| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
On August 18 2016 06:41 StarscreamG1 wrote: The siege tank seems so "right". Is it just me? My thoughts exactly when watching some streams. Several of us have been asking for the removal of tankivac and damage buff since forever. Feels good! | ||
|
seemsgood
5527 Posts
"Bitches". Cause best way to use them is just use yamato on carriers and tempests and teleport and keep doing that until protoss run out of resource rofl. Also they are the best answer for carriers right now.Which is necessary to force terran players move their mech army out to free supply for BCs. | ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States729 Posts
-> Protoss | ||
|
Gullis
Sweden740 Posts
Against zerg, wont it only make zerg go in to broods, corruptors and vipers as fast as possible? (possible swarms host? but do you wanna build tanks against them?) Additionally I feel like the cyclone is just a marauder 2.0 that you dont have to micro as much and any criticism the marauder got for taking up the tanks role as anti-armor applies to the cyclone as well (except against ultras I guess). Another concern is that they described the cyclone as way for terran to compete for map control and keeping the opponent in their base but is that really a playstyle that is compatible with mech (tanks)?. I want a tankcentric play but with how strong air and abilities like shade, charge and all kinds of teleporting are, I just don't see how it can work out. Are my fears just or should I just go to bed? | ||
|
Epitoi
20 Posts
| ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
| ||
|
petro1987
Brazil374 Posts
On August 18 2016 09:21 Gullis wrote: My fear is that the tank buff is not gonna change anything. Protoss will go with adept zealots templar tech and air which the tank doesn't really fair well against. Meaning you may play "mech" with cyclones, mines, thors, hellions/hellbats which is not really mech. Against zerg, wont it only make zerg go in to broods, corruptors and vipers as fast as possible? (possible swarms host? but do you wanna build tanks against them?) Additionally I feel like the cyclone is just a marauder 2.0 that you dont have to micro as much and any criticism the marauder got for taking up the tanks role as anti-armor applies to the cyclone as well (except against ultras I guess). Another concern is that they described the cyclone as way for terran to compete for map control and keeping the opponent in their base but is that really a playstyle that is compatible with mech (tanks)?. I want a tankcentric play but with how strong air and abilities like shade, charge and all kinds of teleporting are, I just don't see how it can work out. Are my fears just or should I just go to bed? I think mech (tank centric) will work in a strong timing context. Like when you push with almost maxed supply around 9/10 minutes. After that, you need to react to what your opponent is doing. If he starting to mass tempests (or carriers), you need to do significant damage with your army (kill at least 1 mining base), and then start building vikings/thors/mines/whatever. It's a lot like in BW when the Protoss starts transitioning to carriers. In BW is easier though because you can make goliaths from the factory and they are at least somewhat decent vs ground units. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
On August 18 2016 09:21 Gullis wrote: My fear is that the tank buff is not gonna change anything. Protoss will go with adept zealots templar tech and air which the tank doesn't really fair well against. Meaning you may play "mech" with cyclones, mines, thors, hellions/hellbats which is not really mech. Against zerg, wont it only make zerg go in to broods, corruptors and vipers as fast as possible? (possible swarms host? but do you wanna build tanks against them?) Additionally I feel like the cyclone is just a marauder 2.0 that you dont have to micro as much and any criticism the marauder got for taking up the tanks role as anti-armor applies to the cyclone as well (except against ultras I guess). Another concern is that they described the cyclone as way for terran to compete for map control and keeping the opponent in their base but is that really a playstyle that is compatible with mech (tanks)?. I want a tankcentric play but with how strong air and abilities like shade, charge and all kinds of teleporting are, I just don't see how it can work out. Are my fears just or should I just go to bed? It also seems to me that terran units just overlap too much. I don't see how you can create any unique roles to tanks, cyclones, liberators, vikings, thors without adding a new armor type. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On August 18 2016 09:21 Gullis wrote: My fear is that the tank buff is not gonna change anything. Protoss will go with adept zealots templar tech and air which the tank doesn't really fair well against. Meaning you may play "mech" with cyclones, mines, thors, hellions/hellbats which is not really mech. Against zerg, wont it only make zerg go in to broods, corruptors and vipers as fast as possible? (possible swarms host? but do you wanna build tanks against them?) Additionally I feel like the cyclone is just a marauder 2.0 that you dont have to micro as much and any criticism the marauder got for taking up the tanks role as anti-armor applies to the cyclone as well (except against ultras I guess). Another concern is that they described the cyclone as way for terran to compete for map control and keeping the opponent in their base but is that really a playstyle that is compatible with mech (tanks)?. I want a tankcentric play but with how strong air and abilities like shade, charge and all kinds of teleporting are, I just don't see how it can work out. Are my fears just or should I just go to bed? I half agree, tanks are going to be fantastically more powerful against everything except Immortals which will still, 5 years later, totally murder them, so while the tank will be much "better" against Protoss it's just going to make Protoss go for heavy Immortal builds which will still totally shit on mech just due to how the Immortal can negate high burst damage. Mech already forces fast Broods/Corruptor/Viper, I don't think that relationship is going to change much with stronger tanks, only be reinforced. No clue about how the new Cyclone will interact with anything it looks like combined with the Hellion it will be stupid strong against Zerg but that's what testing and balance patches are for right? Tankcentric play is overrated turtle bullshit in my honest opinion, I would rather the aggressive options of mech be buffed, mech is already so incredibly strong defensively with PF and Liberators what it needs is the ability to attack before a critical mass and to harass/inflict economy damage. Buffing the Banshee and Viking sounds cool but air units are just far too powerful across the board for all races. Between Liberators harassing mineral lines whilst ruling the skies, Skytoss being undefeatable, and Mutalisks being so OP with regeneration that a million hard counters have had to be introduced into the game just to deal with them I'm wondering if buffing air units is a good idea at all. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On August 18 2016 10:22 Hider wrote: It also seems to me that terran units just overlap like crazy. I don't see how you can create any unique roles to tanks, cyclones, liberators without adding a new armor type. cyclone should be anti air with short range, single target high dps, and bonus vs armor | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
On August 18 2016 10:33 -NegativeZero- wrote: cyclone should be anti air with short range, single target high dps, and bonus vs armor overlaps with Viking then. | ||
|
BigRedDog
461 Posts
The better way is to remove one or two unit unit and make the reminder unit specialize and distinct. But they will never do it. So in the end, what we see are some units that are redundant or useless. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
not if the cyclone has significantly shorter range but higher dps. the viking can be for sustained long range damage, and the cyclone's job becomes to catch the air army out in the open, then just charge in and focus down as many units as possible. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
On August 18 2016 11:37 -NegativeZero- wrote: not if the cyclone has significantly shorter range but higher dps. the viking can be for sustained long range damage, and the cyclone's job becomes to catch the air army out in the open, then just charge in and focus down as many units as possible. Sustained and longer range makes no sense in the same sentence. Sustained is only a term you use together with "high constant DPS". But Longer range can be used for kiting but that's not neccasarily a role-thing. Rather its a feature of the unit to make it "feel different". You could say the Viking is better vs other long-range units such as Carriers, Brood Lords and BCs. But that raises the question what exactly will the Cyclone then be good against. (answer: nothing of value). | ||
|
FLuE
United States1012 Posts
They could slow up upgrade speed, tone down blink and adept shade and beef up those units some. I'd love to see a stronger stalker, especially vs air. If that means no blink then fine. Let the adept shade be the "blink" option and just let the stalker be a nice strong unit. It's ok for some units to have no special ability. Toss just has so many gimmicks and things to cast. Just let them have one strong simple unit. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17474 Posts
On August 18 2016 10:50 BigRedDog wrote: The problem I see with Terran is that there are so many units that overlap one another. Tank, widow mines liberators = zone control. Bashee, liberators - harass mineral line. The better way is to remove one or two unit unit and make the reminder unit specialize and distinct. But they will never do it. So in the end, what we see are some units that are redundant or useless. good point Clifford. i think they've already resigned themselves to this. I think they will wiggle away from the issue to an extent by making certain units only useless in certain matchups. Their goal is to make every unit have a good use in at least 1 matchup. They prolly prefer 2+ matchups. For example, the Viking is more versatile now against P and T and is a much more effective worker killer against those races. | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
On August 18 2016 11:58 FLuE wrote: Wish they would look at Protoss gateway units more. The strength in Protoss gateway revolves too much around the abilities of those units and fast upgrades. They could slow up upgrade speed, tone down blink and adept shade and beef up those units some. I'd love to see a stronger stalker, especially vs air. If that means no blink then fine. Let the adept shade be the "blink" option and just let the stalker be a nice strong unit. It's ok for some units to have no special ability. Toss just has so many gimmicks and things to cast. Just let them have one strong simple unit. when blizzard was making WoL, the stalker should've been what the adept is now, and the dragoon should've been the all around strong unit. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On August 18 2016 11:52 Hider wrote: Sustained and longer range makes no sense in the same sentence. Sustained is only a term you use together with "high constant DPS". But Longer range can be used for kiting but that's not neccasarily a role-thing. Rather its a feature of the unit to make it "feel different". You could say the Viking is better vs other long-range units such as Carriers, Brood Lords and BCs. But that raises the question what exactly will the Cyclone then be good against. (answer: nothing of value). The cyclone feels like it has terrible AA. Good for A Banschee, WP, and overlord scout, not much else. It's a response to the many air based aggression P can make in the very early game IMO, not an AA solution; so the Viking is safe in it's role IMO. Against ground, it feels good against Stalkers and Roaches, not much else. I like the unit so far. You can probably mech without them, but can also make a few in the early game for some pressure vs queens, stalkers, MC. The Tank also feels safe in it's role. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On August 18 2016 13:37 Sapphire.lux wrote: The cyclone feels like it has terrible AA. Good for A Banschee, WP, and overlord scout, not much else. It's a response to the many air based aggression P can make in the very early game IMO, not an AA solution; so the Viking is safe in it's role IMO. Against ground, it feels good against Stalkers and Roaches, not much else. I like the unit so far. You can probably mech without them, but can also make a few in the early game for some pressure vs queens, stalkers, MC. The Tank also feels safe in it's role. The new Cyclone's AA has less DPS than the Queen's AA afaik | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On August 18 2016 02:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote: one of the most interesting nuances introduced by these changes is the (+8 bonus to mechanical) on landed viking damage. probes and SCVs are mechanical whereas drones are not. and of course zero zerg units are mechanical. it'll be really cool to see how landed Vikings get used; specifically in scrappy 10+ minutes slug-fest games where both players are not any where close to pre-planned builds or compositions. I think a reason for that is that Tempests and Carriers are still only countered by Vikings, so now after you mass so many Vikings they don't become complete dead supply once the air war is over. It's a smart move and it makes them a lot like Goliaths. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Gerald vs herO
Clem vs Cure
ByuN vs Solar
Rogue vs MaxPax
ShoWTimE vs TBD
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
Escore
RSL Revival
Replay Cast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Universe Titan Cup
Rogue vs Percival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
