|
On August 21 2012 22:20 mostevil wrote:
It's been said before, blizard is making mech viable by making bio come out of the factory. I agree this isn't the way to get to "Mech".
It's a very misguided plan. I also think the craving for mech can be from a blind rather than reasoned love of broodwar at least from those prominent in the scene (most of whom were good in the broodwar days but not so much now). There's a lot of people in the community who think something because its what Day9/Artosis think. I'd argue some things about SC2 are actually improvements, if they can bring in some of the missing good elements from broodwar too then it should be happy days.
Also whilst mech was good in broodwar generally, mech TvT's were usually quite hideous to watch.
SC2's MarineTank vs MMM vs Mech situation can make for much prettier matches and I think they should try to build on that if anything. Additionally SC2's easier macro, hotkeying etc means the playstyle needs to be more micro and position intensive to have a reasonable skill cap, slow units that auto attack are definitely the wrong direction there. If the matches come down to "who built the best composition" I don't want to watch/play that. I hope they find a way to restore the tanks sieged damage output, it should be balancable with all the new toys toss and zerg are getting.
The other races hots additions are looking good, but the clamour for more mech is leading to stupid decisions over at bliz HQ. And my random players heart is worried when all these dumb mech walkers dont hold their own all the Protoss and Zerg good stuff will be nerfed into the ground.
You sir are a wise man. Although I'd argue you're a little bit too everything BW. While I hate the battle helion, you're not fully selling me on vultures. The helion might have some minor deficiencies against the vulture in micro in the very early game but it does fine in the raider role and has another anti mass light, specifically anti zergling role (inject, spreaded creep and SC2's smaller more closed maps make scoot and shoot kiting less viable). They could give it a spider mine upgrade easy enough if it's needed but on small chokey maps I worry about them being too strong. And bigger open maps hurts the poor protosses vs zerg, so they'd need something else too.
You are not watching any TvT that most of us are watching nowadays lol
Any TvT these days are NOT hideous to watch.
Just watch Bogus vs Flash
last night's Piano vs Barracks
Flash vs Fantasy Semifinal
And read watch TurN's TvT games.
Man you are being blind.
|
On August 21 2012 23:11 Sawamura wrote:Edit : Since you forgotten about the op criteria of what a "Mech" is let me state for you again . Show nested quote +So perhaps your asking, even if a unit originating from a factory does not necessarily make it mech play... What is Mech Play?
1) The Tank
2) Cannon Fodder
3) Raiders
4) Protection against Flanks/ Defence in Depth
5) Anti-Air Replace Anti Air with goliath and what do you get ?
The truth is mech play is in SC2 though it tends to be biomech with MMM replacing the vultures and a percentage of the tanks. I'm all for a tank buff but it seems to me the real complaint in this thread (besides SC not being BW in general) is that there are too many counters to tanks.
I'm not fond of battle hellions and warhounds but I think many people aren't paying attention to the fact that they may be able to replace marines and marauders as cannon fodder which means instead of extra rax and Ebay upgrades and heavy medivacs it may make sense to get extra rax, armory upgrades, and vikings/BCs. Plus the warhound might counter the Protoss main tank counter, making mech more viable in TvP after all.
|
On August 22 2012 00:49 Sawamura wrote:
Well there is more than one issue that is being address in this thread lack of mobile anti air unit
marine? if you mean mobile mech anti air unit than say so.
lack of map control units like spider mine
Free. Huge AoE damage. Mapcontrol. Mapvision. Who wouldnt want that? But seriously those things were imba and even more so in sc2 with its clumped up pathing. SC was a compilation of imbalances that evened themselves out. SC2 takes a different approach so not gonna happen. I think it is very natural that if you go for a very immobile unit like seige tank as a core unit you must sacrifice mapcontrol. This is normal and the way it should be.
lack of powerful siege tank to control a choke with few units already adresed. Seige tanks were nerfed for a reason. Not gonna happen.
lack a mobile raider unit that is able to do damage provided that it is microed properly like the vultures Hellion? Before the blue flame nerf it was widely considered to be absolutely the best worker harasser in the game and it probably still is. I remember watching a game where qxc killed more than 100 workers with hellions alone. They were so good against workers Blizzard had to nerf them. So no matter how much you like vultures hellions are still good for that role and a buff for them vs workers wont happen.
|
A lot of small things would go a long way in diversifying SC2 gameplay. God knows I've been nagging about small nuance changes like moving shot so much that I've even grown bored of listenning to myself.
There's something with the SC2 physics engine that just makes units' inertia behave differently from BW. That has made it impossible to replicate the elegant inertia defying maneuverability of units that was known as "moving shot" in BW. Tweak acceleration, cooldown timers etc however much you want in the editor. The SC2 units are more realistic, they keep their forward momentum while rotating around their axis (when firing), as opposed to BW units who fire in straight lines and pretty much immediately snap out of their animations when commanded.
Imagine the BW wraith turning around to fire, but gliding sideways the way vikings do (while rotating around their axis). BW would have been a wholly different game. Wraiths would have been pretty much useless. Not to mention mutalisks and corsairs. The main difference in the physics engine between the games from what I can discern is that BW units were hard coded into moving/gliding in the direction they were firing in all circumstances. Though, if they had an angle of attack of 180 degrees, it'd suffice with them turning sideways before firing at a target directly behind them (like the vulture, wraith and mutalisk).
Since BW physics defied inertia they would not -- much like their SC2 counterparts -- glide forwards while rotating backwards around their axis during the firing sequence. In contrast, SC2 units decelerate or come to a full stop after their inertia-obedient sequence because the aircraft is no longer facing the direction in which it is gliding/travelling (It's facing backwards but travelling forwards).
|
What the hell? How is the first video posted in the OP not Mech play? Do you not realize that with MM that would be absolutely impossible given the number of tanks and Marines on the field buffering damage? Only with Battle Hellions and Warhounds is that outcome even remotely possible. I don't understand how anyone could make an argument against the possibilities of Mech play when that example shows all the capacity for it. "Slower and less interesting" is Mech? What, do you just get a migraine every time Goody plays a game? There's a hundred things that have changed in the metagame to make things slower and less interesting, take heavy macro play for example. It's sheer folly to say that something isn't going to work just because it's "slow" when it can work. Also, let's see what happens when beta comes out alright?
|
Canada11367 Posts
@LaluSh
Yeah. I'm of the opinion that if they could replicate BW physics you wouldn't need to port near as many units from BW. Any brand new SC2 unit would be extremely interesting because of how they could handle. You wouldn't even need to add a special ability to every single units. And unfortunately, this problem is even worse in non-Blizzard games. SupCom2 is completely unplayable for me for this reason alone.
And to Cheerio, that's why I'm not as big a fan of the hellion even though it fulfills the role of raider/cannon fodder. It's great at attacking workers, no denying there. But it doesn't have that awesome microability that the vulture had which would be such a boon for pro's and spectators alike. And it doesn't for all the reasons LaluSh describes.
I dealt with goliaths in my article and in comments since. I'm not against walking mechanized units persay. Goliaths are anti-air. But walking mechanized units aren't the core of mech play. Tanks are as they create an entirely different style of play.
I've said this before, but if you think mech play is simply walking mechanical units, well as a thought experiment, we can replicate that idea in BW. Replace tanks as the core unit in the Terran army with Goliaths. Assume goliath stats are designed to give bonus damage to mech and are designed to "break Terran siege lines because Tank vs Tank is boring." In place of all that interesting mech play we'd get 1a2a3a4a5a goliath concaves fighting back and forth. (Although the presence of mines still remain problematic- that's how powerful they are.) But it's a completely different style of play isn't it? And a less interesting direction because it's pretty identical to marine vs marine fights, but at least marines have stim, speed and are pretty fragile.
A further swing towards walking mech units and away from the tank means that Bio and Mech attack styles are more or less the same. Mech just has more hit points and looks a little different. We already have bio style attacks and it's cool. We don't need another one coming from the factory.
@Areon
It was a battle between bio mech and mech units attacking just the same as m&m would. Except without stim and they have more hit points. That's not the sort of mech play people mean when they talk about wanting more mech. Do you think another set of walking units is the mech play that people have been dreaming about?
|
On August 22 2012 02:33 Falling wrote:
And to Cheerio, that's why I'm not as big a fan of the hellion even though it fulfills the role of raider/cannon fodder. It's great at attacking workers, no denying there. But it doesn't have that awesome microability that the vulture had which would be such a boon for pro's and spectators alike. And it doesn't for all the reasons LaluSh describes.
We have had this discussion a hundred times: that more micro and macro create better skill differenciation environment and its better for esports. No. This is not so onedimensional: too much mechanics is not always for the better, its making the game lacking in its other aspects. It's all about the right mix of strategy, desicion-making, micro and macro. I think sc2 is doing well in that respect.
On August 22 2012 02:33 Falling wrote:
I dealt with goliaths in my article and in comments since. I'm not against walking mechanized units persay. Goliaths are anti-air. But walking mechanized units aren't the core of mech play. Tanks are as they create an entirely different style of play.
I've said this before, but if you think mech play is simply walking mechanical units, well as a thought experiment, we can replicate that idea in BW. Replace tanks as the core unit in the Terran army with Goliaths. Assume goliath stats are designed to give bonus damage to mech and are designed to "break Terran siege lines because Tank vs Tank is boring." In place of all that interesting mech play we'd get 1a2a3a4a5a goliath concaves fighting back and forth. (Although the presence of mines still remain problematic- that's how powerful they are.) But it's a completely different style of play isn't it? And a less interesting direction because it's pretty identical to marine vs marine fights, but at least marines have stim, speed and are pretty fragile. First of all the core of mech play is not getting tanks, its getting factories. Yes tanks create different style of play but nobody is ruining it by offering you other options in the form of new units.
Secondly 1a2a3a4a5a goliath concaves fighting back and forth doesnt sound good but it doesnt make tank vs tank stalemate any better. In fact fighting back and forth still sounds better. The thing is they never said they wanted to remove tanks from tvt they just wanted to add options too it. Tanks will still be best at defending chokes and there is also the deathball issue which will make tanks better as their numbers grow. Tanks will have lots of uses in tvt I'm sure. And in other MUs since mech play is buffed I dont see why someone would skip tanks completely since you already have the facilities and they are a great support and defending unit. After all I dont see tanks getting less use after a huge buff to mech play, and with those you can be sure your entirely different style of play stays.
|
We have had this discussion a hundred times: that more micro and macro create better skill differenciation environment and its better for esports. No. This is not so onedimensional: too much mechanics is not always for the better, its making the game lacking in its other aspects. It's all about the right mix of strategy, desicion-making, micro and macro. I think sc2 is doing well in that respect.
Theoretically this is true, yet BW has an exponentially higher skill ceiling when it came to mechanics and yet it also had more strategic depth than WoL currently does.
|
On August 22 2012 05:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +
We have had this discussion a hundred times: that more micro and macro create better skill differenciation environment and its better for esports. No. This is not so onedimensional: too much mechanics is not always for the better, its making the game lacking in its other aspects. It's all about the right mix of strategy, desicion-making, micro and macro. I think sc2 is doing well in that respect.
Theoretically this is true, yet BW has an exponentially higher skill ceiling when it came to mechanics and yet it also had more strategic depth than WoL currently does.
exponentially higher skill ceiling when it came to mechanics =/= better game. And strategic depth point is very arguable + sc2 doesnt have 10+ years of metagame development.
|
On August 22 2012 05:18 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 05:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:
We have had this discussion a hundred times: that more micro and macro create better skill differenciation environment and its better for esports. No. This is not so onedimensional: too much mechanics is not always for the better, its making the game lacking in its other aspects. It's all about the right mix of strategy, desicion-making, micro and macro. I think sc2 is doing well in that respect.
Theoretically this is true, yet BW has an exponentially higher skill ceiling when it came to mechanics and yet it also had more strategic depth than WoL currently does. exponentially higher skill ceiling when it came to mechanics =/= better game. And strategic depth point is very arguable + sc2 doesnt have 10+ years of metagame development.
Of course it doesn't make a better game, but the point is that BW is far more demanding mechanically yet it didn't take away from the strategic aspect.
And it's laughable that you think SC2's strategic depth is anywhere near the level of BW's. Yes, it hasn't had the time to develop the metagame like BW had, but 1) as better gamers, we need less time to do so than we did 10 years ago, and 2) we can get a good estimate as to the potential of units and playstyles because we aren't brain-dead individuals. We know how games work, how mechanics work, and we can make a reasonable conclusion about units, strategies, and their potential even if we haven't played with it for years and years yet.
|
Amazing read!
My own opinion:
Shitty AI, less cluttering, makes Tanks better
Why? Shitty AI essentially creates a funnel effect, and allows tanks to get off more than 1 shot.
Let x be a zealot, and T be tanks
Case 1)
xxxxxx---------->TTTTT (Spread over 1 seconds)
versus
Case 2)
x--x--x--x--x--x>TTTTT (Spread over 10 seconds)
Tanks will most likely do better in case 2 due to increased concentrated firepower.
|
On August 22 2012 05:18 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 05:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:
We have had this discussion a hundred times: that more micro and macro create better skill differenciation environment and its better for esports. No. This is not so onedimensional: too much mechanics is not always for the better, its making the game lacking in its other aspects. It's all about the right mix of strategy, desicion-making, micro and macro. I think sc2 is doing well in that respect.
Theoretically this is true, yet BW has an exponentially higher skill ceiling when it came to mechanics and yet it also had more strategic depth than WoL currently does. exponentially higher skill ceiling when it came to mechanics =/= better game. And strategic depth point is very arguable + sc2 doesnt have 10+ years of metagame development.
You are correct that a skill ceiling does not equal a better game. But the unit design, the balance, the maps, and the micro all combined to make it an infinitely better viewing experience in my book. Even if they gave BW multiple building selection and unlimited unit selection and smart casting, the core strats and dynamic see-saw battles wouldn't change.
And frankly, I think the "give it time" argument, for a large part, hinges on Blizzard being able to patch in a way that actually provides the groundwork for development (unit design, maps, etc.)
edit:
On August 22 2012 08:12 Griffith` wrote:
Tanks will most likely do better in case 2 due to increased concentrated firepower.
Not necessarily, because a big factor in tank damage, at least in BW, is the splash. If units are bunched together, one tank shot will hit all of them. The more they are spread out, the less damage each shot does. But if there's too much delay between groups of zealots, that gives the tanks an opportunity to reload and shoot again.
|
On August 22 2012 05:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 05:18 Cheerio wrote:On August 22 2012 05:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:
We have had this discussion a hundred times: that more micro and macro create better skill differenciation environment and its better for esports. No. This is not so onedimensional: too much mechanics is not always for the better, its making the game lacking in its other aspects. It's all about the right mix of strategy, desicion-making, micro and macro. I think sc2 is doing well in that respect.
Theoretically this is true, yet BW has an exponentially higher skill ceiling when it came to mechanics and yet it also had more strategic depth than WoL currently does. exponentially higher skill ceiling when it came to mechanics =/= better game. And strategic depth point is very arguable + sc2 doesnt have 10+ years of metagame development. Of course it doesn't make a better game, but the point is that BW is far more demanding mechanically yet it didn't take away from the strategic aspect. And it's laughable that you think SC2's strategic depth is anywhere near the level of BW's. Yes, it hasn't had the time to develop the metagame like BW had, but 1) as better gamers, we need less time to do so than we did 10 years ago, and 2) we can get a good estimate as to the potential of units and playstyles because we aren't brain-dead individuals. We know how games work, how mechanics work, and we can make a reasonable conclusion about units, strategies, and their potential even if we haven't played with it for years and years yet.
The 10+ years of meta game development argument is quite flawed. The first couple of years, people didn't really understand what FE meant or what it meant to have a strong economy. And we are smarter gamers now, since we took over a lot of concepts that we had in BW into SC2: FE, multitasking, map control, positioning, etc.
And I don't really know why people complain when they dislike the game having heavy mechanics. StarCraft is unique in the fact that you need to multitask and have extremely good management. It is unique in the fact that you need to have good timing and good strategy, and combine it with sharp execution.
In regards to having more strategy, or more decisions, OP is arguing that the new mech units are basically "bio but stronger". There aren't any real reasons why, if the factory units are stronger/better, you should not use them, since the execution/style of play of using them is pretty much the same.
|
On August 22 2012 05:18 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 05:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:
We have had this discussion a hundred times: that more micro and macro create better skill differenciation environment and its better for esports. No. This is not so onedimensional: too much mechanics is not always for the better, its making the game lacking in its other aspects. It's all about the right mix of strategy, desicion-making, micro and macro. I think sc2 is doing well in that respect.
Theoretically this is true, yet BW has an exponentially higher skill ceiling when it came to mechanics and yet it also had more strategic depth than WoL currently does. exponentially higher skill ceiling when it came to mechanics =/= better game. And strategic depth point is very arguable + sc2 doesnt have 10+ years of metagame development.
Higher mechanical "skill ceiling" allows for another dimension of tactical strategy. APM is a limited resource and players need to correctly allocate it. This allows for greater tactical depth.
Flash vs Fantasy semi final series in TVing OSL is a great example of this type of strategy in motion.
On August 22 2012 12:44 Nazza wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 05:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 22 2012 05:18 Cheerio wrote:On August 22 2012 05:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:
We have had this discussion a hundred times: that more micro and macro create better skill differenciation environment and its better for esports. No. This is not so onedimensional: too much mechanics is not always for the better, its making the game lacking in its other aspects. It's all about the right mix of strategy, desicion-making, micro and macro. I think sc2 is doing well in that respect.
Theoretically this is true, yet BW has an exponentially higher skill ceiling when it came to mechanics and yet it also had more strategic depth than WoL currently does. exponentially higher skill ceiling when it came to mechanics =/= better game. And strategic depth point is very arguable + sc2 doesnt have 10+ years of metagame development. Of course it doesn't make a better game, but the point is that BW is far more demanding mechanically yet it didn't take away from the strategic aspect. And it's laughable that you think SC2's strategic depth is anywhere near the level of BW's. Yes, it hasn't had the time to develop the metagame like BW had, but 1) as better gamers, we need less time to do so than we did 10 years ago, and 2) we can get a good estimate as to the potential of units and playstyles because we aren't brain-dead individuals. We know how games work, how mechanics work, and we can make a reasonable conclusion about units, strategies, and their potential even if we haven't played with it for years and years yet. The 10+ years of meta game development argument is quite flawed. The first couple of years, people didn't really understand what FE meant or what it meant to have a strong economy. And we are smarter gamers now, since we took over a lot of concepts that we had in BW into SC2: FE, multitasking, map control, positioning, etc. And I don't really know why people complain when they dislike the game having heavy mechanics. StarCraft is unique in the fact that you need to multitask and have extremely good management. It is unique in the fact that you need to have good timing and good strategy, and combine it with sharp execution. In regards to having more strategy, or more decisions, OP is arguing that the new mech units are basically "bio but stronger". There aren't any real reasons why, if the factory units are stronger/better, you should not use them, since the execution/style of play of using them is pretty much the same.
Yeah it's a stupid argument. Someone tell me with a straight face that SC2 gamers had to figure something out as drastic as maynarding workers. =.=
|
4713 Posts
On August 22 2012 01:18 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 23:11 Sawamura wrote:Edit : Since you forgotten about the op criteria of what a "Mech" is let me state for you again . So perhaps your asking, even if a unit originating from a factory does not necessarily make it mech play... What is Mech Play?
1) The Tank
2) Cannon Fodder
3) Raiders
4) Protection against Flanks/ Defence in Depth
5) Anti-Air Replace Anti Air with goliath and what do you get ? The truth is mech play is in SC2 though it tends to be biomech with MMM replacing the vultures and a percentage of the tanks. I'm all for a tank buff but it seems to me the real complaint in this thread (besides SC not being BW in general) is that there are too many counters to tanks. I'm not fond of battle hellions and warhounds but I think many people aren't paying attention to the fact that they may be able to replace marines and marauders as cannon fodder which means instead of extra rax and Ebay upgrades and heavy medivacs it may make sense to get extra rax, armory upgrades, and vikings/BCs. Plus the warhound might counter the Protoss main tank counter, making mech more viable in TvP after all.
There is one more problem with SC2 that makes tanks under perform, and a lot of people know it well since it was discussed to death many times. What I speak of is the lack of good high ground advantage. Basically tanks are zone control units, as has been pointed out they trade mobility for a lot of firepower and splash, now all that firepower and splash works exceptionally well in chokes. This isn't always enough though, zone control units by themselves aren't going to stop a huge army that is 100% focused on getting trough, however, when you also add strong defender's advantage mechanics you get far greater results.
In a lot of ways the SC2 tank problem is twofold. It has stopped being a strong zone control unit, Blizzard doesn't understand the role of the siege tank, so they nerfed it and specifically made it an anti-armored unit, that was never supposed to be the role of the tank.
And to add insult to injury the high ground mechanics of SC2 are just terrible, they don't provide any sort of advantage after you get your hands on flying units. The only dynamic surrounding cliffs and chokes now is the ability to get better concaves versus the other player by strategically forcing him out of position until you can pounce, this however doesn't help tanks at all, who trade their already low damage for mobility.
What I fear is that, come HoTS, siege tanks will stop being produced. When you have the good mobility and firepower of Hellion/Battle Hellion and Warhound, why would you ever need to get tanks? Yes warhound counters a lot of what counters the tank, but it also works fantastically against a lot of what the tank is supposed to counter, it can be great against stalkers, colossus, immortals. BH can tank the zealots, then you just need to add vikings for anti-air. Why have to go trough the trouble of siegeing and unsiegeing tanks, and potentially opening new avenues of counter-attack against yourself, when WH, BH and Viking could work just as well if not better without tanks?
|
On August 22 2012 17:21 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 01:18 dvorakftw wrote:On August 21 2012 23:11 Sawamura wrote:Edit : Since you forgotten about the op criteria of what a "Mech" is let me state for you again . So perhaps your asking, even if a unit originating from a factory does not necessarily make it mech play... What is Mech Play?
1) The Tank
2) Cannon Fodder
3) Raiders
4) Protection against Flanks/ Defence in Depth
5) Anti-Air Replace Anti Air with goliath and what do you get ? The truth is mech play is in SC2 though it tends to be biomech with MMM replacing the vultures and a percentage of the tanks. I'm all for a tank buff but it seems to me the real complaint in this thread (besides SC not being BW in general) is that there are too many counters to tanks. I'm not fond of battle hellions and warhounds but I think many people aren't paying attention to the fact that they may be able to replace marines and marauders as cannon fodder which means instead of extra rax and Ebay upgrades and heavy medivacs it may make sense to get extra rax, armory upgrades, and vikings/BCs. Plus the warhound might counter the Protoss main tank counter, making mech more viable in TvP after all. There is one more problem with SC2 that makes tanks under perform, and a lot of people know it well since it was discussed to death many times. What I speak of is the lack of good high ground advantage. Basically tanks are zone control units, as has been pointed out they trade mobility for a lot of firepower and splash, now all that firepower and splash works exceptionally well in chokes. This isn't always enough though, zone control units by themselves aren't going to stop a huge army that is 100% focused on getting trough, however, when you also add strong defender's advantage mechanics you get far greater results. In a lot of ways the SC2 tank problem is twofold. It has stopped being a strong zone control unit, Blizzard doesn't understand the role of the siege tank, so they nerfed it and specifically made it an anti-armored unit, that was never supposed to be the role of the tank. And to add insult to injury the high ground mechanics of SC2 are just terrible, they don't provide any sort of advantage after you get your hands on flying units. The only dynamic surrounding cliffs and chokes now is the ability to get better concaves versus the other player by strategically forcing him out of position until you can pounce, this however doesn't help tanks at all, who trade their already low damage for mobility. What I fear is that, come HoTS, siege tanks will stop being produced. When you have the good mobility and firepower of Hellion/Battle Hellion and Warhound, why would you ever need to get tanks? Yes warhound counters a lot of what counters the tank, but it also works fantastically against a lot of what the tank is supposed to counter, it can be great against stalkers, colossus, immortals. BH can tank the zealots, then you just need to add vikings for anti-air. Why have to go trough the trouble of siegeing and unsiegeing tanks, and potentially opening new avenues of counter-attack against yourself, when WH, BH and Viking could work just as well if not better without tanks?
How about a T3 tech buff for tanks? Same game design rationale as the hydralisk speed buff. I'm thinking a buff that vastly speeds up their siege/unsiege time, or adds +40 damage to a single target, or maybe a buff to their splash radius.
|
4713 Posts
On August 22 2012 17:25 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 17:21 Destructicon wrote:On August 22 2012 01:18 dvorakftw wrote:On August 21 2012 23:11 Sawamura wrote:Edit : Since you forgotten about the op criteria of what a "Mech" is let me state for you again . So perhaps your asking, even if a unit originating from a factory does not necessarily make it mech play... What is Mech Play?
1) The Tank
2) Cannon Fodder
3) Raiders
4) Protection against Flanks/ Defence in Depth
5) Anti-Air Replace Anti Air with goliath and what do you get ? The truth is mech play is in SC2 though it tends to be biomech with MMM replacing the vultures and a percentage of the tanks. I'm all for a tank buff but it seems to me the real complaint in this thread (besides SC not being BW in general) is that there are too many counters to tanks. I'm not fond of battle hellions and warhounds but I think many people aren't paying attention to the fact that they may be able to replace marines and marauders as cannon fodder which means instead of extra rax and Ebay upgrades and heavy medivacs it may make sense to get extra rax, armory upgrades, and vikings/BCs. Plus the warhound might counter the Protoss main tank counter, making mech more viable in TvP after all. There is one more problem with SC2 that makes tanks under perform, and a lot of people know it well since it was discussed to death many times. What I speak of is the lack of good high ground advantage. Basically tanks are zone control units, as has been pointed out they trade mobility for a lot of firepower and splash, now all that firepower and splash works exceptionally well in chokes. This isn't always enough though, zone control units by themselves aren't going to stop a huge army that is 100% focused on getting trough, however, when you also add strong defender's advantage mechanics you get far greater results. In a lot of ways the SC2 tank problem is twofold. It has stopped being a strong zone control unit, Blizzard doesn't understand the role of the siege tank, so they nerfed it and specifically made it an anti-armored unit, that was never supposed to be the role of the tank. And to add insult to injury the high ground mechanics of SC2 are just terrible, they don't provide any sort of advantage after you get your hands on flying units. The only dynamic surrounding cliffs and chokes now is the ability to get better concaves versus the other player by strategically forcing him out of position until you can pounce, this however doesn't help tanks at all, who trade their already low damage for mobility. What I fear is that, come HoTS, siege tanks will stop being produced. When you have the good mobility and firepower of Hellion/Battle Hellion and Warhound, why would you ever need to get tanks? Yes warhound counters a lot of what counters the tank, but it also works fantastically against a lot of what the tank is supposed to counter, it can be great against stalkers, colossus, immortals. BH can tank the zealots, then you just need to add vikings for anti-air. Why have to go trough the trouble of siegeing and unsiegeing tanks, and potentially opening new avenues of counter-attack against yourself, when WH, BH and Viking could work just as well if not better without tanks? How about a T3 tech buff for tanks? Same game design rationale as the hydralisk speed buff. I'm thinking a buff that vastly speeds up their siege/unsiege time, or adds +40 damage to a single target, or maybe a buff to their splash radius.
I don't agree with a buff to the speed of siege and unsiege, if you do that you remove the interesting dynamic that tanks have, sacrificing mobility for firepower and zone control. A buff to damage would be good, but more along the lines of putting it back to how it was pre-nerf, 60 damage against everything before upgrades, 75 with 3/3.
Also I don't think a T3 upgrade would be any good, since that still leaves a large part of the game, the early-mid and mid game where tanks still suck in the role of zone control that they are supposed to fulfill. So I think reverting them back to their original damage would be acceptable given how many counters the tanks already have and how many weaknesses they also have.
And again, lack of proper high ground mechanics hurts zone control units the most, siege tanks in this case being the clear loser.
|
There is a whole slew of things wrong with SC2 that make it suck compare to BW.
It's still a fun game to play, but spectating doesn't have the same effect.
I think brood war was largely an accident though, in the way things finally ironed themselves out. There's no way the designers could've anticipated how units would be used 5-10 years later.
I say all this, and I refuse to go back and play BW because it's just too old, archaic controls, etc. But if I could take BW's units and engine and apply SC2's graphics and convenience features I would prefer that game in a heartbeat.
Whoever is in charge of unit design for sc2 is an ass hole who seems to be digging my favorite franchise into a deeper and deeper hole. HotS unit design seems to further indicate that the devs don't understand what makes a unit worth using and what doesn't.
Anyway I applaud the analysis of mech, and I agree that HotS won't do much to encourage the same kind of "mech" play that existed in SC2. You'll be able to build all your units from the factory, that's about it.
The basic difference between SC2 and BW, as someone put it long long ago... is that in Starcraft 2 everything is "balanced" or it would be OP, and in BW every unit was OP, and thus was balanced.
|
You people think this change makes it not mech... If its from the factory its mech. Why do i say that? Look up the word Factory. Mech is a Mechanical army. Not Bio. Learn to read please :D.
|
On August 23 2012 14:48 Rukis wrote:
You people think this change makes it not mech... If its from the factory its mech. Why do i say that? Look up the word Factory. Mech is a Mechanical army. Not Bio. Learn to read please :D.
Did you actually read the post? He explained the difference very well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
