|
On April 10 2015 07:41 knyttym wrote:
edit: The more I think about this, the more I think that the army would just function like a reskinned bio army. I can't really think of any defining feature compared to marine/marauder/tank.
Its not too far off, Blizzard wants bio to be able to transition to mech.
The biggest differences between bio and mech in BW, was the way you tackled early-mid game, a bio army expanded fast and followed it with big aggression, secured bases and transitioned.
A mech army, opened most of the time agressive (FD push for example) to be able to secure expansion and then played defesive, taking more bases and cost efficient engagements.
Thats the main difference that I think should be taken into consideration in LotV, bio should be able to open and fight with big mobility, secure bases and have a good economy.
Mech should be able to open aggressive and then use its tools to secure bases with some counter harras taking cost efficient engagements against an enemy with better economy.
The biggest things people should consider about mech and defensive styles in general is not to create a stale passive play where is easier to defend than it is to attack. In BW a mech player had as much a hard time defending as the enemy had attacking. This is the reason defesive vs aggressive play should exist, as it showcases 2 different styles of play that are as equally hard and entertaining to pull off, after all a defensive vs aggressive style of play can be full of action and fights all over the map.
Good examples:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 10 2015 11:30 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 07:41 knyttym wrote:
edit: The more I think about this, the more I think that the army would just function like a reskinned bio army. I can't really think of any defining feature compared to marine/marauder/tank. Its not too far off, Blizzard wants bio to be able to transition to mech.
What I said is actually a bad thing. If mech functions like a reskinned bio army then we don't have diversity. I don't want that.
The biggest differences between bio and mech in BW, was the way you tackled early-mid game, a bio army expanded fast and followed it with big aggression, secured bases and transitioned.
A mech army, opened most of the time agressive (FD push for example) to be able to secure expansion and then played defesive, taking more bases and cost efficient engagements.
Thats the main difference that I think should be taken into consideration in LotV, bio should be able to open and fight with big mobility, secure bases and have a good economy.
Mech should be able to open aggressive and then use its tools to secure bases with some counter harras taking cost efficient engagements against an enemy with better economy.
I don't really agree with your comparison. You are equating the FD which is a tool used to secure your natural expansion to cyclone/hellion which would be used to secure a 3rd, 4th, and further bases. These are much different stages of the game.
A more fair comparison would be to examine how mech in brood war secured a 3rd base. Mech generally rushes a fast 3rd command center defensively and commonly off of only 2 factories. They do use counter harass but very little actual aggression. Bio on the other hand uses actual army aggression to secure a 3rd.
|
On April 10 2015 13:38 knyttym wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 11:30 Lexender wrote:On April 10 2015 07:41 knyttym wrote:
edit: The more I think about this, the more I think that the army would just function like a reskinned bio army. I can't really think of any defining feature compared to marine/marauder/tank. Its not too far off, Blizzard wants bio to be able to transition to mech. What I said is actually a bad thing. If mech functions like a reskinned bio army then we don't have diversity. I don't want that. Show nested quote +The biggest differences between bio and mech in BW, was the way you tackled early-mid game, a bio army expanded fast and followed it with big aggression, secured bases and transitioned.
A mech army, opened most of the time agressive (FD push for example) to be able to secure expansion and then played defesive, taking more bases and cost efficient engagements.
Thats the main difference that I think should be taken into consideration in LotV, bio should be able to open and fight with big mobility, secure bases and have a good economy.
Mech should be able to open aggressive and then use its tools to secure bases with some counter harras taking cost efficient engagements against an enemy with better economy.
I don't really agree with your comparison. You are equating the FD which is a tool used to secure your natural expansion to cyclone/hellion which would be used to secure a 3rd, 4th, and further bases. These are much different stages of the game. A more fair comparison would be to examine how mech in brood war secured a 3rd base. Mech generally rushes a fast 3rd command center defensively and commonly off of only 2 factories. They do use counter harass but very little actual aggression. Bio on the other hand uses actual army aggression to secure a 3rd.
Those are actually the points I was trying to make lol, english its not my main language so its hard for me to say things in the correct way :/
|
I really like the changes Blizz is bringing to mech in lotv (maybe not the banshees that seems op but otherwise) especially the siege-medivac combo.
One point you all need to realise is that most of this is map dependant! The proble in hots was the inability to have a truly diverse map-pool or change the style of maps through diffferent seasons. P and T cant wall? Big deal figure out the new meta, maybe that wont be done in a few months but after some time it will surely pan-out. Blizzard dropped the ball on hots diversity the moment they gave up on having truly diverse maps.
Imagine this 3 bases behind one choke (a rather big choke ofc) can mech be viable then in lotv? Hell fucking yes, mech is not viable on the exact map hots is being played on in lotv. Lotv is a different game it will take different maps and hopefull those maps will vary enough to make actual different playstyles viable.
People are compling lotv beta maps are not truly standard, like hots "standard map" should translate over into the same exact thing in lotv, would be so stale.
|
On April 10 2015 17:14 Shuffleblade wrote:
I really like the changes Blizz is bringing to mech in lotv (maybe not the banshees that seems op but otherwise) especially the siege-medivac combo.
One point you all need to realise is that most of this is map dependant! The proble in hots was the inability to have a truly diverse map-pool or change the style of maps through diffferent seasons. P and T cant wall? Big deal figure out the new meta, maybe that wont be done in a few months but after some time it will surely pan-out. Blizzard dropped the ball on hots diversity the moment they gave up on having truly diverse maps.
Imagine this 3 bases behind one choke (a rather big choke ofc) can mech be viable then in lotv? Hell fucking yes, mech is not viable on the exact map hots is being played on in lotv. Lotv is a different game it will take different maps and hopefull those maps will vary enough to make actual different playstyles viable.
People are compling lotv beta maps are not truly standard, like hots "standard map" should translate over into the same exact thing in lotv, would be so stale.
Maps do not dictate strategies in starcraft 2 nearly as much as they did in brood war. In fact maps are limited by the economic system which is another reason why we should be modifying it. I feel like the stagnation of map design in our current game is proof enough. A map like secret spring (in my opinion it's actually really good) cannot exist under either the HOTS or LOTV economy.
On an unrelated note, I'm watching Apollo's Fight Night and game 4 of Huk vs QXC showcased the mobile mech style of cyclone/hellion with tanks as secondary defensive units. The match was indeed interesting but I pose the question, how is that cyclone/hellion style stylistically different than marine/marauder? When your mech composition can fight against protoss in the midgame with army vs army, then what is it's defining feature? Where is the diversity?
|
Italy12248 Posts
There isn't any, hence my point of mech needing to be based around the siege tank. Hopefully the cyclone will find a niche that isn't "kill everything except things that can be beaten easily by some other easily massed factory unit".
|
Personally I think Mech in Sc2 will never be where we want it to be. The Spider Mine was super essential in delaying Protoss and controlling space. Terran has no way of doing that.
Tanks are 3 supply instead of 2, and Mines cost resources and supply.
|
I really wish they'd just buff tank damage back to 70 again and stop trying to screw with little details. I know blizz wants to make a good game for us, but why do they not just try out the things that have hundreds of pages of comments on TL screaming for basic, easy things for them to do? It's not like this isn't a BETA, where crazy ideas like the community feedback might be useful. What is so wrong with community feedback? It seems like they take basic feedback and then always seem to find a way to make something that just isn't even close to what we want, while quoting the things we asked for (more micro does not mean everything needs active abilities and gimmicky nonsense, though I do overall like the units introduced for this xpac) I feel like blizzard is trying SO HARD to make SCII different from brood war that it's to a fault. BW had problems, but it did do a few things right (economy for example, was basically perfect) and I feel like BW economy would fix this problem and let the large mech army and immobility of tanks not be such a concern, while still being balanced and solid.
On April 11 2015 10:33 GinDo wrote:
Personally I think Mech in Sc2 will never be where we want it to be. The Spider Mine was super essential in delaying Protoss and controlling space. Terran has no way of doing that.
Tanks are 3 supply instead of 2, and Mines cost resources and supply.
We don't need to mirror BW completely. 3 supply can be fine as long as tanks hit hard enough to zone control with only a few instead of needing a huge ball of them (they were perfect in this role in WOL beta) and I think the widow mine could easily be in the role of the spider mine if the tanks were actually the backbone of the army, as opposed as the "softener" layer.
controlling space can be managed in different ways, but the tank just doesn't do enough damage and the colossus just shouldn't be in the game, as it has always wrecked some of the asymmetry (buff the hell out of protoss units and remove the colossus and I'd be one happy camper)
|
Delete this, double post.
|
On April 09 2015 18:44 ETisME wrote:
I think mech being more mobile isn't that bad of a concept.
I think we had been too fixate on the idea that mech must be immobile and turtle hard.
Mech should just be different than bio, being immobile is one way to differentiate the two but it's not the only way.
Afterall even if mech is more mobile, it still offers a unit composition with completely different interaction with zerg or protoss units than bio does.
Yes but the soul and core of mech has been siege tanks special trait that is also their Achilles Heel. Granted, whole mech composition has been shrunk down and given to protoss instead with some additions but why should terran's be locked to only one set up?
|
On April 22 2015 10:48 jinjin5000 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 18:44 ETisME wrote:
I think mech being more mobile isn't that bad of a concept.
I think we had been too fixate on the idea that mech must be immobile and turtle hard.
Mech should just be different than bio, being immobile is one way to differentiate the two but it's not the only way.
Afterall even if mech is more mobile, it still offers a unit composition with completely different interaction with zerg or protoss units than bio does. Yes but the soul and core of mech has been siege tanks special trait that is also their Achilles Heel. Granted, whole mech composition has been shrunk down and given to protoss instead with some additions but why should terran's be locked to only one set up?
Isn't it nostalgia to just get stuck on one specific unit?
Shouldn't it not matter which unit does what so long as we have different type of game play?
|
Canada13422 Posts
On April 22 2015 11:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 10:48 jinjin5000 wrote:On April 09 2015 18:44 ETisME wrote:
I think mech being more mobile isn't that bad of a concept.
I think we had been too fixate on the idea that mech must be immobile and turtle hard.
Mech should just be different than bio, being immobile is one way to differentiate the two but it's not the only way.
Afterall even if mech is more mobile, it still offers a unit composition with completely different interaction with zerg or protoss units than bio does. Yes but the soul and core of mech has been siege tanks special trait that is also their Achilles Heel. Granted, whole mech composition has been shrunk down and given to protoss instead with some additions but why should terran's be locked to only one set up? Isn't it nostalgia to just get stuck on one specific unit? Shouldn't it not matter which unit does what so long as we have different type of game play?
People liked the experience of space control and choking opponents out slowly after harassing them all game long.
Cyclones are fine i guess if you want to call that mech but, mobile high damage units are not good for the game usually. The cost efficiency is too high on them at least right now so ppl mass them .
|
On April 22 2015 12:21 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 11:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 22 2015 10:48 jinjin5000 wrote:On April 09 2015 18:44 ETisME wrote:
I think mech being more mobile isn't that bad of a concept.
I think we had been too fixate on the idea that mech must be immobile and turtle hard.
Mech should just be different than bio, being immobile is one way to differentiate the two but it's not the only way.
Afterall even if mech is more mobile, it still offers a unit composition with completely different interaction with zerg or protoss units than bio does. Yes but the soul and core of mech has been siege tanks special trait that is also their Achilles Heel. Granted, whole mech composition has been shrunk down and given to protoss instead with some additions but why should terran's be locked to only one set up? Isn't it nostalgia to just get stuck on one specific unit? Shouldn't it not matter which unit does what so long as we have different type of game play? People liked the experience of space control and choking opponents out slowly after harassing them all game long. Cyclones are fine i guess if you want to call that mech but, mobile high damage units are not good for the game usually. The cost efficiency is too high on them at least right now so ppl mass them .
I'm not a fan of cyclone, but I'm just saying the goal shouldn't be "How can we make siege tank like it is in BW" and the goal should be "How can we make factory play interesting and different"
Like, imagine if bio play was all about digging trenches, bunkers, and controlling space with mortar fire. Cyclone would be great since playing mech would be more about mobility (Like it is in real life). But since bio play is kite based, I don't understand Cyclone making mech kite based.
|
Canada13422 Posts
I can understand that line of reasoning completely 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
