Community Feedback Update - February 26 - Page 9

On February 28 2016 06:25 Shin_Gouki wrote:


I don't have a problem with the tank being inside of a medi-vac for transportation. I do have a problem with it being in siege mode while it's being transported. A lurker being transported will not instantly be re-burrowed. The lurker also only has 9 range when sieging. The colossus with extended thermal lance only utilizes 9 range. A siege tank stays in siege mode, with the most range out of all three of those siege unit choices. On top of that, you have the ability to quickly boost and re-position in comparison to the other two transportation methods. I don't believe that's proper balance design imo.

On February 28 2016 06:32 QzYSc2 wrote:


i dont think the burrow time from lurker and delay on siege tank fire from dropping out of a medivac is much of a difference. and what does this have to do with balance design? its a philosophy on game design, and you didn't explain why you think thats proper game design. so can you aswell argue that warp prism has 6 pick up range. units are unique, surprise.

On February 28 2016 06:43 Shin_Gouki wrote:


A lurker takes 3 seconds to burrow and begin attacking. A siege tank from a medivac takes about 1.4 seconds. The difference may not seem significant on paper. I already answered your question on why I think the tank isn't being properly transported compared to the other ground siege units; the other races don't have the ability to re-position in dicey situations in the same way the siege tank does. Well, I guess the colossus technically does, but you can't pick up a burrowed unit into an overlord. The siege tank and medivac pick up also hits the front door of a zerg player earlier than 2 base lair.


The warp prism pick up range is something that most likely will be addressed as the game progresses and isn't relevant to this current argument.

On February 28 2016 07:03 QzYSc2 wrote:

a lurker definetly doesnt take 3 secs to burrow. i just checked it in unit tester, its about the same. almost even seems the lurker fires even first. ill upload the proof in a sec. sure, if tanks siege up as fast as lurkers burrow, i dont mind them having to siege/unsiege before loading/dropping.
i dont know if you realize, but the warp prism pick up range IS relevant because you argued that medivac is better at repositioning due to its boots, but you can get warp prism speed, AND the fact that pick up range is 6 means you have to travel less = fast repositioning.

On February 28 2016 07:15 Shin_Gouki wrote:


I was wrong by a second. A lurker takes 2 seconds to burrow and a second to unburrow. If you shift the tank to drop and have the lurker burrow at the exact same time the siege tank lands on the floor, it gets the first shot off (as I said, the delay for the tank is 1.4). The siege tank has more utility of use than the siege tank. I think the 3 seconds (for now at least, is fine). And just like brood war, you can dodge the straight line attack of the lurker. The warp prism is a nuisance, but the protoss also doesn't use their siege units in combination with the warp prism. Over time, that will most likely be regressed anyway.

On February 28 2016 07:21 QzYSc2 wrote:

yes, you can dodge the lurker shot. so what? do you want a game with 100% symmetry? why bother having 3 races then? do marine shots need to have a projectile because you can dodge stalker shots? and actually, protoss has the ultimate repositioning tool. recall. do we need to adress that too because you can save all your units with 1 unit and 1 click?

On February 28 2016 07:28 Shin_Gouki wrote:


I understand you /really/ like how convenient the siege tank pick up is, but you're playing a strategy game. The tank has always been about zone control and slowly pushing towards your opponent. Having that altered by making them a harassment unit on top of its initial role makes the game feel like a beta. Why do Terran players want a bunch of overlapping units that are all equally useful?

Arguing symmetry is a form of bait I won't bite. You don't even have the rod to throw that bait with.

On February 27 2016 03:49 BronzeKnee wrote:
The problem with Siege Tanks without Medivac pickup is a lack of mobility that allows them to be countered so easily by certain spells. In BW, Tanks worked because the Viper didn't exist.

Changing/removing those spells (Abduct/Blinding Cloud), would go a long way in making Tanks viable again versus Zerg. They need a significant buff to shield damage versus Protoss.

On February 28 2016 07:39 QzYSc2 wrote:


i actually hate playing with tankivacs, believe it or not. i just think they should stay, because its good for viewership, and its a good way to differentiate bad players from good players. you emphasize its a strategy game, but every decision you make, is a strategy. even tankivacs. Even scv rushing. I still don't understand why people are so obsessed with the so called unit identity. i couldn't care less if its a flying tank or flying cow, as long the core gameplay is appealing.

i argued symmetry because thats the only context i got from your arguments. why otherwise would you compare lurker shots being dodgeable, to tanks or collosus. or medivac boost, to overlords and warp prisms.

On February 28 2016 07:56 Shin_Gouki wrote:
A siege tank micro-ing does not "separate the good players from the bad." The later the game progresses, the more I don't mind and even appreciate microing tanks. Early game tank dropping just forces you to choose an uneconomic opener to combat it.

On February 28 2016 08:02 TheWinks wrote:

You think the issue with tank drops is early game harassment?

On February 28 2016 07:56 Shin_Gouki wrote:


Because Starcraft as a franchise is claimed to be like chess in terms of strategy. If white opens queen's gambit, I'm not forced to open sicilian defense. If I understand the pieces and the board, I can form a strategy to defend or become aggressive myself.

Symmetry aside, BW did a very good job with asymmetry units but still balanced in its own way. All three races had harassment, defensive and offensive opportunities not created equal.

Starcraft 2, especially with this expansion, feels like a puzzle game. If my opponent does x, I will have to respond with y. That is because we've created linear openings and linear timings. Very rarely do strange openers award players who understand the game vs those who don't. Especially with the defensive capabilities and slight micro-ing abilities from one race without the other two having the same opportunities.

A siege tank micro-ing does not "separate the good players from the bad." The later the game progresses, the more I don't mind and even appreciate microing tanks. Early game tank dropping just forces you to choose an uneconomic opener to combat it.

On February 28 2016 08:06 Shin_Gouki wrote:


Precisely. There is no incentive NOT to go tanks. If you start it as a defensive opening, but your opponent doesn't plan on all-ining; you can now also go behind their mineral line, deny scouting/creep or simply force units out. That in turn, forces the other races to open one way restrictively for consistent wins.

On February 28 2016 08:23 QzYSc2 wrote:


i dont play chess nor did i play bw multiplayer so i have no idea what you just tried to explain.

tankivac does a better job seperating good players from bads here is why i think so:
1) siege tanks can reposition fairly quick, so it forces you to have constant map awareness and control, intel where their tanks are, compared to immobile tanks where this is way less frequent. without tankivac: oh his tanks are there, i dont have to look at them again for another 30 secs.
2) more opportunities to outmicro
3) thanks to tankivac, TvT's are super chaotic (even called cancer by some). Full on aggression. ALOT more different scenarios. you lost 15 scv early, and half of your production. do you choose to rebuild production so you can keep up with his, or rebuild your economy for the long run? Thats why decision making here is much more important, because you need to decide much faster and they are worth alot more weight. if games becomes passive economic, its just like yeah first 10 min just build 5 rax, 3 fact, starport, get double engi bay. oh this is the time i drop third. you need to improvise instead of playing textbook.

i left hots, but wol was super boring just sitting on 3 base all day chrono'ing +3/3 collosus and then do 1a army push and go kill your opponent.

On February 28 2016 08:24 TheWinks wrote:

I don't know from where you're drawing this conclusion and this isn't a reason for the proposed changes. Fast tankivac harass more or less died with the introduction of the attack delay in beta.

On February 28 2016 08:55 Shin_Gouki wrote:


It is human nature to choose the most appealing option. Tanks are able to have multiple purposes instead of their initial construct. There is a big incentive to go tanks now that they can be picked up and moved around. Burrowing and unburrowing widow mines takes more time than tanks, even with their drilling claws upgrade. I'm not saying that's reason enough to remove the ability, but people have far less reasons to remove easy to dodge abilities and units that were only good in critical mass.