|
Introduction
Greetings, dear TL Forums! Not long ago, more specifically on February 23th, Blizzard released a Balance Test Map in which they would test a Siege Tank Damage Buff. In order to get a clearer picture of the repercusions of this Damage Buff, I decided to make charts which would showcase the amount of shots that it would take for a Siege Tank to kill the ground units of all three races and some structures, considering these two scenarios: the current Siege Tank Damage (Original) and the improved Siege Tank Damage (Buff).
Siege Tank Damage Chart
On a more detailed note, the amount of shots that a Siege Tank requires to kill a unit/structure is a calculation that takes into consideration the following factors: Health Points (HP), Shield points, Base Armor (and Upgraded Armor, when necessary), Siege Tank Damage (and Vehicle Weapon upgrades). It goes as follows:
# of shots = (HP + Shield Points) / (Damage - Base Armor)
The result of this calculation is an integer number and, in case the result is a fraction, it is always rounded up.
Just for clarification purposes, the cells filled in GREEN indicate that there is an improvement due to the buff. Also, I have added notes marked by the symbol *, please make sure to read those as they showcase certain exceptions, give explanations on why it's an improvement or clarify a point.
On a more personal note, I am happy that I can share this information with you,I sincerely hope it helps you draw your conclusions on wether you like it or not and,last but not least, showcase how much of an improvement a simple flat damage buff can prove to be!
Without further ado, I am attaching the charts as follows.
Terran Units
+ Show Spoiler +
Zerg Units
+ Show Spoiler +
Ultralisk (Yes, it has its own chart LOL)
+ Show Spoiler +
Protoss Units
+ Show Spoiler +
Conclusions / Additional Notes
+ Show Spoiler +Siege Tank Splash Damage+ Show Spoiler +On March 01 2016 06:12 Cyro wrote:
it's also important to note that siege tanks do three stages of damage based on how far the enemy is from the main target. With lings, they'll die in 2 hits instead of 3 from the 50% damage splash radius The advantage that Siege Tanks receive from the buff is that, in general terms, it takes 1 less shot to kill most Protoss units.However, if we go in depth and analyse both type of armor interaction. We could conclude the following:
- Siege Tanks, as a consequence of the buff, would become better against Light / No-Armor-Type Ground Protoss Units only during the early/mid game, as that's when the Siege Tanks takes 1 less shot to kill them (in ALL the cases, except for the archon).
- Siege Tanks would become much better all the time against Armored-Type Ground Protoss Units like the Immortal and the Colossi, and I believe personally that this area could be the one giving a bit of trouble. But we have to take into consideration, that by applying the damage buff, we should also be applying the Medivac pickup removal, only THAT would make things fair, as Siege Tanks would still have a strong weakness in their lack of mobility. That would make it tough to be aggressive with them, while keeping their defensive capabilities strong.
-Also the fact that Siege Tanks become better against most of protoss units means that you can hit the critical mass of Siege Tanks much faster, as you are going to need less Siege Tanks to control / protect as much space as before. Considering that Siege Tanks and Mech generally are weak against Air Armies and having more Siege Tanks than what you need is not going to help against that matter, actually having / requiring less supply of Siege Tanks is a buff to mech as well, as you will be able to produce more units to complement your Siege Tanks.
Having said all of this, I do agree it's scary, we've never had a mech army go toe to toe against a protoss army (especially if Toss has Air) in an equal situation, usually mech has mostly worked against Protoss when the protoss is at some kind of disadvantage (or at least that is what I have experienced).
Personal Author Notes
+ Show Spoiler +Woosh! I was finally able to do this! Figuratively speaking, I had this stuck inside my chest for such a long time, it would've been painful to allow obstacles to keep me from posting this for much longer.
When Mr. David Kim posted that Community Feedback in which he stated Siege Tanks would receive a flat damage buff,I was SUPER excited to finally see a simple straightforward buff to my favourite unit!
Finally, some love for the Siege Tank!
However, I believe I didn't fully understand the implicancies of this buff, or what it exactly meant in gameplay, otherwise I wouldn't be able to say this is strong or it is not such a strong change in a conscious way, joo know.
But then, the Balance Test Map was announced, and that is when I came up with the idea of making the charts, in order to have factual information, so that I could draw my own conclusion. Three days later, by the 26th, I finished the charts, however it has not been until today that I finally found the time and courage to post it.
I had stuff to do during the weekend, plus the fact that I have barely posted anything on TL ever, I didn't know how to format it in a way it would be easily understandable. So I was feeling annoyed by the fact that I wanted to share this as soon as possible before the testing on the map finished and conlusions were drawn by Blizz, in other words, before the charts were not necessary anymore.
Then, Blizzard released this Community Feedback in which they were considering alternatives to the flat damage buff and that just was enough. I just decided to be sincere in the redaction without making it look scientific or anything, after all, it's all about sharing facts.
So, here it is! And that was a little bit of catharsis. Letting it go now that it is finally done and in your hands now. I feel like I have taken down some weight off my shoulders.
Credits
Special thanks to Liquipedia, I took the information regarding the unit stats from it, they do a great job keeping the info up to date.
Thanks a lot for reading my post in advance, I hope you can share your thoughts as well here.
PS: LOL, Protoss chart is all green xD
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
Thanks for post :D
it's also important to note that siege tanks do three stages of damage based on how far the enemy is from the main target. With lings, they'll die in 2 hits instead of 3 from the 50% damage splash radius
|
Blizzard did a good job at choosing numbers that selectively improve the siege tank against some units in TvZ and TvT. And since siege tanks are so bad in TvP the buff across the board is probably a non-issue.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
They're actually surprisingly decent against P sometimes and damage buff will make them scary, even if they can't be lifted any more. Since nexus cannon is now pylon cannon, tanks also counter it instead of the other way around
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 01 2016 06:12 Cyro wrote:
Thanks for post :D
it's also important to note that siege tanks do three stages of damage based on how far the enemy is from the main target. With lings, they'll die in 2 hits instead of 3 from the 50% damage splash radius
Thanks for pointing this out, do you mind if I add that to the OP as a sidenote? That's in order so that everything worth noting stays "on top" and doesn't go unnoticed  Obviously, with its proper quote.
+ Show Spoiler +On March 01 2016 06:19 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Blizzard did a good job at choosing numbers that selectively improve the siege tank against some units in TvZ and TvT. And since siege tanks are so bad in TvP the buff across the board is probably a non-issue. On March 01 2016 06:42 Cyro wrote:
They're actually surprisingly decent against P sometimes and damage buff will make them scary, even if they can't be lifted any more. Since nexus cannon is now pylon cannon, tanks also counter it instead of the other way around
The advantage that Siege Tanks receive from the buff is that, in general terms, it takes 1 less shot to kill most Protoss units.However, if we go in depth and analyse both type of armor interaction. We could conclude the following:
- Siege Tanks, as a consequence of the buff, would become better against Light / No-Armor-Type Ground Protoss Units only during the early/mid game, as that's when the Siege Tanks takes 1 less shot to kill them (in ALL the cases, except for the archon).
- Siege Tanks would become much better all the time against Armored-Type Ground Protoss Units like the Immortal and the Colossi, and I believe personally that this area could be the one giving a bit of trouble. But we have to take into consideration, that by applying the damage buff, we should also be applying the Medivac pickup removal, only THAT would make things fair, as Siege Tanks would still have a strong weakness in their lack of mobility. That would make it tough to be aggressive with them, while keeping their defensive capabilities strong.
-Also the fact that Siege Tanks become better against most of protoss units means that you can hit the critical mass of Siege Tanks much faster, as you are going to need less Siege Tanks to control / protect as much space as before. Considering that Siege Tanks and Mech generally are weak against Air Armies and having more Siege Tanks than what you need is not going to help against that matter, actually having / requiring less supply of Siege Tanks is a buff to mech as well, as you will be able to produce more units to complement your Siege Tanks.
Having said all of this, I do agree it's scary, we've never had a mech army go toe to toe against a protoss army (especially if Toss has Air) in an equal situation, usually mech has mostly worked against Protoss when the protoss is at some kind of disadvantage (or at least that is what I have experienced).
|
Thank you for all the work you have put into this!
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
Why is the only safe worker again SCV?  They should be one shotted too! I am just waiting for Blizzard to create an incredible map pool with some cliffs behind minerals where the tank can be abused
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 01 2016 07:44 PinoKotsBeer wrote:
Thank you for all the work you have put into this!
I'm glad, man I am hoping that during this week or next, we get to see some feedback from Blizzard regarding the Siege Tank flat damage buff.
+ Show Spoiler +On March 01 2016 07:47 deacon.frost wrote:Why is the only safe worker again SCV? They should be one shotted too! I am just waiting for Blizzard to create an incredible map pool with some cliffs behind minerals where the tank can be abused
Cause SCVs are the only worker that can be harassed to death while peacefully building a structure, hahah. Regarding the abusive map pool, man..... that would only get the Siege Tank nerfed again, please, no 
On a serious note, tho, I love the maps where you can place your Siege Tanks behind the cliffs and hit an assimilator at most. It translates into pressure for the opponent and some gas shortage, that's the most you should get from map advantage.
|
Armored protoss "units":
-Pylons
I lol'd
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
@PowerOfOne
go ahead, whatever :D
|
This is actually a really big buff. Zerglings always getting one shot, roaches always getting three shot, ravagers always getting 3 shot and hydras always getting two shot no matter their armor is a big buff. That really improves the seige tank in a huge way against all core zerg units.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
It doesn't quite make it. Even though Hydras and Ravagers have 80 and 120hp and no armor, they (often or always?) survive 2 and 3 hits with 1hp because of the zerg regeneration. It'd have to be 41 damage or +1 attack tank
|
On March 01 2016 08:16 Cyro wrote:
It doesn't quite make it. Even though Hydras and Ravagers have 80 and 120hp and no armor, they (often or always?) survive 2 and 3 hits with 1hp because of the zerg regeneration. It'd have to be 41 damage or +1 attack tank
pull one SCV! lol
Interesting chart, shows very well that the number is not arbitrary. I wonder if its better balanced with tankivac removal, tankivac tank mode drop or boost removal on tankivac.
edit: Its all about the splash damage and other stuff shooting guys 
|
This means it might actually be better to *not* stim your marines if you go in against siege tanks, only stim the marauders
|
I don't see roaches in that chart. Am I missing something or is it really not there?
|
How is the splash damage calculated in game? 35 (+15 against armored) then recalculate based on matrices/distance then reduced by the splashed unit's armor?
It seems like there is very little incentive to get level 3 carapace upgrade against tanks/mech on paper.
Although in an ingame situation it will always pay off to grab the upgrade no matter what the numbers say.
Edit:
+ Show Spoiler +On March 01 2016 16:58 phantomfive wrote:
I don't see roaches in that chart. Am I missing something or is it really not there?
They are under the armored units section.
Also thank you OP for the chart dedicated to ultralisks.
|
Another biased foreigner terran thread yay !
User was warned for this post
|
I am not entirely convinced this will make tanks good enough against Protoss.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On March 01 2016 21:46 Wildmoon wrote:
I am not entirely convinced this will make tanks good enough against Protoss.
Tanks are already used against protoss in the early and midgame (people do timing pushes and abuse medivac drop tanks in the midgame sometimes) and they can be fairly strong already - they're just not completely standard in the matchup. People tend to use Liberators instead.
The way that blizzard is talking at the moment, it looks like they will buff tank damage by that amount and still probably let them get picked up by medivacs (likely with some mechanic to avoid picking up and dropping again constantly without penalty, such as a firing delay after being dropped). With those changes tanks will be very good against protoss.
Remember that they've always been fairly good in timing attacks (they'll have ~23-28% more DPS than they had during the days of 1-1-1!) and while nexus cannon was very good against that, they directly counter pylon cannons
|
On March 01 2016 23:01 Cyro wrote:
The way that blizzard is talking at the moment, it looks like they will buff tank damage by that amount and still probably let them get picked up by medivacs (likely with some mechanic to avoid picking up and dropping again constantly without penalty, such as a firing delay after being dropped). With those changes tanks will be very good against protoss.
Uhm, indeed, it seems they are evaluating a different approach, but they didn't go too deep into it.
Taken from the February 26th - Community Feedback
+ Show Spoiler +KR Pro Feedback
We recently received feedback from all the professional teams in Korea regarding the current balance test map. Let’s run through what they thought.
The pros didn’t like the Siege Tank damage increase or disabling pickup, saying that Siege Tanks weren’t viable after these changes. The vibe we got was that Siege Tanks don’t need a damage increase—without mobility, they won’t be an effective tool, even if they hit much harder. We still believe that there could be a scenario where the damage is increased enough to offset the mobility loss. However, the more important question here is not about if the damage buff is stronger or the Medivac pickup is stronger. Instead, we should be more focused on the loss of micro and strategic potential versus the gain of the Siege Tank fulfilling their fantasy better by having clear strengths and weaknesses.
Regarding the Ravager change, the main feedback was that Ravagers are primarily used to counter Liberators and Widow Mines, so if a nerf is needed, then their ability cooldown should be increased instead. Our stance on this one is that the type of change we implement really depends on the issue we’re trying to solve. The damage nerf was suggested to help with not just the Siege Tank change, but also in case Ravager timing pushes are too strong versus Protoss. If either of these scenarios have changed, we would definitely need a different solution.
We also received feedback that players are still testing and figuring out our most recent changes, so it would be best if the next balance patch doesn’t happen until we are sure that the issues being addressed are real and the changes are tested. We agree; while things like Ravager timing attacks looked very strong and Protoss looked to be struggling when the last patch hit, Protoss players are still figuring out how to play in this new patch and we’re still figuring out the current state of the game.
Siege Tank Change
Let’s go into more detail about the Siege Tank change.
We agree with many people out there who disagree with the changes:
Siege Tank pickup micro is definitely really cool.
We see Terran players fielding a good mix of Bio and Mech units—do we really have to split those two strategies again?
We definitely understand this stance. Perhaps Terran is more fun to play with and watch if there’s always a mix of the two like we’re currently seeing, and maybe we don’t need them to be completely split.
Do we really need to mix strategies up at this time due to other factors such as resource changes, the push we’re making towards map diversity, games just having a lot more action in Legacy of the Void, and so on?
Our stance here is that we should have some changes tested and ready in case we get to this type of spot, so that we can react more quickly if necessary.
We also are seeing many people bring up good reasons for going through with the changes:
The fantasy of the Siege Tank has diminished due to how mobile the unit is now.
The changes would bring back the “lock down this location at the cost of mobility” vibe.
The current test map will test how cool it would be to bring this back.
Internally, we’re wondering if there’s a way to hit the positives of both sides. For example, if we further increased the time before the Siege Tank can fire, we may be able to get the effect we’re looking for. What if the time it takes to go into siege mode and fire once is equal to the time it takes before a Siege Tank can fire once it’s dropped off by the Medivac while in Siege Mode? While we may not need to go this extreme, this example shows the direction we've recently been considering.
We also agree that this isn’t a change that needs to be implemented immediately. Therefore, we should take our time to carefully evaluate different options before making a final decision.
Don't you think that by keeping both, the damage buff and the medivac pick up, Siege Tanks would become way too good? Picking up tanks is what allows them to reposition quickly without being punished for an overcommital or for not sieging up on time. My general feel is that the damage buff goes along with a respective nerf, making this more of an adjustment rather than a buff overall, joo know, one thing at the expense of the other.
So, by making this adjustment, Siege Tanks now become less mobile and thus less synergetic with bio-play. If you're going to utilize Siege Tanks mixed with bio, your bio play will adapt to the pace of the Siege Tanks by slowing itself down a bit.
+ Show Spoiler +That would help us recover the state of TvT to how it was back in HotS (Taeja vs Innovation, WCS 2013 comes to mind). The only thing that worries me is wether the increased damage will turn the tides of battle in favour of the mechanical player, considering Marauders got nerfed too.
However, if terran wants to mix bio with mech in the other match-ups, they can surely do that by mixing in Hellbats, Widow Mines, Thors and, up to some extent, the old immobile Siege Tanks with improved damage : )
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
Yeah. They're already decent units vs P and Z and used constantly vs T, they're just overshadowed by other stuff sometimes
|
I'm very surprised that professional Korean players would not like the siege tank buff. For me this was a step in the right direction; goes to show how little I know about the game, I guess.
Mobility is everything in this game, it seems.
|
Thanks for doing this, very interesting. I like the tankivac but I also like this stronger tank, so hard to know what would be the right way =P
|
What is the siege tank needs really is not a damage buff but a range buff instead.
|
i want to see it in action, there is someone with video that is testing this change?
|
I still laugh at the Pylon being in the unit tabs
So basicly major change vs P, middle change during mid game roach/hydra and minor changes overhaul ? And for TvT i can't tell.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On March 02 2016 16:47 Loccstana wrote:
What is the siege tank needs really is not a damage buff but a range buff instead.
Range is already huge, limits mapping to some degree and extends past vision. Damage buff is (relatively) harmless
|
Still think the main issue with the tank is that it costs 125 gas, 3 supply and that there are many many units who can painfully exploit the static nature of a sieged tank. Not even bringing up the horrors that Vipers can unleash on them.
|
How does the +1 upgrade doing 3 or 5 damage work please? Why doesn't it to 1 damage more? I have never really understood how upgrades work.
|
On March 04 2016 05:09 Edpayasugo wrote:
How does the +1 upgrade doing 3 or 5 damage work please? Why doesn't it to 1 damage more? I have never really understood how upgrades work.
Every unit has a different damage differential per upgrade which you can see if you hover your mouse over the damage icon on the unit card in-game. (Or you can look it up online.) Same thing applies to armor upgrades, although with armor most of the units have the same differential.
|
I believe the standard is that an upgrade adds 10% more damage to the base damage, rounded up.
So if a tank does 40 damage, at lvl 1 it gets 4 more damage. However, some units, weapons and bonus damage applications vary from this.
|
On March 02 2016 04:13 PowerOfOne wrote:Don't you think that by keeping both, the damage buff and the medivac pick up, Siege Tanks would become way too good? Picking up tanks is what allows them to reposition quickly without being punished for an overcommital or for not sieging up on time. My general feel is that the damage buff goes along with a respective nerf, making this more of an adjustment rather than a buff overall, joo know, one thing at the expense of the other.
It depends. It might be possible depending on the numbers. Remember, it's not just a straight-up damage buff proposed in the update, it's also an increase of time between shots. This means that it's theoretically more effective to bait Tank shots with single units and then move in while the Tank is on cooldown. In a scenario where there isn't enough army on the Tank side to stop enemy units from moving right next to the Tank (such as a single Tank drop), it might actually be an overall nerf to ordinary Tank drops. However, Tank doomdrops could potentially become more of a problem, as a doomdrop is essentially dropping a small to moderate army into the base.
|
Blizzard should put a better AA mech unit or redesign something (Cyclone/Thor) If they don't do it, then Tankivac is a must.
|
Remember, it's not just a straight-up damage buff proposed in the update, it's also an increase of time between shots.
No it isn't. Blizzard proposed increasing the fire delay on drop (instead of removing tankivacs entirely), not the attack cooldown
|
On March 06 2016 01:41 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote + Remember, it's not just a straight-up damage buff proposed in the update, it's also an increase of time between shots. No it isn't. Blizzard proposed increasing the fire delay on drop (instead of removing tankivacs entirely), not the attack cooldown
Here's what was said:
Internally, we’re wondering if there’s a way to hit the positives of both sides. For example, if we further increased the time before the Siege Tank can fire, we may be able to get the effect we’re looking for. What if the time it takes to go into siege mode and fire once is equal to the time it takes before a Siege Tank can fire once it’s dropped off by the Medivac while in Siege Mode?
"...further increased the time before the Siege Tank can fire". Doesn't mention time after dropped except when stating that it could be made equal to the time it takes to Siege up and fire.
I guess the second sentence in the quote could be taken either way. Not exactly clear.
|
I guess the second sentence in the quote could be taken either way. Not exactly clear.
"time before the siege tank can fire" != "time between shots"
Also note the "further" bit. This in the context of tankivacs, and they increased the drop delay twice in the beta, so clearly this is an extension of that. On the other hand, they've never increased the attack cooldown, nor have they ever talked about increasing it.
Also, in the very next sentence:
What if the time it takes to go into siege mode and fire once is equal to the time it takes before a Siege Tank can fire once it’s dropped off by the Medivac while in Siege Mode?
It's pretty cut and dry.
|
Alright, it's most likely what you say they said.
It would still make more sense to me, though, if they buffed the burst damage and increased the cooldown time if they're going for the "best of both." It could have that theoretical effect I stated on my first post on here, and would still make walking into Tank lines (particularly with non-tanky units) better punished.
|
On March 02 2016 16:32 Shuffleblade wrote:
Thanks for doing this, very interesting. I like the tankivac but I also like this stronger tank, so hard to know what would be the right way =P
You already have liberators (flying siege tanks). Why do you need tank buff too?
|
On March 07 2016 01:53 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2016 16:32 Shuffleblade wrote:
Thanks for doing this, very interesting. I like the tankivac but I also like this stronger tank, so hard to know what would be the right way =P You already have liberators (flying siege tanks). Why do you need tank buff too?
Hopefully Blizzard will realize that Liberators and Siege Tanks have their design backwards; a Siege Tank should be able to create hard contain zone control, and the Liberator should function as a supplement to the zone control since it is a flying unit and thus does not have to obey map design?
|
On March 06 2016 01:38 liberatorgtb wrote:
Blizzard should put a better AA mech unit or redesign something (Cyclone/Thor) If they don't do it, then Tankivac is a must.
Cyclone movement speed could be increased just a little bit.
Right now, the #'s are:
Speedling 5.78
Hellion 5.95
Cyclone 4.72
Cyclone armor is so weak, Stalkers will eventually chip away at them.
Just a thought.
|
Honestly I never thought Siege Tank damage and zoning was all that bad, but instead I thought they were just too easy to take out. If you think about it, a Stalker has the same overall HP as a tank does, but at much reduced gas cost. That's why, despite the oddity of the pairing, the Tankivac has been very successful at seeing Siege Tanks actually used in Starcraft gameplay. It actually allows the Siege Tanks to live long enough to do something. But if you want to see Siege Tanks actually used in a balanced manner without the Medivac running around and dropping it, you'll have to:
1. Increase it's kill power.
2. Reduce it's gas cost. It's a costly unit to lose given how easy it is to lose it.
3. Reduce the amount of time it takes to setup in Siege Mode. Even Lurkers "siege up" significantly faster.
Random idea here. What about allowing the Raven Auto-Turret to mount on top of a Siege Tank? While mounted, the Auto-Turret would see increased or indefinite duration, but would break off the moment the Siege Tank came out of Siege Mode. That might be a little OP though with their recent upgrades, but I think it's a neat idea to add synergy to the two units.
|
I was really looking forward to this change.
|
On March 18 2016 03:27 DooMDash wrote:
I was really looking forward to this change.
While David Kim in charge? Didn't laugh like this for a while.
|
So, what about the tank buff?
|
On March 19 2016 05:16 Apoteosis wrote:
So, what about the tank buff?
As far as I have understood from Blizzard's statements over the course of the Community Feedbacks since the February 18th one (where the increased damage change was introduced), it seems they have been discouraged from testing the changes being proposed for the Siege Tank, being the Medivac Pickup the most important one over the increased damage buff. Thus, the more they steer away from removing the Medivac Pickup, the less likely this change will ever be tested or go through.
Below I quote Blizzard's statements about the Siege Tank, Mech or related.
Community Feedback Update - February 26
+ Show Spoiler +"The pros didn’t like the Siege Tank damage increase or disabling pickup, saying that Siege Tanks weren’t viable after these changes. The vibe we got was that Siege Tanks don’t need a damage increase—without mobility, they won’t be an effective tool, even if they hit much harder. We still believe that there could be a scenario where the damage is increased enough to offset the mobility loss. However, the more important question here is not about if the damage buff is stronger or the Medivac pickup is stronger. Instead, we should be more focused on the loss of micro and strategic potential versus the gain of the Siege Tank fulfilling their fantasy better by having clear strengths and weaknesses."
Community Feedback Update - March 8
+ Show Spoiler +"Internally, we tried the changes proposed in recent weeks and they may have felt better than just removing Siege mode pick up entirely. We also tried the popular suggestion of picking up Siege Tanks in Siege mode, with them reverting to normal mode while carried by the Medivac. This wasn’t as good of a solution as increasing the delay before firing because it provides fewer knobs to tune. With this method, we have to make the delay before players can unload Siege Tanks equal to the unsiege time to prevent Medivac pickup from being the main way players should unsiege their tanks. Instead, we can adjust the firing delay upon being dropped to what feels best after testing, from where it is now to the same time it would take to unsiege."
Community Feedback Update - March 11
+ Show Spoiler +"After going through the feedback, our current thought is to focus more on individual mech units first, and diversifying that. As we explore changes in this area, we’ll be able to identify what type of strategies and unit compositions show potential, so we can go from there. The question as to whether bio and mech should be completely split or always mixed will naturally be answered better as we explore individual design improvements."
Previous to this statement, they mentioned that they were considering changes to the Cyclone, the Banshee and Factory Anti-air
On a more personal note:
+ Show Spoiler +On March 18 2016 03:27 DooMDash wrote:
I was really looking forward to this change. I really was too, man. I was pretty excited as well. Personally, I have tried going mech plenty of times, however with this new expansion and the map pool it seems tougher, there's still a lot to explore for me though, and with better mechanics and great practice I think it can be done (The question is "At what cost?"). Even though I believe this particular change is just not meant to be for now, I wonder what kind of changes will be tested in the future, instead of these ones, I still keep hopes up. On March 18 2016 03:35 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 03:27 DooMDash wrote:
I was really looking forward to this change. While David Kim in charge? Didn't laugh like this for a while. I had a good laugh at your "While David Kim in charge?"
|
Russian Federation66 Posts
here is some miss about vs-zerg math - if zerg unit isn't one-shoted, then he start to regen, so if two 40-damage tanks shot at 80hp hydra - they will kill it with 3 shots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RuUyYtg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/abK9MoN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SVhzCNH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bUGBvFm.jpg)
