TvP - I'm looking up the 1-1-1 and it seems like there was a variant for every occasion. No tanks, tanks, Banshees. An alternate interpretation is simply that Terran aggression was strong regardless of the units - like Protoss aggression in PvT in HotS and LotV. And any unit can become the beneficiary of a strong timing attack. Look at Reapers in TvZ. Reapers are a very very very very niche unit, and they are a very very very weak unit. That doesn't mean they don't sometimes win games and look useful A.F. because they're very strong during a certain timing window.
Regarding TvZ - creep spread, Ravagers (hard counter), Vipers (hard counter). 20% damage increase might sound like a "kind of sort of fair compensation" until you realize that the time when 20% on a unit that attacks every 3 seconds matters most is when those units can attack over and over and over. And maybe 200/200 tanks ARE great in TvZ (although apparently Ultra/Ling beats them) but Tanks don't get to 200/200 because they get rolled when you only have a couple because they only get to free a couple of times before they're taken out. Terran's aren't roflstomping Zergs using WMsome, they're fighting very close battles. If the WM replaced the tank it's not because the WM is too strong.
Think about it this way - are the tank's problems in TvZ and TvP fundamentally similar or different? Ravagers have range and initiative on Tanks. Vipers have excellent range on Blinding cloud (don't risk dying to Terran ground AA). Roaches, Lings, Ultras have no range but can survive long enough to get into the dead zone at which point tanks can have +1000 damage and it won't do them any good. Sound like any Chargelots, Adepts, Blink Stalkers or Immortals you know?
The tank needs a way to keep its distance. In BW that was mines and shitty pathing. In WOL that was lack of creep and cliff abuse. In HOTS it was nothing, and thats how many tanks we saw. In LOTV it used to be Medivacs - though note that even with Medivacs it's not enough to be a core unit against Protoss or Zerg, that's how "powerful" the tank is.
And why should Tanks be core vs Protoss? You Terrans want every single of your units to be useful and core vs. both Protoss and Zerg. I also want to be able to play just Skytoss vs. every race, but I can't, because it's not viable. Do you see me and other Protoss players whining about it constantly?
On February 25 2016 04:06 killerm12 wrote: I can't believe so many people are for tankivac removal...it's the most fun new mechanic in LotV and makes games so much fun to watch.
But yeah, let's remove it cause someone can't control it properly so it must be bad game mechanic...
Nowhere has Blizzard stated they wanted to remove flying tanks because people can't control them.
I found that some comments that have great ideas. - Let tankivac a upgrade with huge cost or fusion core is required. If you can't break tank line, you don't have to research massive air units or maybe using to protect those tanks. Also Mech needs strong AA units too. - Ravagers do no damage to building. It should be use to clear force field. Not pylon or bunker.
Hm, would buffing vikings be a solution? I really like the Tankivac, I think it make for awesome games as terran can actually relocate, move around, and control positions like in BW. I can see how this would be an annoyance in TvT though... So what if, we buff vikings so they are good enough to just shread medivacs? That would help Terran vs Skytoss (something they probably need too), and remove tankivac issue.
On February 25 2016 04:19 CheddarToss wrote: And why should Tanks be core vs Protoss? You Terrans want every single of your units to be useful and core vs. both Protoss and Zerg. I also want to be able to play just Skytoss vs. every race, but I can't, because it's not viable. Do you see me and other Protoss players whining about it constantly?
A Protoss army can be Stalkers + things, or Adepts + things, or Archons + things, or Tempests + things. (Or Colossus + things throughout all of WOL and HOTS)
A Zerg army can be Lings + things, Banes + things, Roaches + things, Ravagers + things, Lurkers + things, Mutas + things, Ultras + things.
A Terran army can be Marines + things. In TvT alone, it can be Tanks + things. In HOTS TvP alone, it could be Marauders + things, which functionally makes almost zero difference because the gameplay of Marines and Marauders is nearly identical.
Do you see how one of these things is not like the others?
On February 25 2016 03:15 jpg06051992 wrote: Love it love it, by far the best balance patch for LOTV yet, these are the changes we need to keep the game improving.
I really don't understand Terran players love for the tankivac, it is a gimmick ability that was literally only put in the game for one reason, because tanks suck at their intended job of holding ground while immobile in siege mode. If they didnt suck, tankivac would have never been on the table anyways.
This. Also, has anyone ever considered the argument that when flying Siege Tanks (aka Tankivac) were invented as a new mechanic by Blizzard to combat P/Z, nobody including the game developers had really decided or even imagined that the Liberator could one day exist. The liberator was added quite late into the Beta phase after the Herc was removed. Are Liberators not, in a sense, a flying siege tank that replaces the need to hold onto the Tankivac concept? So then, why do we still need to beta test this game-breaking Tankivac idea, now that we have replaced it with the Liberator?
On February 25 2016 04:19 CheddarToss wrote: And why should Tanks be core vs Protoss? You Terrans want every single of your units to be useful and core vs. both Protoss and Zerg. I also want to be able to play just Skytoss vs. every race, but I can't, because it's not viable. Do you see me and other Protoss players whining about it constantly?
we don't want every single of our units to be core we just want to have options. As a protoss you can play adept/templar, chargelot/templar, collossus stalker, disruptor stalker or just mass adept stalker immortal; what can terran play? bio + liberators every single game. If you would be forced in the same unit composition every single game you would understand our desire for something else to be viable.
On February 25 2016 04:19 CheddarToss wrote: And why should Tanks be core vs Protoss? You Terrans want every single of your units to be useful and core vs. both Protoss and Zerg. I also want to be able to play just Skytoss vs. every race, but I can't, because it's not viable. Do you see me and other Protoss players whining about it constantly?
No I think that he is arguing for more than Just the Marauder, Marine, Medivac, Liberator (pre-nerf) and WM to be viable. Contrast that to the games I play against Protoss where you see double the number of units being viable in the match up: Adept, Zealot, Stalker, Disruptor, Immortal, Oracle, Tempest, Phoenix, HT, DT, and Archon.
Of course I ignore the one reaper you make to scout and the one Cyclone to protect against the usual Protoss bullshit.
Supporters of the Tankivac removal, you need to get over you excessive pedantry of what the tank role in the game should be. It's exciting to watch, that's blizzard's goal. Tankivac is great. Don't ever consider removing it.
Can't agree more with some of the latest posts, T isn't composition-reliable, just the same and the same and the same again. It gets boring as a player and a spectator. Tankivac added some variation and shenanigans (something P always had - by design) to the mixture. Let's find some alternatives then.
On February 25 2016 05:15 Mengmeng wrote: Supporters of the Tankivac removal, you need to get over you excessive pedantry of what the tank role in the game should be. It's exciting to watch, that's blizzard's goal. Tankivac is great. Don't ever consider removing it.
It's not just about what you think is "cool to watch", because people disagree on that. SC2 is supposed to be a game, so the pieces in it should be designed to have a distinctly clear goal. Mech should be a more straight up powerful strategy, that comes with the cost of mobility. Bio should have the edge in mobility, but lose to stronger armies straight up. When you have Tankivacs, suddenly both playstyles are now the same. When the once-positional unit can now be whisked all over the place in a high-speed Medivac, that defeats the very identity of Mech play.
If you want units that have mobility and can be picked up by medivacs, you should be playing Bio, that's what Bio does. When you opt for Mech, you should be opting for a more positional strategy, where the placement of your units matters, with the Siege Tank at the core. If you take Siege Tanks and give them all the mobility of Bio by letting Medivacs do their thing with them, there's no choice in playstyle anymore, because both paths are the same.
There are very few Protoss units that are not a powerfull force to be reckonned with in multiple matchups. I do not need to list them here, we see them all of the time in Pro League as part of compositions, or tech path choices, and in your last posts.
Build a composition based in good part on a mix of Hellbat, Battlecruiser, Thor, Tank and/or Cyclone for your Terran games tonight and tell me if you feel safe behind your depots, or anywhere on the map, even if you have the "right composition" of these units based on what your opponent is doing. No, you will be scared to death knowing exactly how this is going to end. Even if you trade army for army (which you will not), warp-ins and larvae will be there to ensure your defeat while you frantically try to regain an army.
We Terran lack in strategic options and reliable unit compositions, and so in MMMM and in spectacular micro we trust (unfortunately almost all of the time).
That's what tankivac brought to TvT. Alive vs TY showed us the best of what tankivac can do, which is all over the place agression. But not only is it strategically poor, but from now on that the only think we'll see in TvT. Ever.
On February 25 2016 05:15 Mengmeng wrote: Supporters of the Tankivac removal, you need to get over you excessive pedantry of what the tank role in the game should be. It's exciting to watch, that's blizzard's goal. Tankivac is great. Don't ever consider removing it.
It's not exiting for everyone. So maybe stop being arrogant thinking that what you find exciting everyone else should as well.
On February 25 2016 05:15 Mengmeng wrote: Supporters of the Tankivac removal, you need to get over you excessive pedantry of what the tank role in the game should be. It's exciting to watch, that's blizzard's goal. Tankivac is great. Don't ever consider removing it.
It's not just about what you think is "cool to watch", because people disagree on that. SC2 is supposed to be a game, so the pieces in it should be designed to have a distinctly clear goal. Mech should be a more straight up powerful strategy, that comes with the cost of mobility. Bio should have the edge in mobility, but lose to stronger armies straight up. When you have Tankivacs, suddenly both playstyles are now the same. When the once-positional unit can now be whisked all over the place in a high-speed Medivac, that defeats the very identity of Mech play.
If you want units that have mobility and can be picked up by medivacs, you should be playing Bio, that's what Bio does. When you opt for Mech, you should be opting for a more positional strategy, where the placement of your units matters, with the Siege Tank at the core. If you take Siege Tanks and give them all the mobility of Bio by letting Medivacs do their thing with them, there's no choice in playstyle anymore, because both paths are the same.
Exactly. And the reason that the placement of your units matters with Mech, is because you take a risk and cannot defensively reposition your Liberators, Mines and Tanks in less than a few seconds. Zerg, Protoss or a more mobile Terran player can then threathen or overtake any bad decision making. Therefore, positional strategy and the risk/power that comes with it.
Ravager’s Corrosive Bile Damage changed from 60 to 45 damage (+15 vs bio) I don't see much of a difference other than tosses and terrans having a better opportunity to defend things they didn't scout.
Siege Tank Damage increased from 35 (+15 vs armored) to 40 (+20 vs armored) They keep playing with the siege tank to the point where it's gotten redundant.
Liberator Casting range of Defender Mode reduced from 5 to 4 The fact that this unit comes out at Star port (with no need for tech lab or fusion core), this should have been in place from the start. Being forced to open ravagers just to defend liberators (without the guarantee that they're even going libs) is silly.
Medivac No longer can lift Siege Tanks that are in Siege Mode A unit designed for control and spacing no longer has the get out of danger free card?
On February 25 2016 05:31 JackONeill wrote: 0 compositionnal diversity 0 strategic thinking
That's what tankivac brought to TvT. Alive vs TY showed us the best of what tankivac can do, which is all over the place agression. But not only is it strategically poor, but from now on that the only think we'll see in TvT. Ever.
which is exactly why the tankivac should stay. aggressive games are the most exciting. if i wanted to play your so called 'strategical positioning' and turtle with 50 siege tanks behind turrets and planetaries until i max out i would replay the campaign.
On February 25 2016 05:52 Shin_Gouki wrote: Ravager’s Corrosive Bile Damage changed from 60 to 45 damage (+15 vs bio) I don't see much of a difference other than tosses and terrans having a better opportunity to defend things they didn't scout.
Siege Tank Damage increased from 35 (+15 vs armored) to 40 (+20 vs armored) They keep playing with the siege tank to the point where it's gotten redundant.
Liberator Casting range of Defender Mode reduced from 5 to 4 The fact that this unit comes out at Star port (with no need for tech lab or fusion core), this should have been in place from the start. Being forced to open ravagers just to defend liberators (without the guarantee that they're even going libs) is silly.
Medivac No longer can lift Siege Tanks that are in Siege Mode A unit designed for control and spacing no longer has the get out of danger free card?
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.
On February 25 2016 05:44 atstapley wrote: Just add an ability for the tank that lets it hop a few hexes with a 5 second cool down. It's slow, but it can dodge Bile.
Or what if they could do a barrel roll, like in Star Fox.
Tanks do friendly fire - I do not want a tank rolling over my Marines or hellbats thank you
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.
On February 25 2016 05:44 atstapley wrote: Just add an ability for the tank that lets it hop a few hexes with a 5 second cool down. It's slow, but it can dodge Bile.
Or what if they could do a barrel roll, like in Star Fox.
Tanks do friendly fire - I do not want a tank rolling over my Marines or hellbats thank you
Haven't you played Star Fox? They would bounce off, like the weird square bullets in Star Fox 64 :D
On February 25 2016 05:31 JackONeill wrote: 0 compositionnal diversity 0 strategic thinking
That's what tankivac brought to TvT. Alive vs TY showed us the best of what tankivac can do, which is all over the place agression. But not only is it strategically poor, but from now on that the only think we'll see in TvT. Ever.
strategic thinking is often equal to a ratio of 2 turrets/tank.
Funny that you think this game wasn't about strategy when it went almost immediately to a low eco situation.
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.
Oh god please no.
A small group of people as opposed to a large group of people ... I prefer the larger group. What is in your opinion better with decisions made by a small group?
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.
Oh god please no.
A small group of people as opposed to a large group of people ... I prefer the larger group. What is in your opinion better with decisions made by a small group?
They can take decisions unanimously. They're specialized in what they're doing. The community is full of ignorant whine and shouldn't be listened too much. On the other hand actually taking feedback from kr pros could be good.
I mean you can argue about the tankivac merits and drawbacks but saying that it promotes doom drop like some posters do is fully retarded. There isn't 20% of the doom dropping action there was in hots marine/tank vs marine/tank
And doom dropping is caused by medivac boost but I guess that it's in the same state as the warp in or the overcharge: it won't be deleted because they consider it as something good.
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.
Oh god please no.
A small group of people as opposed to a large group of people ... I prefer the larger group. What is in your opinion better with decisions made by a small group?
What merit is there to increasing the amount of headless ducks wandering around? The community isn't just one big blob. A huge part of the community is inaccessible for giving feedback. A lot of the feedback is hugely biased. And a lot of the feedback is just plain shit. Turning all of that into something productive that can then be utilised to actually balance the game is a utopia.
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.
Oh god please no.
A small group of people as opposed to a large group of people ... I prefer the larger group. What is in your opinion better with decisions made by a small group?
They can take decisions unanimously. They're specialized in what they're doing. The community is full of ignorant whine and shouldn't be listened too much. On the other hand actually taking feedback from kr pros could be good.
Very good points. Decision-making is quicker in smaller groups. I agree with that, but I do not think decisions made by small groups are better, in fact, we have good reason to believe that that as group size increases, so does quality.
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.
Oh god please no.
A small group of people as opposed to a large group of people ... I prefer the larger group. What is in your opinion better with decisions made by a small group?
Apart from government, military, business, art, and justice, absolutely nothing.
On February 25 2016 05:52 Shin_Gouki wrote: Ravager’s Corrosive Bile Damage changed from 60 to 45 damage (+15 vs bio) I don't see much of a difference other than tosses and terrans having a better opportunity to defend things they didn't scout.
Siege Tank Damage increased from 35 (+15 vs armored) to 40 (+20 vs armored) They keep playing with the siege tank to the point where it's gotten redundant.
Liberator Casting range of Defender Mode reduced from 5 to 4 The fact that this unit comes out at Star port (with no need for tech lab or fusion core), this should have been in place from the start. Being forced to open ravagers just to defend liberators (without the guarantee that they're even going libs) is silly.
Medivac No longer can lift Siege Tanks that are in Siege Mode A unit designed for control and spacing no longer has the get out of danger free card?
This guy is not biased in anyway lol
Nah, I'm pretty biased. The ladder hurts the feels mang. I still feel that the lib range is necessary. I wouldn't mind tankivacs if you didn't have them out before lair tech. Although, I'd probably hate it less if the maps this season weren't so awful...
Liberator Casting range of Defender Mode reduced from 5 to 4
The fact that this unit comes out at Star port (with no need for tech lab or fusion core), this should have been in place from the start. Being forced to open ravagers just to defend liberators (without the guarantee that they're even going libs) is silly.
You can say exactly the same with any unit Z throws at you. Being forced to open tanks (TvZ) or cyclones (TvP) just to defend Ravagers or Warp Prism Adept (without the guarantee that they're even going those) is silly.
On February 25 2016 05:31 JackONeill wrote: 0 compositionnal diversity 0 strategic thinking
That's what tankivac brought to TvT. Alive vs TY showed us the best of what tankivac can do, which is all over the place agression. But not only is it strategically poor, but from now on that the only think we'll see in TvT. Ever.
which is exactly why the tankivac should stay. aggressive games are the most exciting. if i wanted to play your so called 'strategical positioning' and turtle with 50 siege tanks behind turrets and planetaries until i max out i would replay the campaign.
Yeah, as said the mighty DK : http://i.imgur.com/I2Qu0oK.jpg And the shortcut "strategical positioning" => "turtle" is as stupid as the rest of your post. Agressive games are nice, but only agressive games with the same composition with no possibility for variation isn't something you should have in a strategy game. I'd direct you to CS:GO, but there's probably more strategy involved than with the tankivac TvT, and you can choose your stuff instead of being forced into going AK47 each game.
On February 25 2016 05:31 JackONeill wrote: 0 compositionnal diversity 0 strategic thinking
That's what tankivac brought to TvT. Alive vs TY showed us the best of what tankivac can do, which is all over the place agression. But not only is it strategically poor, but from now on that the only think we'll see in TvT. Ever.
strategic thinking is often equal to a ratio of 2 turrets/tank.
Funny that you think this game wasn't about strategy when it went almost immediately to a low eco situation.
Liberators in TvP allowed some pretty nice macro games TvP, with constant agression while terran was playing defensively. I'm thinking about TY and Taeja games in particular. Yet another example that the shortcut "strategy" + "positioning" = "turtle" is stupid.
How is low eco situation strategy friendly??? That's an idiotic thing to say, by definition low eco limits strategic options and encourages micro.
Anyways, people wanting the tankivac to stay in the game seem to be forgeting that there's "strategy" in the word RTS. Being forced into a sole composition that denies defender's advantage has nothing to do with strategy. Even in TvZ, the tankivac allows terran to harass strongly with no risk whatsoever. This mechanic needs to go, and I'm glad blizzard is finally considering making intelligent cuts on the bad designed stuff.
On February 25 2016 05:31 JackONeill wrote: 0 compositionnal diversity 0 strategic thinking
That's what tankivac brought to TvT. Alive vs TY showed us the best of what tankivac can do, which is all over the place agression. But not only is it strategically poor, but from now on that the only think we'll see in TvT. Ever.
which is exactly why the tankivac should stay. aggressive games are the most exciting. if i wanted to play your so called 'strategical positioning' and turtle with 50 siege tanks behind turrets and planetaries until i max out i would replay the campaign.
Yeah, as said the mighty DK : http://i.imgur.com/I2Qu0oK.jpg And the shortcut "strategical positioning" => "turtle" is as stupid as the rest of your post. Agressive games are nice, but only agressive games with the same composition with no possibility for variation isn't something you should have in a strategy game. I'd direct you to CS:GO, but there's probably more strategy involved than with the tankivac TvT, and you can choose your stuff instead of being forced into going AK47 each game.
On February 25 2016 05:31 JackONeill wrote: 0 compositionnal diversity 0 strategic thinking
That's what tankivac brought to TvT. Alive vs TY showed us the best of what tankivac can do, which is all over the place agression. But not only is it strategically poor, but from now on that the only think we'll see in TvT. Ever.
strategic thinking is often equal to a ratio of 2 turrets/tank.
Funny that you think this game wasn't about strategy when it went almost immediately to a low eco situation.
Liberators in TvP allowed some pretty nice macro games TvP, with constant agression while terran was playing defensively. I'm thinking about TY and Taeja games in particular. Yet another example that the shortcut "strategy" + "positioning" = "turtle" is stupid.
How is low eco situation strategy friendly??? That's an idiotic thing to say, by definition low eco limits strategic options and encourages micro.
Anyways, people wanting the tankivac to stay in the game seem to be forgeting that there's "strategy" in the word RTS. Being forced into a sole composition that denies defender's advantage has nothing to do with strategy. Even in TvZ, the tankivac allows terran to harass strongly with no risk whatsoever. This mechanic needs to go, and I'm glad blizzard is finally considering making intelligent cuts on the bad designed stuff.
1. i never said anything about worker harrassment. 2. calling my post stupid does not win you the discussion. Your post was so stupid. what an counter argument. 3. if you're gonna tell me to play cs:go only because i like aggressive games, i can tell you to play europa universalis 4 which has an wider array of strategies compared to your only bio/mech fantasy. AND even play your strategical positioning game of camping in the mountains for a -2 dice roll bonus! also go fuck yourself for name calling.
On February 25 2016 05:15 Mengmeng wrote: Supporters of the Tankivac removal, you need to get over you excessive pedantry of what the tank role in the game should be. It's exciting to watch, that's blizzard's goal. Tankivac is great. Don't ever consider removing it.
It's not just about what you think is "cool to watch", because people disagree on that. SC2 is supposed to be a game, so the pieces in it should be designed to have a distinctly clear goal. Mech should be a more straight up powerful strategy, that comes with the cost of mobility. Bio should have the edge in mobility, but lose to stronger armies straight up. When you have Tankivacs, suddenly both playstyles are now the same. When the once-positional unit can now be whisked all over the place in a high-speed Medivac, that defeats the very identity of Mech play.
If you want units that have mobility and can be picked up by medivacs, you should be playing Bio, that's what Bio does. When you opt for Mech, you should be opting for a more positional strategy, where the placement of your units matters, with the Siege Tank at the core. If you take Siege Tanks and give them all the mobility of Bio by letting Medivacs do their thing with them, there's no choice in playstyle anymore, because both paths are the same.
And it is this pedantry that is causing all of this headache. If you're tired of playing the same composition then switch races. SC1 you were almost exclusively confined to mech.
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.
Oh god please no.
A small group of people as opposed to a large group of people ... I prefer the larger group. What is in your opinion better with decisions made by a small group?
Apart from government, military, business, art, and justice, absolutely nothing.
At least in government, a small group of people take the decisions for the bigger group
On February 25 2016 05:31 JackONeill wrote: 0 compositionnal diversity 0 strategic thinking
That's what tankivac brought to TvT. Alive vs TY showed us the best of what tankivac can do, which is all over the place agression. But not only is it strategically poor, but from now on that the only think we'll see in TvT. Ever.
which is exactly why the tankivac should stay. aggressive games are the most exciting. if i wanted to play your so called 'strategical positioning' and turtle with 50 siege tanks behind turrets and planetaries until i max out i would replay the campaign.
Yeah, as said the mighty DK : http://i.imgur.com/I2Qu0oK.jpg And the shortcut "strategical positioning" => "turtle" is as stupid as the rest of your post. Agressive games are nice, but only agressive games with the same composition with no possibility for variation isn't something you should have in a strategy game. I'd direct you to CS:GO, but there's probably more strategy involved than with the tankivac TvT, and you can choose your stuff instead of being forced into going AK47 each game.
On February 25 2016 06:06 sAsImre wrote:
On February 25 2016 05:31 JackONeill wrote: 0 compositionnal diversity 0 strategic thinking
That's what tankivac brought to TvT. Alive vs TY showed us the best of what tankivac can do, which is all over the place agression. But not only is it strategically poor, but from now on that the only think we'll see in TvT. Ever.
strategic thinking is often equal to a ratio of 2 turrets/tank.
Funny that you think this game wasn't about strategy when it went almost immediately to a low eco situation.
Liberators in TvP allowed some pretty nice macro games TvP, with constant agression while terran was playing defensively. I'm thinking about TY and Taeja games in particular. Yet another example that the shortcut "strategy" + "positioning" = "turtle" is stupid.
How is low eco situation strategy friendly??? That's an idiotic thing to say, by definition low eco limits strategic options and encourages micro.
Anyways, people wanting the tankivac to stay in the game seem to be forgeting that there's "strategy" in the word RTS. Being forced into a sole composition that denies defender's advantage has nothing to do with strategy. Even in TvZ, the tankivac allows terran to harass strongly with no risk whatsoever. This mechanic needs to go, and I'm glad blizzard is finally considering making intelligent cuts on the bad designed stuff.
1. i never said anything about worker harrassment. 2. calling my post stupid does not win you the discussion. Your post was so stupid. what an counter argument. 3. if you're gonna tell me to play cs:go only because i like aggressive games, i can tell you to play europa universalis 4 which has an wider array of strategies compared to your only bio/mech fantasy. AND even play your strategical positioning game of camping in the mountains for a -2 dice roll bonus! also go fuck yourself for name calling.
I'm very fond of your logic, going from "calling my post stupid does not make you right" to "go fuck yourself", that's a real display of intelligence. Thanks for discrediting what you write on your own, I don't have to do it myself. The fact that your only grid of analysis for these kind of games is "they're agressive wow so cool" also contributes to prove how little you understand about the game (since it's your only argument) : so not only are you rude, but you are ignorant too.
Easy guys! This is turning into personal banter (not that I'm a mod or anything, but...) and we had a nice discussion about balance. Keep it that way
Btw, about the post saying "you should switch race if you don't like the available working composition" I just can say: choices people. Let's have some proper, different ones for EVERY race, that's the way to enjoy the game to its fullest.
Well that's the main argument against the tankivac : it forces TvT games to be about one composition only, which is kinda sad. Mech vs bio TvT on WOL were so fun to watch.
On February 25 2016 05:31 JackONeill wrote: 0 compositionnal diversity 0 strategic thinking
That's what tankivac brought to TvT. Alive vs TY showed us the best of what tankivac can do, which is all over the place agression. But not only is it strategically poor, but from now on that the only think we'll see in TvT. Ever.
which is exactly why the tankivac should stay. aggressive games are the most exciting. if i wanted to play your so called 'strategical positioning' and turtle with 50 siege tanks behind turrets and planetaries until i max out i would replay the campaign.
Yeah, as said the mighty DK : http://i.imgur.com/I2Qu0oK.jpg And the shortcut "strategical positioning" => "turtle" is as stupid as the rest of your post. Agressive games are nice, but only agressive games with the same composition with no possibility for variation isn't something you should have in a strategy game. I'd direct you to CS:GO, but there's probably more strategy involved than with the tankivac TvT, and you can choose your stuff instead of being forced into going AK47 each game.
On February 25 2016 06:06 sAsImre wrote:
On February 25 2016 05:31 JackONeill wrote: 0 compositionnal diversity 0 strategic thinking
That's what tankivac brought to TvT. Alive vs TY showed us the best of what tankivac can do, which is all over the place agression. But not only is it strategically poor, but from now on that the only think we'll see in TvT. Ever.
strategic thinking is often equal to a ratio of 2 turrets/tank.
Funny that you think this game wasn't about strategy when it went almost immediately to a low eco situation.
Liberators in TvP allowed some pretty nice macro games TvP, with constant agression while terran was playing defensively. I'm thinking about TY and Taeja games in particular. Yet another example that the shortcut "strategy" + "positioning" = "turtle" is stupid.
How is low eco situation strategy friendly??? That's an idiotic thing to say, by definition low eco limits strategic options and encourages micro.
Anyways, people wanting the tankivac to stay in the game seem to be forgeting that there's "strategy" in the word RTS. Being forced into a sole composition that denies defender's advantage has nothing to do with strategy. Even in TvZ, the tankivac allows terran to harass strongly with no risk whatsoever. This mechanic needs to go, and I'm glad blizzard is finally considering making intelligent cuts on the bad designed stuff.
1. i never said anything about worker harrassment. 2. calling my post stupid does not win you the discussion. Your post was so stupid. what an counter argument. 3. if you're gonna tell me to play cs:go only because i like aggressive games, i can tell you to play europa universalis 4 which has an wider array of strategies compared to your only bio/mech fantasy. AND even play your strategical positioning game of camping in the mountains for a -2 dice roll bonus! also go fuck yourself for name calling.
I'm very fond of your logic, going from "calling my post stupid does not make you right" to "go fuck yourself", that's a real display of intelligence. Thanks for discrediting what you write on your own, I don't have to do it myself. The fact that your only grid of analysis for these kind of games is "they're agressive wow so cool" also contributes to prove how little you understand about the game (since it's your only argument) : so not only are you rude, but you are ignorant too.
yes, i responded with the same childish fallacies you put me up with.you do not seem to realize i did that on purpose. if you responded as an adult, i would have aswell, but it seems are/were you incapable of doing so,so i reply with insults aswell, simple really. 'oh wow so much strategical depth' is your only argument 'also contributes how little u understand about this game'. YOU are the one starting to call my posts stupid, YOU started being rude. i just play along.
Liberator Casting range of Defender Mode reduced from 5 to 4
The fact that this unit comes out at Star port (with no need for tech lab or fusion core), this should have been in place from the start. Being forced to open ravagers just to defend liberators (without the guarantee that they're even going libs) is silly.
You can say exactly the same with any unit Z throws at you. Being forced to open tanks (TvZ) or cyclones (TvP) just to defend Ravagers or Warp Prism Adept (without the guarantee that they're even going those) is silly.
That's actually not true. It should be FAIRLY obvious when the zerg is attempting to go ravagers. While I agree that you'll have to go tanks to defend roach/ravager all ins, you don't have to OPEN that way out of safety. The Star-port isn't like the Star-gate which reveals the unit that's coming out. Fusion core isn't a tell either because you can increase banshee speed and pressure in that regard OR pressure with the extended liberator range. Ravagers don't do well against the former btw. Zerg has to place a RW down out of necessity, along with building four blind roaches. That's 100 gas, into an additional 300 gas while going to lair tech.
Zergling and baneling all ins do not require a tank and a zerg going two base spire should also be obvious. We can't "throw anything at you." Other than being gimmicky like zergs have been starting to be lately.
@JackONeill: It was, and I remember some late HoTS InNovation games playing that way... awesome indeed. The problem nowadays is that TvT seems to rely only in this composition, Tankivac-ahoy. But to me, it adds another choice pick into playstiles, and T is far from being varied.
On February 25 2016 05:31 JackONeill wrote: 0 compositionnal diversity 0 strategic thinking
That's what tankivac brought to TvT. Alive vs TY showed us the best of what tankivac can do, which is all over the place agression. But not only is it strategically poor, but from now on that the only think we'll see in TvT. Ever.
which is exactly why the tankivac should stay. aggressive games are the most exciting. if i wanted to play your so called 'strategical positioning' and turtle with 50 siege tanks behind turrets and planetaries until i max out i would replay the campaign.
Yeah, as said the mighty DK : http://i.imgur.com/I2Qu0oK.jpg And the shortcut "strategical positioning" => "turtle" is as stupid as the rest of your post. Agressive games are nice, but only agressive games with the same composition with no possibility for variation isn't something you should have in a strategy game. I'd direct you to CS:GO, but there's probably more strategy involved than with the tankivac TvT, and you can choose your stuff instead of being forced into going AK47 each game.
On February 25 2016 06:06 sAsImre wrote:
On February 25 2016 05:31 JackONeill wrote: 0 compositionnal diversity 0 strategic thinking
That's what tankivac brought to TvT. Alive vs TY showed us the best of what tankivac can do, which is all over the place agression. But not only is it strategically poor, but from now on that the only think we'll see in TvT. Ever.
strategic thinking is often equal to a ratio of 2 turrets/tank.
Funny that you think this game wasn't about strategy when it went almost immediately to a low eco situation.
Liberators in TvP allowed some pretty nice macro games TvP, with constant agression while terran was playing defensively. I'm thinking about TY and Taeja games in particular. Yet another example that the shortcut "strategy" + "positioning" = "turtle" is stupid.
How is low eco situation strategy friendly??? That's an idiotic thing to say, by definition low eco limits strategic options and encourages micro.
Anyways, people wanting the tankivac to stay in the game seem to be forgeting that there's "strategy" in the word RTS. Being forced into a sole composition that denies defender's advantage has nothing to do with strategy. Even in TvZ, the tankivac allows terran to harass strongly with no risk whatsoever. This mechanic needs to go, and I'm glad blizzard is finally considering making intelligent cuts on the bad designed stuff.
1. i never said anything about worker harrassment. 2. calling my post stupid does not win you the discussion. Your post was so stupid. what an counter argument. 3. if you're gonna tell me to play cs:go only because i like aggressive games, i can tell you to play europa universalis 4 which has an wider array of strategies compared to your only bio/mech fantasy. AND even play your strategical positioning game of camping in the mountains for a -2 dice roll bonus! also go fuck yourself for name calling.
I'm very fond of your logic, going from "calling my post stupid does not make you right" to "go fuck yourself", that's a real display of intelligence. Thanks for discrediting what you write on your own, I don't have to do it myself. The fact that your only grid of analysis for these kind of games is "they're agressive wow so cool" also contributes to prove how little you understand about the game (since it's your only argument) : so not only are you rude, but you are ignorant too.
yes, i responded with the same childish fallacies you put me up with.you do not seem to realize i did that on purpose. if you responded as an adult, i would have aswell, but it seems are/were you incapable of doing so,so i reply with insults aswell, simple really. 'oh wow so much strategical depth' is your only argument 'also contributes how little u understand about this game'. YOU are the one starting to call my posts stupid, YOU started being rude. i just play along.
Oh yes please, tell me how you dragged yourself down to my level of communication. By stating "also go fuck yourself for name calling", when there was absolutely no name calling on my post.
About the fact I don't have arguments of my own... I didn't think I'd be able to quote myself until I became a university teacher, but since you seem to have trouble reading :
"only agressive games with the same composition with no possibility for variation isn't something you should have in a strategy game"
"Well that's the main argument against the tankivac : it forces TvT games to be about one composition only, which is kinda sad. Mech vs bio TvT on WOL were so fun to watch."
To sum up (for your reading issues... or comprehension issues I dunno) : - tankivac forces you into only one composition in TvT => fact, from what we've seen of pro level - tankivac/marine play is strategically poor => subjective, can be discussed
Your sole argument is : - strategic/positional play equals camp => IDIOTIC
So please, I'm interested, tell me how many arguments you brought to the table. And please stop embarassing yourself by pretending I insult you by proving how poor and barren your reflexion is.
On February 25 2016 08:04 slit wrote: @JackONeill: It was, and I remember some late HoTS InNovation games playing that way... awesome indeed. The problem nowadays is that TvT seems to rely only in this composition, Tankivac-ahoy. But to me, it adds another choice pick into playstiles, and T is far from being varied.
How I see TvT turning out if tankivac got out of the game, in a bio vs mech TvT : - mech player tries to secure 3 bases while bio player harass him - once mech player suceeds, bio player should have at least 3-4 bases, and starts transitionning into skyterran. Since liberators are so good against mech, and since the upgrades are split again (and that mech player needs mech attack upgrades for tanks to withstand bio), the bio player can take a lead in air attack upgrade
To sum up, bio play in TvT would be able to transition air more smoothly than mech player, granting bio a lead if the gaz income is superior. Actually I suppose that bio would have more options mid-late game against mech than in HOTS and WOL, because the liberator is so awesome against tanks, while countering vikings in heavy numbers. On the other hand, cyclone deals very nicely with liberators and BCs.
On February 25 2016 08:10 JackONeill wrote: Oh yes please, tell me how you dragged yourself down to my level of communication. By stating "also go fuck yourself for name calling", when there was absolutely no name calling on my post.
About the fact I don't have arguments of my own... I didn't think I'd be able to quote myself until I became a university teacher, but since you seem to have trouble reading :
only agressive games with the same composition with no possibility for variation isn't something you should have in a strategy game
Well that's the main argument against the tankivac : it forces TvT games to be about one composition only, which is kinda sad. Mech vs bio TvT on WOL were so fun to watch.
To sum up (for your reading issues... or comprehension issues I dunno) : - tankivac forces you into only one composition in TvT => fact, from what we've seen of pro level - tankivac/marine play is strategically poor => subjective, can be discussed
Your sole argument is : - strategic/positional play equals camp => IDIOTIC
So please, I'm interested, tell me how many arguments you brought to the table. And please stop embarassing yourself by pretending I insult you by proving how poor and barren your reflexion is.
-tankivac forces you into only one composition in TvT. ok, why is this a problem? who is the judge that decides how many strategies/unit comps should be available? you, me, david kim, the community that wants tankivac removed? or the community that wants tankivac to stay? thats subjective. only 1 composition is fine with me for in tvt. should bc marine be viable so there are more strategies available? thor marauder?
-tankivac/marine play is strategically poor. i missed the part where you pointed out why you think this is strategically poor?
strategic/positional play equals camp -> idiotic? you are idiotic. nice argument. idiot.
On February 25 2016 08:10 JackONeill wrote: Oh yes please, tell me how you dragged yourself down to my level of communication. By stating "also go fuck yourself for name calling", when there was absolutely no name calling on my post.
About the fact I don't have arguments of my own... I didn't think I'd be able to quote myself until I became a university teacher, but since you seem to have trouble reading :
only agressive games with the same composition with no possibility for variation isn't something you should have in a strategy game
Well that's the main argument against the tankivac : it forces TvT games to be about one composition only, which is kinda sad. Mech vs bio TvT on WOL were so fun to watch.
To sum up (for your reading issues... or comprehension issues I dunno) : - tankivac forces you into only one composition in TvT => fact, from what we've seen of pro level - tankivac/marine play is strategically poor => subjective, can be discussed
Your sole argument is : - strategic/positional play equals camp => IDIOTIC
So please, I'm interested, tell me how many arguments you brought to the table. And please stop embarassing yourself by pretending I insult you by proving how poor and barren your reflexion is.
-tankivac forces you into only one composition in TvT. ok, why is this a problem? who is the judge that decides how many strategies/unit comps should be available? you, me, david kim, the community that wants tankivac removed? or the community that wants tankivac to stay? thats subjective. only 1 composition is fine with me for in tvt. should bc marine be viable so there are more strategies available? thor marauder?
-tankivac/marine play is strategically poor. i missed the part where you pointed out why you think this is strategically poor?
strategic/positional play equals camp -> idiotic? you are idiotic. nice argument. idiot.
Okay dude thanks for showing me how little you understand of the game. TvT, the matchup with maybe the longest history of three very different playstyles (full bio/mech/marine tanks) creating what was acclaimed as the best mirror matchup should be dumbed down to one overwhelming composition. So yeah, why "should[n't] bc marine be viable so there are more strategies available? thor marauder?" ? Which means responding to you is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon is gonna loose, but he's still gonna brag like he won because he's a pigeon, and doesn't understand chess. Now please, leave alone the people that have something decent to say about the test map.
On February 25 2016 08:29 QzYSc2 wrote: exactly, once again you fail to provide any arguments and can only respond to my posts by calling them either stupid, idiotic, or calling me a pigeon.
Quoting myself again : " TvT, the matchup with maybe the longest history of three very different playstyles (full bio/mech/marine tanks) creating what was acclaimed as the best mirror matchup should be dumbed down to one overwhelming composition."
Which is irony (since you REALLY seem to have reading issues), but shows a point. Now I'm gonna stop answering you ok? You obviously don't have anything to discuss except how badly you're being treated.
im actually the one who wanted to discuss the balance changes, but he completely avoids any counter arguments i give and just goes for personal attacks.
On February 25 2016 08:29 QzYSc2 wrote: exactly, once again you fail to provide any arguments and can only respond to my posts by calling them either stupid, idiotic, or calling me a pigeon.
Quoting myself again : " TvT, the matchup with maybe the longest history of three very different playstyles (full bio/mech/marine tanks) creating what was acclaimed as the best mirror matchup should be dumbed down to one overwhelming composition."
Which is irony (since you REALLY seem to have reading issues), but shows a point. Now I'm gonna stop answering you ok? You obviously don't have anything to discuss except how badly you're being treated.
emphasis on maybe? just an opinion. not a fact. keep trying making your opinions a fact mate. the only fact you have given is that it goes down to 1 composition, the rest was just your opinion. and i already said, who is the judge that decides how many unit compositions there will be for tvt? its kinda ironic, about that reading comprehension.
Anyway Shin_Gouki, you have some fair points in your response, but I've seen a fair amount of Pro games going south for T because of that very issue. Not spamming tanks (not even having a techlab attached to factory) while roach/ravager obliterate your entrance. But honestly, that's poor scouting I guess?
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.
Oh god please no.
A small group of people as opposed to a large group of people ... I prefer the larger group. What is in your opinion better with decisions made by a small group?
Apart from government, military, business, art, and justice, absolutely nothing.
Personally I think the "group" should influence areas of common interest. The examples you give are all areas where we should, and do, have collective influence, some more than others with one exception -- art: it should be excluded as it is an expression of free speech.
Recreational games are not like any of the examples you give. Games are not art in this sense, once you design or make a game from nothing, and give it to a community of gamers, the rules of the game must be given over to the gamers and spectators. At the very least partially so.
I don't see that in SCII and I think it is to the detriment of the game, the gamers and the spectators.
Anyway Shin_Gouki, you have some fair points in your response, but I've seen a fair amount of Pro games going south for T because of that very issue. Not spamming tanks (not even having a techlab attached to factory) while roach/ravager obliterate your entrance. But honestly, that's poor scouting I guess?
I haven't seen too many games with Terrans dying to roach/ravager timings. The zerg generally has to be very committed to that style without much room for other things to worry about in particular. (Other than them posturing like they want to do a rR timing, but have a proxy spire somewhere). The way blizzard has been designing the game, it hasn't been fun for either party. Both races being salty against each other really.
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.
Oh god please no.
A small group of people as opposed to a large group of people ... I prefer the larger group. What is in your opinion better with decisions made by a small group?
I can think of plenty. Firstly, Blizzard has specialized people who understand and actually know what they are doing. We may not think so, but balancing is much more than just knee-jerk reaction to everything. Secondly, the majority of the people in the community are bad players who lose to random things most pros would not lose to. If we go with the voice of the majority, then the game will definitely not be balanced because everything will be fixed at the bottom. Could you imagine them nerfing reapers/bunkers or cannons to the ground because some random bronzies can't hold a cannon or bunker rush? Or nerfing marines into oblivion because the infamous 1 base 5 rax is impossible to hold in gold?
If you want an example of how terrible the community would be at balancing, just head over to any LR thread. Would you entrust your game to these people? Every time a race win we get a page or two about how something is OP or broken and needs to be nerfed.
@Shin_Gouki: That's how one perceives this thread, salty banter between playstyles and races sadly. And I'm certain that SC2 is turning more and more into Rock Paper Scissors with gimmicky units and openings/buildings. I wish the S in RTS was more prevalent these days!
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.
Oh god please no.
A small group of people as opposed to a large group of people ... I prefer the larger group. What is in your opinion better with decisions made by a small group?
I can think of plenty. Firstly, Blizzard has specialized people who understand and actually know what they are doing. We may not think so, but balancing is much more than just knee-jerk reaction to everything. Secondly, the majority of the people in the community are bad players who lose to random things most pros would not lose to. If we go with the voice of the majority, then the game will definitely not be balanced because everything will be fixed at the bottom. Could you imagine them nerfing reapers/bunkers or cannons to the ground because some random bronzies can't hold a cannon or bunker rush? Or nerfing marines into oblivion because the infamous 1 base 5 rax is impossible to hold in gold?
If you want an example of how terrible the community would be at balancing, just head over to any LR thread. Would you entrust your game to these people? Every time a race win we get a page or two about how something is OP or broken and needs to be nerfed.
Thanks, these are all good objections. But this is not what I am proposing. My idea is that Blizzard lets the community, gamers and spectators, have an open discussion about changes to the game. There should always be an adult in charge, but the decisions, as they are made, should be open and agreed by the public. Changes to the mechanics and balance should come from the public, be discussed in public, and be recommended by the public. Not come from the depths of Blizzard.
On February 25 2016 04:19 CheddarToss wrote: And why should Tanks be core vs Protoss? You Terrans want every single of your units to be useful and core vs. both Protoss and Zerg. I also want to be able to play just Skytoss vs. every race, but I can't, because it's not viable. Do you see me and other Protoss players whining about it constantly?
A Protoss army can be Stalkers + things, or Adepts + things, or Archons + things, or Tempests + things. (Or Colossus + things throughout all of WOL and HOTS)
A Zerg army can be Lings + things, Banes + things, Roaches + things, Ravagers + things, Lurkers + things, Mutas + things, Ultras + things.
A Terran army can be Marines + things. In TvT alone, it can be Tanks + things. In HOTS TvP alone, it could be Marauders + things, which functionally makes almost zero difference because the gameplay of Marines and Marauders is nearly identical.
Do you see how one of these things is not like the others?
Yeah, marines are THAT good with proper micro. Can pretty much do everything in place of other units at a cost effective manner. Granted, if marines didn't exist, other units can be used in place and make T more fair.
Is it only me who is fearing the Tank being OP when it starts OHKO Lings? I mean... that could be a REAL problem IMO and force a standard gameplay online without many options.
About the Tankivac, it needs to go or at least only pick Tank in Siege but remove it while loading, to let you save them in a emergency. I think there is plenty of good arguments explaining why it is ridiculous actually.
On February 25 2016 10:56 Sogetsu wrote: Is it only me who is fearing the Tank being OP when it starts OHKO Lings? I mean... that could be a REAL problem IMO and force a standard gameplay online without many options.
About the Tankivac, it needs to go or at least only pick Tank in Siege but remove it while loading, to let you save them in a emergency. I think there is plenty of good arguments explaining why it is ridiculous actually.
Only a small part of the splash radius 1 hits lings, not to mention that once tanks got +2 attack they already 1 hitted lings, no matter what armor the lings got.
Only a small part of the splash radius 1 hits lings, not to mention that once tanks got +2 attack they already 1 hitted lings, no matter what armor the lings got.
Only a small part of the splash radius 1 hits lings, not to mention that once tanks got +2 attack they already 1 hitted lings, no matter what armor the lings got.
+1 actually.
You are right tanks, gets to show how small the impact is vs lings despite everything.
On February 25 2016 10:55 NKexquisite wrote: Terran is screwed.
If it really is a "Tank" it should have more than 160 hp.
Yeah, if it receives 160 hp, it should have a much nerfed damage in compensation. You can't have a monster health AND a monster damage T2 unit, that wouldn't exactly be fair now, would it
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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
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.
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 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 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!
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!
Strong? Yes. Too strong? No. The nerf is only neccesary because it would be too easy to kill tanks with ravagers without tankivac.
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
I think it might be possible to simplify the proposed balance patch by allowing siege tanks to be picked up in siege mode, dropped off in tank mode with the damage buff to 40/20 in conjunction to not nerfing the ravager and not nerfing the liberator. However, the main problem with this is that ZvP balance will not improve.
On February 26 2016 03:09 BazookaBenji1 wrote: LoL watch the terran's wiggle and squirm. You guys are due for a nerf, zerg and Toss got nerf'd last patch, now it's your turn, muahahhahaha
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!
lol TvZ is pretty balanced as it is right now. Nerf ravager without it and Terran is probably going to become favored in the match up.
Flying tanks are stupid anyway, I am all for removing the flying tanks and buffing their damage, something they've needed for awhile. They should not get both.
On February 26 2016 04:11 Cyro wrote: As far as ZvP goes, corrosive bile damage is not usually a big deal i think
Can't tell if you're serious or not... Early ravagers are a HUGE point of concern, because it allows Zerg to snipe pylons super fast and from a long range.
On February 26 2016 04:11 Cyro wrote: As far as ZvP goes, corrosive bile damage is not usually a big deal i think
Can't tell if you're serious or not... Early ravagers are a HUGE point of concern, because it allows Zerg to snipe pylons super fast and from a long range.
Zerg can still snipe pylons+cannons super fast and from long range when it hits for 45 damage instead of 60. I didn't say that zerg t1 - 1.5 wasn't a concern
Yeah i'm going to shoot 4-6 corrosive bile shots at 60 damage at a single pylon/cannon to take it down while that ravager is being distracted it dies, like always.. Real shame no point using ravagers now couldn't they have just added a few seconds onto cool down, as cool downs cause a zerg to back up for a few...? hard damage nerfs are soo excessive.
On February 26 2016 08:37 UberNuB wrote: Yeah, it'd be a real shame if Protoss had to make units instead of just Pylons and Mothership Core /s.
When one race doesn't have the production mechanics and units to match another race that can easily outrange static defense, the game doesn't work out very well
Well, why not an upgrade to reduce siege/unsiege time, and maybe some AI buff to force unsiege when the Medivac is given the order to load X tank?
Keeps the micro with an intermediate skill cap (not manual unsiege but not just pick and run) and still gives the possibility to use tanks way more aggressively, with a higher skill cap than before. A cheap, decently fast upgrade with a tech requirement.
Tanks could also use an HP buff in exchange for some attack speed, being harder to snipe.
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
I think it might be possible to simplify the proposed balance patch by allowing siege tanks to be picked up in siege mode, dropped off in tank mode with the damage buff to 40/20 in conjunction to not nerfing the ravager and not nerfing the liberator. However, the main problem with this is that ZvP balance will not improve.
On February 26 2016 03:09 BazookaBenji1 wrote: LoL watch the terran's wiggle and squirm. You guys are due for a nerf, zerg and Toss got nerf'd last patch, now it's your turn, muahahhahaha
It's a redesign rather than a nerf or a buff.
So you want and a way stronger tank while still being somewhat mobile and being able to safe it from losing battles. I think the stronger tank should not be able to get picked up in siege mode to keep ling bling muta somewhat viable.
Best balance change since LOTV was released. Possible Z will gain a slight buff in ZvT now, but time will tell. Also now 4 shots to hit a liberator, thank god for the pre-range nerf!
On February 26 2016 08:57 BLAiNER wrote: Yeah i'm going to shoot 4-6 corrosive bile shots at 60 damage at a single pylon/cannon to take it down while that ravager is being distracted it dies, like always.. Real shame no point using ravagers now couldn't they have just added a few seconds onto cool down, as cool downs cause a zerg to back up for a few...? hard damage nerfs are soo excessive.
Clearly you failed to see the problem being with the burst damage itself, cool down would have minimal impact in a bust situation. Now pylons and bunkers will last longer, as you surmise, which is intentional.
On February 26 2016 09:25 JCoto wrote: Well, why not an upgrade to reduce siege/unsiege time, and maybe some AI buff to force unsiege when the Medivac is given the order to load X tank?
Keeps the micro with an intermediate skill cap (not manual unsiege but not just pick and run) and still gives the possibility to use tanks way more aggressively, with a higher skill cap than before. A cheap, decently fast upgrade with a tech requirement.
Tanks could also use an HP buff in exchange for some attack speed, being harder to snipe.
3 seconds for Tanks to unsiege vs the Lurker that almost pops out from the ground as fast as the Infestor, does seem a bit unfair (dno the actual unburrow time of Lurker.)
The Tank feels much better against Protoss. Not sure if it's enough for mech to be viable, but it's a good start.
TvT is vastly improved. Defenders advantage is a thing again and mech has a chance.
TvZ feels better to. You need to think a bit more about positioning and spend time spreading Tanks, but when they hit they feel strong. Longer lines of Tanks make fights last longer to and generally feel more epic.
All in all, it feels like twitch reflex are replaced by positioning and thinking. Great improvement IMO.
I still stand for the opinion that the ability to pick sieged tanks was a great change, it allows tanks to disengage and evade not only ravager shots but also other dicey situations. It rewards micro too. The problem is the sieged tank drop that allows those extremely silly doomdrops in TvT and while its not a balance concern, a zerg with no air is just "outplayed" by good micro as in there is nothing you can do if the tank was picked and droped back in a good position (lack of counterplay).
So just make them unsieged when picked up. You can still save them from ravager biles, you can still pick and drop back but you must siege afterwards, still totally worth it.
On February 26 2016 18:15 Sapphire.lux wrote: The Tank feels much better against Protoss. Not sure if it's enough for mech to be viable, but it's a good start.
TvT is vastly improved. Defenders advantage is a thing again and mech has a chance.
TvZ feels better to. You need to think a bit more about positioning and spend time spreading Tanks, but when they hit they feel strong. Longer lines of Tanks make fights last longer to and generally feel more epic.
All in all, it feels like twitch reflex are replaced by positioning and thinking. Great improvement IMO.
This sounds fantastic I keep my fingered crossed for that patch to be integrated into LotV!
On February 26 2016 09:25 JCoto wrote: Well, why not an upgrade to reduce siege/unsiege time, and maybe some AI buff to force unsiege when the Medivac is given the order to load X tank?
Keeps the micro with an intermediate skill cap (not manual unsiege but not just pick and run) and still gives the possibility to use tanks way more aggressively, with a higher skill cap than before. A cheap, decently fast upgrade with a tech requirement.
Tanks could also use an HP buff in exchange for some attack speed, being harder to snipe.
3 seconds for Tanks to unsiege vs the Lurker that almost pops out from the ground as fast as the Infestor, does seem a bit unfair (dno the actual unburrow time of Lurker.)
Sorry I don't understand your post XD.
I mean, reducing siege/unsiege to half its values.
On February 26 2016 18:15 Sapphire.lux wrote: The Tank feels much better against Protoss. Not sure if it's enough for mech to be viable, but it's a good start.
TvT is vastly improved. Defenders advantage is a thing again and mech has a chance.
TvZ feels better to. You need to think a bit more about positioning and spend time spreading Tanks, but when they hit they feel strong. Longer lines of Tanks make fights last longer to and generally feel more epic.
All in all, it feels like twitch reflex are replaced by positioning and thinking. Great improvement IMO.
Please do not remove tankivacs.. Its a good micro thing.. Why the hell should we promote more passive play whit camping whit tanks? rather than use them offencive and let good micro reward the player.
On February 26 2016 18:15 Sapphire.lux wrote: The Tank feels much better against Protoss. Not sure if it's enough for mech to be viable, but it's a good start.
TvT is vastly improved. Defenders advantage is a thing again and mech has a chance.
TvZ feels better to. You need to think a bit more about positioning and spend time spreading Tanks, but when they hit they feel strong. Longer lines of Tanks make fights last longer to and generally feel more epic.
All in all, it feels like twitch reflex are replaced by positioning and thinking. Great improvement IMO.
Position and thinking is somthing everyone can learn in about 10 games. its not hard to know where to put tanks and where to camp. what makes starcraft fun is the ability to Micro and actually make a difference whit youre reflex and skills, instead of sitting whit siege tanks and bait the other player out. we wil lfor sure se more boring games. longer games. i really hope, for the sake of the game, tankivacs stays.
On February 26 2016 19:38 MiCroLiFe wrote: Please do not remove tankivacs.. Its a good micro thing.. Why the hell should we promote more passive play whit camping whit tanks? rather than use them offencive and let good micro reward the player.
That's why I think they should study some kind of upgrade like the widow mine's for the mid-lategame, or keep the tankivac as a late-game upgrade and attempt to rebalance it (bigger delays).
However it is true that siegevacs at the moment need to go away, since they create more problems than solutions. The actual state of siegevac combo makes the combo strong but the tank itself weak. It's kinda paradoxal: tanks are kinda weak as siege units, but the tankivac removes their main weakness (and most important, sign of identity), positioning, turning them into strong harass units and decently mobile siege, but they cannot really work autonomously.
Let's see what the patch brings, and then study a potential rework of that combo, because the micro interaction is very interesting, but not really polished or trully balanced. It needs fine tuning for sure.
I also think that they should study a small range (+1) buff for it, since 14 is still the range of Blink+Stalker range (8+6) which is one of the problems of tanks in TvP.
On February 26 2016 09:25 JCoto wrote: Well, why not an upgrade to reduce siege/unsiege time, and maybe some AI buff to force unsiege when the Medivac is given the order to load X tank?
Keeps the micro with an intermediate skill cap (not manual unsiege but not just pick and run) and still gives the possibility to use tanks way more aggressively, with a higher skill cap than before. A cheap, decently fast upgrade with a tech requirement.
Tanks could also use an HP buff in exchange for some attack speed, being harder to snipe.
3 seconds for Tanks to unsiege vs the Lurker that almost pops out from the ground as fast as the Infestor, does seem a bit unfair (dno the actual unburrow time of Lurker.)
Sorry I don't understand your post XD.
I mean, reducing siege/unsiege to half its values.
I just mean Lurkers can unburrow really fast, while Siege Tanks unsieges super slow.
On February 26 2016 18:15 Sapphire.lux wrote: The Tank feels much better against Protoss. Not sure if it's enough for mech to be viable, but it's a good start.
TvT is vastly improved. Defenders advantage is a thing again and mech has a chance.
TvZ feels better to. You need to think a bit more about positioning and spend time spreading Tanks, but when they hit they feel strong. Longer lines of Tanks make fights last longer to and generally feel more epic.
All in all, it feels like twitch reflex are replaced by positioning and thinking. Great improvement IMO.
Position and thinking is somthing everyone can learn in about 10 games. its not hard to know where to put tanks and where to camp. what makes starcraft fun is the ability to Micro and actually make a difference whit youre reflex and skills, instead of sitting whit siege tanks and bait the other player out. we wil lfor sure se more boring games. longer games. i really hope, for the sake of the game, tankivacs stays.
Thinking that you learn that in 10 games shows you have no understanding of positioning in RTS, and so you are incapable of appreciating it.
I hope you'll learn it though, because it will expand your understanding and enjoyment of the game so much more.
On February 26 2016 18:15 Sapphire.lux wrote: The Tank feels much better against Protoss. Not sure if it's enough for mech to be viable, but it's a good start.
TvT is vastly improved. Defenders advantage is a thing again and mech has a chance.
TvZ feels better to. You need to think a bit more about positioning and spend time spreading Tanks, but when they hit they feel strong. Longer lines of Tanks make fights last longer to and generally feel more epic.
All in all, it feels like twitch reflex are replaced by positioning and thinking. Great improvement IMO.
Position and thinking is somthing everyone can learn in about 10 games. its not hard to know where to put tanks and where to camp. what makes starcraft fun is the ability to Micro and actually make a difference whit youre reflex and skills, instead of sitting whit siege tanks and bait the other player out. we wil lfor sure se more boring games. longer games. i really hope, for the sake of the game, tankivacs stays.
That first statement is hilariously wrong. You don't "learn positioning" in 10 games. What league are you?
Why are so many people so eager to see mech again? It's literally 2 hours long games where nothing happens and this is why so many people left in hots. When it was viable (in WoL) I think I saw someone play mech an average 10% of my games (or even less) and each time it was absolute lamers who would build 50 towers around their bases to make their deathball and you'd have to wait ages for them to leave to actually finish the game.
Position and thinking is somthing everyone can learn in about 10 games. its not hard to know where to put tanks and where to camp. what makes starcraft fun is the ability to Micro and actually make a difference whit youre reflex and skills, instead of sitting whit siege tanks and bait the other player out. we wil lfor sure se more boring games. longer games. i really hope, for the sake of the game, tankivacs stays.
I strongly disagree. Any NA players that knows everything about positioning and thinking should play Polt and then explain by replay how they always knew where he was positions, what he was thinking, and also tell us how you never made any positional mistake. I would bet this is true regardless of if he went Mech or Bio.
On February 26 2016 22:52 Hurricaned wrote: Why are so many people so eager to see mech again? It's literally 2 hours long games where nothing happens and this is why so many people left in hots. When it was viable (in WoL) I think I saw someone play mech an average 10% of my games (or even less) and each time it was absolute lamers who would build 50 towers around their bases to make their deathball and you'd have to wait ages for them to leave to actually finish the game.
Good point. Maybe a heavy gas investment Mech army with a macro lead should be enough to walk across the map after 30 minutes, and decisively end it. I mean, a protoss with better income can just end the game after 30 minutes with a few different tech choices, so can a Zerg. Why could you not produce from factories/starports which are higher tier than barracks, and just go end a game that would be over in another matchup?
Something to work on after this patch, for sure. However, I disagree with your logic as to why the Factory units should remain weak on late game offense (aka Thor, Tank, Cyclone, Hellbat). Instead, I think balanced compositions made from Factories should be as effective as anything from Bio/EB upgrades.
How often do you see a pro Terran in the lead walk across the map at 30 min and end it with mostly factory units in TvP? Very rarely or never. In TvZ? Very rarely or never.
Fix it after but only after we see how these current changes will impact balance after implementation.
So only the siege damage is being buffed for the tank?
The argument about max population tanks vs ultraling seems incredibly idealized. 1. It was probably tested on an open map with minimal tank spread, which probably will not be the case in a game. 2. Max 1 unit is usually not the best option; adding 10 helbats and even taking away 5 tanks would probably do better. 3. I was under the impression that vs ultralisk, unsieged tank worked better (slightly better dps, no friendly splash damaged caused by the huge body of ultras) I wonder if it will still be the better option to unsiege tanks vs ultralisk if the changes go through.
As a zerg main I am happy with the changes. As a terran player also I feel like this is too many nerfs too fast.
I think it keeps getting brushed under the rug that the Liberator was designed BEFORE tankivacs were. I don't understand the necessity of the Liberator being a mobile tank unit AND the tank being a mobile tank unit, both from the Starport. The tank needs to have an identity that is different than the liberator, and I think that is best done by buffing the tanks damage and removing its mobility.
On February 27 2016 00:17 papapanda wrote: So only the siege damage is being buffed for the tank?
The argument about max population tanks vs ultraling seems incredibly idealized. 1. It was probably tested on an open map with minimal tank spread, which probably will not be the case in a game. 2. Max 1 unit is usually not the best option; adding 10 helbats and even taking away 5 tanks would probably do better. 3. I was under the impression that vs ultralisk, unsieged tank worked better (slightly better dps, no friendly splash damaged caused by the huge body of ultras) I wonder if it will still be the better option to unsiege tanks vs ultralisk if the changes go through.
As a zerg main I am happy with the changes. As a terran player also I feel like this is too many nerfs too fast.
I saw that test. It was a somewhat spread zerg player against a pretty clumped (lots of ultra splash) Terran. And before the lings were added in it wasn't even close, the tanks just stomped the ultras in the open field. Though I have no clue about what numbers of units were actually used, so I don't really see the point of the test. It takes 10 mins to adjust the unit tester with the balance suggestions and have some real tests in which you know the numbers of each side.
Anyhow, the point is that it was the addition of mass zerglings that killed that tanks, and as you said, a few hellbats with the tanks and it turns around again. The point of any tank patch should never be that mass tanks becomes impossible to beat on the ground, but that clever tank-based play becomes viable.
On February 27 2016 00:21 Lexender wrote: I wonder how many people that are comenting have actually play the test map.
I bet all people going up in arms like they can see the future saying the game is going to be shit haven't played a single game. Or watched one.
And not to say that it automatically means that a person cannot provide valuable feedback, but it is a fact that roughly 2/3 of the people that have played LOTV since release will not have Terran as their main race, and therefore may not be in a position to fully appreciate the impact of the balance test map changes on TvT gameplay. If you do not agree that this is a fact, you can take it as my opinion.
On February 27 2016 00:27 atstapley wrote: I think it keeps getting brushed under the rug that the Liberator was designed BEFORE tankivacs were. I don't understand the necessity of the Liberator being a mobile tank unit AND the tank being a mobile tank unit, both from the Starport. The tank needs to have an identity that is different than the liberator, and I think that is best done by buffing the tanks damage and removing its mobility.
On February 27 2016 00:27 atstapley wrote: I think it keeps getting brushed under the rug that the Liberator was designed BEFORE tankivacs were
Pretty sure tank pickups were one of the first things Blizzard announced for Terran in LotV while liberators were only added several months into beta.
Also even when you remove mobility and add damage for the tank, their identity is still pretty similar. Liberator vs ground is high DPS (higher than tanks after the proposed buff I'm pretty sure) while being completely stationary and having to be repositioned. What's different? Tank has AoE damage and is accessible one tech tier earlier; liberator has more utility when unsieged, can be reactored but is slightly more expensive.
I think the liberator has to change a bit aswell for the tank to get proper identity.
I don't see how the liberator and tankivac are too similar in their use. At all. That's like saying hellion and hellbat are too similar. Or hydralisk and roach. Or immortal and colossus.
Seems like they're going backwards imo... Do people feel that the delay in dropped siege tank shot is not enough? I feel like they're only looking at the pros again and making more changes that only tweak the game if you're a Maru-level micro'er but make it nigh un-winnable for mere mortals... What do people think about taking away friendly splash from tanks if they can't be picked up anymore? (Because, let's face it, just about everything in the fight wrecks tanks during the big engagements...)
I've tried the balance map a couple of times and wonder how they can get any usable info out of it because of the matchmaking. to me it seems like the range of people I've been playing is so large I am winning before any potential test changes are in play or I am losing before they are. It seems the test map data could be getting skewed because of a huge variance in mechanical skill vs unit stats. Is anybody else having similar issues?
On February 29 2016 11:18 bigbadgreen wrote: I've tried the balance map a couple of times and wonder how they can get any usable info out of it because of the matchmaking. to me it seems like the range of people I've been playing is so large I am winning before any potential test changes are in play or I am losing before they are. It seems the test map data could be getting skewed because of a huge variance in mechanical skill vs unit stats. Is anybody else having similar issues?
Yeah I have the same problem because somebody in their infinite genius made it so custom games autostart when full therefore u cannot even confirm if the rank of your opponent is anywhere close to yours. Also you cannot make sure your playing the right race to even test the new balance changes in the first place.. Yet another example of downgraded battle.net from literally over 15 years ago. This is an issue which should definitely be fixed if the public is expected to help with balance testing as this thread suggests.
It's sad to me to think people's livelihoods are based on this game and they have downgraded making the game slower to be balanced, hurting viewership and playerbase, and therefore taking money out of pro-gamers pockets and blizzards very own pockets. I truly believe the flaws of the new and dis-improved battlenet have doomed sc2 into never reaching the heights of its predecessor more than anything. (At least they finally fixed some things such as arcade but it was probably too little, too late.)
EPT
Less gas and more minerals mean that there is less banes and more marines. Freedom also shuts down muta plays hardcore nowadays. 
