|
Traditional Terran Mech is being severely impaired by the new Legacy of the Void economy. Even though the economy changes are not yet set, Blizzard is already pushing its agenda. Leaving the current economy in the game for too long means permanently changing a major aspect of Terran.
Traditional Mech:
Traditional Mech armies have specific and easy to understand characteristics. They have low mobility, high cost efficiency, and are centered around the siege tank. The setup time, splash attack, high damage, and long range means the tank excels in large army fights and defensive positions. While it has many advantages it also has a long list of weaknesses like being weak without support, very low mobility, and a minimum range.
Mobile Mech:
The economy changes have already started influencing how Blizzard is shaping the future of mech. These changes in Blizzard’s mentality can be seen in the form of the cyclone, the siege tank medivac combination, the banshee speed upgrade, the battle cruiser teleportation, and the potential new unit flyer unit David Kim mentioned at WCS. These units arise and prosper in the LOTV economic system
Mech in Legacy of the Void:
Traditional Mech armies are obsolete under the new LOTV economic system. It is in their very nature to expand slowly and give up map control in favor of a stronger unit composition. Because of this Blizzard had to detach itself from 2 main principles of mech. The first being its immobility and the second being its reliance on the siege tank.
Buffs and new units have been targeted towards a mobile mech army. Blizzard buffed the banshee speed and gave it cloak for free. The battlecruiser being rather slow was given a teleport. Mostly notably they implemented a mobile high damage mech unit that attacks both air and ground. As Blizzard tends toward mobility as a key component of mech, we become further detached from the original identity.
The siege tank is being relegated to a support role rather than the core mech unit because they do not fare well when they are forced to spread thin. The implementation of the medivac pickup helps a bit but mech players won’t have a high enough medivac count to shuttle around all their tanks. The cyclone + hellion combination is being forced into the core role because they are the only two units mobile enough to do so.
Mech armies had a very distinct identity but are being forced into this generic style of play. New units are being tailored to suit this high mobility system while old non-mobile options are being patch-fixed to adhere.
Starport Units:
Blizzard is really pushing to bring starport units into standard compositions. This is very advantageous for them because they inherently have high mobility and thus fit into this enforced ideology. Banshees that can fly over any terrain don’t have to take the long difficult ground route from main to 4th base. They aren’t confined by terrain and the traditional concepts of mech immobility.
The Siege Tank:
Because the siege tank does not fit into this mobile ideology, blizzard gave it the ability to be picked up and dropped by a medivac. This causes issues in non-mech compositions like marine tank in TvT. High mobility tanks mean positional battles are less complex and defender’s advantage is decreased.
Economic System:
The root of the issue lies in the economic system we have in place. Forcing extremely quick expanding punishes strong immobile armies in favor of mobile forces. A new economic system should allow for both mobile and immobile options to be viable. Mobile options should be incentivized and given tools to combat the immobile cost efficient armies. Those tools lie in over expanding and higher income trades. Using cost inefficient trades in conjunction with a higher income allows players to overcome mech. Others have proposed economic systems that could replace the current one so I won’t go into this much here.
Discussion:
The discussion really comes down to whether or not we care about preserving traditional mech and other related defensive styles. I believe the diversity they bring provides a much more enjoyable playing and viewing experience. It is possible to save this style with a different economic system. Before even thinking about that, I think it is important to determine whether people think this is even a negative consequence. I don’t think death ball styles have to be synonymous with stale game play and I don’t think mech necessarily induces a snore fest. With the proper economy changes, traditional mech can be just as interesting as bio.
|
There is a huge issue right now that because you're forced to spend all minerals on getting fast 3-4 base basically both players have these really tiny "armies" of a few gas only units like cyclones, or phoenixes/stalkers...and when unit numbers are that low and you have to choose which gas units to build...tanks are basically never worth building because they never would ever trade with units in this low economy.
The tankivac works well but past the first 1-2 medivacs, tanks are useless vs Protoss, and TvT is just really messed up right now because really bad players can compete with cyclones since all you do is build 3 CC and make only cyclones with your gas.
Everyone has their own opinion of the new economy...from all the games i've seen and played everyone's army has very little mineral units in it and mostly has vespene gas units (except maybe T bio or ling/bling/muta).
Cyclone is just way better than the siege tank because it does everything the tank does but moves at the same time, sorta like collosus is like a mobile siege tank.
|
On April 09 2015 12:32 avilo wrote:
There is a huge issue right now that because you're forced to spend all minerals on getting fast 3-4 base basically both players have these really tiny "armies" of a few gas only units like cyclones, or phoenixes/stalkers...and when unit numbers are that low and you have to choose which gas units to build...tanks are basically never worth building because they never would ever trade with units in this low economy.
The tankivac works well but past the first 1-2 medivacs, tanks are useless vs Protoss, and TvT is just really messed up right now because really bad players can compete with cyclones since all you do is build 3 CC and make only cyclones with your gas.
Everyone has their own opinion of the new economy...from all the games i've seen and played everyone's army has very little mineral units in it and mostly has vespene gas units (except maybe T bio or ling/bling/muta).
Cyclone is just way better than the siege tank because it does everything the tank does but moves at the same time, sorta like collosus is like a mobile siege tank.
totally agree
|
I saw what this game looked like when one player was allowed to be immobile and the other had to be mobile. Broodfestor era does not need to be revisited.
|
On April 09 2015 12:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I saw what this game looked like when one player was allowed to be immobile and the other had to be mobile. Broodfestor era does not need to be revisited.
Thats different, along with SH/Raven, both these thing depended about super lategame armies.
Thing about more in the likes of BW, in BW mech didn't needed many bases, it was common to have a 3 base mech terran vs a 4/5/6 base zerg/protoss, it came down to cost efficiency of battles, the main difference is what the ultimate goal was.
In SC2 both broodlord/infestor and mass raven, and to a degree mas skytoss, depend in creating this ultimate army, and as such having 3-4 bases was all you needed it.
In BW there was generally no end-game composition you could turtle to, and as such the goal was to grab and deny bases, the mech army defended and harrassed using a combination of both immobile (siege tanks/ turrets) and mobile (vultures/dropships) to expand and harras taking cost efficient engagements.
This created a dinamic of attacker vs defender, that was really fun to watch.
In SC2 the way economy works denies this because you don't need bases so much. Add that these ultra late game strong units and you have our current turtle SC2 games.
Right now terran mech seems strong in LotV because they haven't balanced the cyclone, but without it mech is actually very weak and in a rough spot.
Now besides the obvious difference in economy (LotV decreased resource per base vs BW inefficient worker pairing model) there was difference in positional play, namely the bad AI and high ground advantage. This created units like the siege tanks, the reaver, the lurker and the defiler.
However and in my opinion I think we can reach a middle ground here, SC2 is not BW and it doesn't need to be, mobile mech is ok BUT it still should be about positional play, a mech army should fight to take bases while the enemy denies it, not go mass hellion/cyclone in a super aggressive game (that should be what bio is for).
Defense and aggression are both important for an RTS, and we should phase either of them out, defensive play doesn't necesarily must be boring if it is well implemented.
So the thing I think should be done is to install BW like economy instead of this mess and see how it works from there.
Also I don't think it should be like current SC2 defensive play where is harder for the attacker to break the defender than it is for the defender to stop the attacker, thats why the current changes (tankivacs, speed banshees, cyclones) are good, LotV defensive mech should be about map control, fast reaction and good strategic play, not about planting 10 siege tanks and 15 turrets in 1 base. (kinda of like how TvT mech is right now with banshee play, hellbat/medivac squads, tank drops, etc)
|
On April 09 2015 13:01 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 12:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I saw what this game looked like when one player was allowed to be immobile and the other had to be mobile. Broodfestor era does not need to be revisited. Thats different, along with SH/Raven, both these thing depended about super lategame armies. Thing about more in the likes of BW, in BW mech didn't needed many bases, it was common to have a 3 base mech terran vs a 4/5/6 base zerg/protoss, it came down to cost efficiency of battles, the main difference is what the ultimate goal was. In SC2 both broodlord/infestor and mass raven, and to a degree mas skytoss, depend in creating this ultimate army, and as such having 3-4 bases was all you needed it. In BW there was generally no end-game composition you could turtle to, and as such the goal was to grab and deny bases, the mech army defended and harrassed using a combination of both immobile (siege tanks/ turrets) and mobile (vultures/dropships) to expand and harras taking cost efficient engagements. This created a dinamic of attacker vs defender, that was really fun to watch. In SC2 the way economy works denies this because you don't need bases so much. Add that these ultra late game strong units and you have our current turtle SC2 games. Right now terran mech seems strong in LotV because they haven't balanced the cyclone, but without it mech is actually very weak and in a rough spot. Now besides the obvious difference in economy (LotV decreased resource per base vs BW inefficient worker pairing model) there was difference in positional play, namely the bad AI and high ground advantage. This created units like the siege tanks, the reaver, the lurker and the defiler. However and in my opinion I think we can reach a middle ground here, SC2 is not BW and it doesn't need to be, mobile mech is ok BUT it still should be about positional play, a mech army should fight to take bases while the enemy denies it, not go mass hellion/cyclone in a super aggressive game (that should be what bio is for). Defense and aggression are both important for an RTS, and we should phase either of them out, defensive play doesn't necesarily must be boring if it is well implemented. So the thing I think should be done is to install BW like economy instead of this mess and see how it works from there. Also I don't think it should be like current SC2 defensive play where is harder for the attacker to break the defender than it is for the defender to stop the attacker, thats why the current changes (tankivacs, speed banshees, cyclones) are good, LotV defensive mech should be about map control, fast reaction and good strategic play, not about planting 10 siege tanks and 15 turrets in 1 base. (kinda of like how TvT mech is right now with banshee play, hellbat/medivac squads, tank drops, etc)
The problem with Broodfestor was not that it only needed 3 bases (It started with 3 bases) but that evedntually 50%-60% of the map would be filled up with creep and no action happened because defenders advantage made it impossible to break their defenses. This is not about unit comp, but about that midgame where nothing happened since defenders advantage was too strong in SC2
|
On April 09 2015 13:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
The problem with Broodfestor was not that it only needed 3 bases (It started with 3 bases) but that evedntually 50%-60% of the map would be filled up with creep and no action happened because defenders advantage made it impossible to break their defenses. This is not about unit comp, but about that midgame where nothing happened since defenders advantage was too strong in SC2
I feel comparing this to brood lord infestor in WOL is a bit unfair. The dynamic between mobile forces and immobile can be seen in mech vs bio TvT, TvP, and TvZ mech (not the ultra turtle raven style). I think if similar dynamics are to be achieved and more importantly improved upon, we have to first determine whether or not people want to keep that type of interaction.
In my opinion it absolutely needs to be improved upon and a different approach to the economy can help fulfill this. But firstly people need to decide if they even care to preserve it.
|
On April 09 2015 13:36 knyttym wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 13:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
The problem with Broodfestor was not that it only needed 3 bases (It started with 3 bases) but that evedntually 50%-60% of the map would be filled up with creep and no action happened because defenders advantage made it impossible to break their defenses. This is not about unit comp, but about that midgame where nothing happened since defenders advantage was too strong in SC2
I feel comparing this to brood lord infestor in WOL is a bit unfair. The dynamic between mobile forces and immobile can be seen in mech vs bio TvT, TvP, and TvZ mech (not the ultra turtle raven style). I think if similar dynamics are to be achieved and more importantly improved upon, we have to first determine whether or not people want to keep that type of interaction. In my opinion it absolutely needs to be improved upon and a different approach to the economy can help fulfill this. But firstly people need to decide if they even care to preserve it.
If it creates games like these, I'd go with yes
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Blizzard clearly dislikes the siege tank. It has been a shadow of its former self since WoL. They keep trying to make it more obsolete and counter-able.
IMO, they should just remove it from the game at this point and replace it with something else.
I love the siege tank in bw and starbow, but the sc2 siege tank is relatively boring and weak. The only race weak enough to use it against is Terran.
The tank-evac is neat, but I'd rather have a new core unit than an option that makes it worth making 2 tanks in a game.
|
On April 09 2015 13:45 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 13:36 knyttym wrote:On April 09 2015 13:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
The problem with Broodfestor was not that it only needed 3 bases (It started with 3 bases) but that evedntually 50%-60% of the map would be filled up with creep and no action happened because defenders advantage made it impossible to break their defenses. This is not about unit comp, but about that midgame where nothing happened since defenders advantage was too strong in SC2
I feel comparing this to brood lord infestor in WOL is a bit unfair. The dynamic between mobile forces and immobile can be seen in mech vs bio TvT, TvP, and TvZ mech (not the ultra turtle raven style). I think if similar dynamics are to be achieved and more importantly improved upon, we have to first determine whether or not people want to keep that type of interaction. In my opinion it absolutely needs to be improved upon and a different approach to the economy can help fulfill this. But firstly people need to decide if they even care to preserve it. If it creates games like these, I'd go with yes + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIRnFQ5gNqY
TvT mech vs bio is the best example of the interesting dynamic that can arise from immobile vs mobile. I truly think a similar interaction is possible in TvZ if we so desire. TvP I'm not so sure but I guess it's possible. I'm very fearful though because not only is the economy change pushing these interactions out, but Blizzard seems to already be implementing its replacement.
On April 09 2015 13:53 HewTheTitan wrote:
Blizzard clearly dislikes the siege tank. It has been a shadow of its former self since WoL. They keep trying to make it more obsolete and counter-able.
IMO, they should just remove it from the game at this point and replace it with something else.
I love the siege tank in bw and starbow, but the sc2 siege tank is relatively boring and weak. The only race weak enough to use it against is Terran.
The tank-evac is neat, but I'd rather have a new core unit than an option that makes it worth making 2 tanks in a game.
I think Mech in TvT and Marine Tank in TvT are perhaps the most interesting styles in the game of sc2. Both are based around the tank. But this idea is not limited to the siege tank. I think the interactions provided by immobile forces are valuable and worth improving upon.
|
On April 09 2015 12:32 avilo wrote:
There is a huge issue right now that because you're forced to spend all minerals on getting fast 3-4 base basically both players have these really tiny "armies" of a few gas only units like cyclones, or phoenixes/stalkers...and when unit numbers are that low and you have to choose which gas units to build...tanks are basically never worth building because they never would ever trade with units in this low economy.
The tankivac works well but past the first 1-2 medivacs, tanks are useless vs Protoss, and TvT is just really messed up right now because really bad players can compete with cyclones since all you do is build 3 CC and make only cyclones with your gas.
Everyone has their own opinion of the new economy...from all the games i've seen and played everyone's army has very little mineral units in it and mostly has vespene gas units (except maybe T bio or ling/bling/muta).
Cyclone is just way better than the siege tank because it does everything the tank does but moves at the same time, sorta like collosus is like a mobile siege tank.
Yep. There is no good way traditional mech style can work with this econ in the midgame.
The issue with giving Siege Tanks a direct buff in the midgame is that it favors a very turtly style under a LOTV economy. In BW, mech would stay on much fewer bases in the midgame while the mobile race would take more bases. This meant that mech could still play relatively aggressively through timing attacks or light harass. However, when a defensive mech style is forced to split it self up out on 3-4 bases very quickly (on a low unit count), it cannot afford to invest the same into aggression, but must instead go full turtle mode in order to stale the game.
Untill mech is on 5/6+ bases, a very defensive/turtly mech style is kinda lame as it has very few vulnerabiliites. So that's why I don't believe in directly buffing Siege Tanks, but rather add an upgrade at Fusion Core that significantly buffs them, so tank-mech becomes very viable late game.
FYI: Tanks should also be 2 supply now.
TvT mech vs bio is the best example of the interesting dynamic that can arise from immobile vs mobile. I truly think a similar interaction is possible in TvZ if we so desire.
TvT mech vs bio is a solid matchp in Sc2, however one of the reasons for that is that mech can harass (while maintaining a solid tank count) as static defense/Mutalisks doesn't shut it down. With Cannons and Spines and warp-ins, mech is just always better off going full turtle-mode.... Unless they can make a timing-attack, but thats not doable under a "Force many bases"-economy (like LOTV).
In LOTV, I still don't see how you can effectively harass while maintaining a solid tank count versus both toss and zerg. I think you have to go heavy Cyclone/Hellion in the midgame if you want anything to happen.
|
On April 09 2015 15:40 Hider wrote:
TvT mech vs bio is a solid matchp in Sc2, however one of the reasons for that is that mech can harass (while maintaining a solid tank count) as static defense/Mutalisks doesn't shut it down. With Cannons and Spines and warp-ins, mech is just always better off going full turtle-mode.... Unless they can make a timing-attack, but thats not doable under a "Force many bases"-economy (like LOTV).
In LOTV, I still don't see how you can effectively harass while maintaining a solid tank count versus both toss and zerg. I think you have to go heavy Cyclone/Hellion in the midgame if you want anything to happen.
I haven't put much thought into mech beyond its relationship to the LOTV economy because I think it's currently under the most threat. I think that we can tackle issues like harass potential and the relationship of mech with mutalisks after we address more core issues like the economic system.
|
Sieged tanks can fly with one of the highest movement speeds in the game. There is no immobility left to begin with.
|
Me personally I love the idea of "traditional" mech defending, trying to find all the holes to not die to an attack, building an army and going and killing my opponent. Now of course if I see an opening to be aggro and go kill the other guy ill try and take it. but in hots most of the time that's not really possible unless your just way better then your opponent.
Now I Love the idea of being able to defend and be aggressive, but like i said in hots it hard/not possible to be aggro and in LOTV ( not in beta so dont know to well) seems you can only be aggro or starve to death.and this seem to be what the community and Blizzard wants. most games I play or watch,i find people hate turtle play be it toss, mech , or BL infestor, and to an extant i do to because it can be boring.
To me i just dont think we can find a good middle ground of the defensive or aggressive mech because the way blizzard and most of the community wants the game to be of action all the time. Even if you harassing and dropping with traditional mech people will complain that your turtling all game. So me personally I don't know what to do I Love "traditional" mech but want to have the ability to attack and be aggro but we can't always have are cake and eat it to, so if blizzard wants the game to be super aggro all the time I will figure a way out to adjust.
so in short i love traditional mech but from what blizzard has said and shown and what most people want I don't think it will survive in LOTV.
edit:Thinking about it and this will prolly contradict what I have said but I don't think Mech should be aggressive and defensive. I think that would be just OP, I think that mech should just be defensive the idea is to build up a strong mech army and positionally kill your opponent, and should be punished for being aggressive same as the way bio should be punished for being defensive. Now does this change the way Its going to be in LOTV no because like i said blizzard wants aggression and action so we will probably see a new hybrid mech style that will be more cyclone hellion mobile aggro mech less defensive positional mech.
|
Reduce the supply from 3 to 2 so you can have more of them in the lategame and lower the cost so that you can have more tanks for defense and still be able to harass midgame.
|
Honestly I think we shouldn't try to rush to conclusion and patch things up quickly, even if something appears to be broken at first. Remember what happens in wings and hots? We should just wait to see what the koreans can come up with in GSL before making decisions.
|
On April 09 2015 17:24 Big J wrote:
Sieged tanks can fly with one of the highest movement speeds in the game. There is no immobility left to begin with.
Thats one of the main points here. They shouldn´t even be mobile to begin with.
Siege Tanks should trade that with firepower and range. Immobility and No Anti-Air should be the main weakness of it.
I dont have the beta yet but saw some games. I think traditional Mech will have problems when you are spread over the map with 4-5 bases (maybe more?). You can´t defend everything and are more likely to be flanked. Im sure they will make some tweaks to Tanks IF they want to keep the Economy change. They have to or terran is running out of playstyles. Bio is already weakend from the looks of it (actually im glad about that 80% Bio for 5 years was just too much).
We will see. Iam actually pumped what the new Unit will change for Mech. If its really an Air to Air Fighter with low attack+splash that can change into a stationary Air Unit that attacks ground with 9 range they will most likely make adjustments to the Thor too.
|
On April 09 2015 17:45 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Reduce the supply from 3 to 2 so you can have more of them in the lategame and lower the cost so that you can have more tanks for defense and still be able to harass midgame.
They do need a bit more than that though, but its one step in the right solution.
On April 09 2015 18:01 phodacbiet wrote:
Honestly I think we shouldn't try to rush to conclusion and patch things up quickly, even if something appears to be broken at first. Remember what happens in wings and hots? We should just wait to see what the koreans can come up with in GSL before making decisions.
Yes I remember mech not being viable in HOTS beta too. I also remember Oracles, SH being lame and WMs not synergizing well with mech. It's pretty easy to make reliable guesses about the meta when both theory (economy punishes immobility) and early game testings clearly points in the same direction.
|
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.
|
Honestly, I feel it would be a very big plus if passive/defensive play was no longer possible in Legacy of the Void, mech is -in my opinion- the most boring thing to watch and to play against.
|
Italy12246 Posts
The current economy favours cheap, easily massable units like cyclones/ravegers/whatever over stuff that requires more time to build up an army, like mech or basically anything Protoss.
Just like the economy alone is hugely responsible for Protoss struggling, it's also a major nerf to mech. It's not only an issue of mobility, it's just that siege tanks are kind of the definition of a unit that is pretty meh in small numbers but becomes stronger in big battles.
Also, mech for the sake of it is silly, that's basically Protoss in PvT...defend maybe with some harassment here and there, get a big army, push. What's cool and unique about mech is the siege tank being core of the army, and all the positioning dynamics that siege mode brings. I don't think we want "mech" to have insane mobility, flying around the map with a bunch of medivacs looking for opportunities to doom drop 10 sieged tanks in the name of viability.
|
@OP
Well written post. I am worried about those things as well. I wouldn't mind for Cyclone/Hellion to be a major part of Mech, similar to how Vultures were in BW, but it shouldn't be the main core. (Right now though I don't think they are the main core as you still will want ideally to fight with tanks since cyclones are supply inefficient and don't scale).
Worried about TvT marine tank, maybe if they add a 1-2 second drop/pickup time or something on sieged tanks, it will make it so that rearranging tanks via medviacs in battle is possible, but a risk, but while still saving time in situations where you want to move sieged tanks than unsieging before picking up, then reseiging (6 extra seconds).
Blizz wants there to be more action and interaction throughout the map, that's good. But like you said there should be a choice to go for an immobile style, at least for Terran and somewhat Protoss. If as long as one side going immobile has the stronger army than the other side, then it will be dynamic (like TvP with terran pressuring protoss, or even ZvT with zerg pressuring terran).
I think the problem with immobile styles occurs only if there's a lot of situations/MUs where both styles will just turtle and never fight (HotS Mech vs SH/Viper/Spore/Queen/Etc).
I really hope they get it right, they usually do, and I really want to play some really fun mech. I don't think the chances are good unfortunately that they will change the mining model to something that does effectively what BW did (I love the concept of mech being on 2-3 bases with less income, but being able to fight 4-5 base protoss with higher production for example).
|
I think if there's anything I've learned from HotS it's that you shouldn't force certain styles, because they're more fun.
We saw this with overbuffing fun mobile styles like: Medivac, Mutalisk, Widow Mine, Oracle.
While we did end up with a good standard metagame, it's a stale one, because the other styles simply don't have the overbuffed units.
Even though everyone hates PvZ because of Swarm Hosts, it's at least the most dynamic matchup in terms of unit compositions. You can go Roach/Hydra->Viper, Muta/Corruptor, Swarm Host/upg lings, swarm host/roach/hydra, the super late Viper/Spore/Swarm Host, Ultralisk+Fungal+Blinding Cloud, some even add in Broodlords.
So I think as a developer it's just very important to focus on, having even ground units and let the progamers find out how the matchup works and develop cool styles that can distinguish them from other progamers.
Now with that said, I think LotV is heading towards buffing almost everything towards the power level of the Medivac, which I think is great. HotS was the unfinished vision of what Blizzard had in mind and with LotV I think it will be fulfilled.
I would still love to see an energy cost on Medivac Boost, however, as it would remove silly doom drops, and make Medivacs just as prevalent with Mech, as with Bio, in a sense, because you can boost more with the Mech as you don't need to use the energy for Heal. Also I think it's just a cool aspect of Healing that, you need to preserve your Stim more, because it's actually possible to empty Medivacs.
Now as for Mech:
I don't think Mech is losing it's characteristics, rather than they're just scaling everything towards a faster pace. So Mech will still be as slow compared to the mobile compositions as it was before IMO.
I think for how Mech will work out in LotV will be with one part of the army being the mobile one: Cyclone/Hellion and one part the slow one: Tanks+whatever. So the Cyclone+Hellion will sort of work like Blink Stalkers in delaying the expanding of the opponent and doing some light harass, taking map control, but then when the big battle happens it needs to combine with the slower and bigger army.
|
The only thing we all need to be careful of is giving feedback to blizzard in regards to the cyclone/tank.
Because mark my words, if you guys and myself give good arguments as to tanks sucking and cyclones being the better option...blizzard in the past has interpreted that as this:
"Oh, let's just nerf the hell out of the cyclone and not do anything else to the tank."
Believe me, if the past is any indicator, blizzard will just leave the tank really, really weak and gut the cyclone till mech really is not viable.
So i think it should be clear that right now as it appears...mech involving tanks is severely nerfed in the beta. Because they are so terrible in low numbers, and obviously action and attacks start happening constantly with low unit numbers like with ravagers/cyclones...it's just a very bad environment for tanks that were previously nerfed a few years ago.
It's near impossible to spread out tanks across 4 bases early on in the game...and a lot of times "early on in the game" now is equal to 4 bases.
The tank would be more suitable at 2 supply in this economy to be honest, and costing 100 gas instead of 125 because then it would be a more tradeable unit and promote tank pushes instead of just turtle mech.
I just hope blizzard doesn't see the cyclone as "mech is viable, let's call it a day."
|
I think the problem with the tank is less that it's not good enough - because it really stomps most ground in the higher amounts - it's rather that it isn't that unique anymore in a game in which every unit has either a big range, or a fast speed (or just some other way to close the distance). And if they don't, they are superhigh defense units like Archons or Immortals or Ultras, which is often even worse for the tank, in particular in lower amounts.
I think that's the main thing that has changed from broodwar. The range of the tank from broodwar and SC2 might be comparable, but to have the same range-advantage over other units an SC2 tank would probably need like 18range instead of 13.
The cost- and supplyefficiency buffs would probably cause massive balance-problems in the high supplies for ZvT and TvT. I mean, we are still talking about 6supply ultras, 2supply roaches/marauders/hydras... I think you'd have to make it really hard then for a meching player to counter airplay, because ground won't ever do it if 20tanks+3base saturation doesn't even put you over 100supply.
|
We saw this with overbuffing fun mobile styles like: Medivac, Mutalisk, Widow Mine, Oracle.
While we did end up with a good standard metagame, it's a stale one, because the other styles simply don't have the overbuffed units.
I don't think there is anything wrong with forcing awesome styles. TvZ 4M vs Muta/bling is great. However, other styles should have received buffs/tweaks as well, and that's the real problem here.
|
On April 10 2015 00:08 Big J wrote:
I think the problem with the tank is less that it's not good enough - because it really stomps most ground in the higher amounts - it's rather that it isn't that unique anymore in a game in which every unit has either a big range, or a fast speed (or just some other way to close the distance). And if they don't, they are superhigh defense units like Archons or Immortals or Ultras, which is often even worse for the tank, in particular in lower amounts.
I think that's the main thing that has changed from broodwar. The range of the tank from broodwar and SC2 might be comparable, but to have the same range-advantage over other units an SC2 tank would probably need like 18range instead of 13.
The cost- and supplyefficiency buffs would probably cause massive balance-problems in the high supplies for ZvT and TvT. I mean, we are still talking about 6supply ultras, 2supply roaches/marauders/hydras... I think you'd have to make it really hard then for a meching player to counter airplay, because ground won't ever do it if 20tanks+3base saturation doesn't even put you over 100supply.
I don't think it needs 18 range. I just think it needs to deal damage. 35+25 is underwhelming in lower numbers.
|
Italy12246 Posts
Yeah just to be clear, for the millionth time: "true mech" should be something that has the siege tank as a core unit, NOT something where bio isn't the core unit. Raven/viking turtle in the lategame isn't "true mech", and neither is making a few cyclones, thors, hellions or what have you.
|
On April 10 2015 01:07 Teoita wrote:
Yeah just to be clear, for the millionth time: "true mech" should be something that has the siege tank as a core unit, NOT something where bio isn't the core unit. Raven/viking turtle in the lategame isn't "true mech", and neither is making a few cyclones, thors, hellions or what have you.
Well, true mech is positional play based around the Siege Tank because it is a positional unit. Siege Tanks are exponentially stronger when sieged in a certain position on the map than moving freely. That is opposed to mobile play, such as Terran Bio, where positioning is far less important, instead the ability to multitask and find weak points is highlighted.
Blizzard has never understood this.
Which is why the Warhound was in the HOTS beta. The Warhound was the complete opposite of true mech as it didn't encourage positional play. You used it the same way you'd use a Terran bio unit, except that it was so strong that you didn't need to kite. Even when the Tank was a feature of TvZ in WOL, it was only there in support of the Marines. The Marines were the real damage dealer.
Therefore, I think the chances of Mech returning to positional based play is exactly 0%. In order for true mech to work, then the Siege Tank must be the primary damage dealer as it was in BW. Goliaths provided protection from air units, and Vultures added Spider Mines and close support for protection against melee units. Blizzard doesn't seem to want that, they want other factory units doing big damage like the Thor and Widow Mines.
Finally, we need to remember that the size of these new maps makes it very difficult for positional play to succeed. Positional units are increasingly strong the smaller the map is. These new maps are giant which opens up a lot of weak points for multitaskers to abuse.
On April 10 2015 00:39 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +We saw this with overbuffing fun mobile styles like: Medivac, Mutalisk, Widow Mine, Oracle.
While we did end up with a good standard metagame, it's a stale one, because the other styles simply don't have the overbuffed units. I don't think there is anything wrong with forcing awesome styles. TvZ 4M vs Muta/bling is great. However, other styles should have received buffs/tweaks as well, and that's the real problem here.
4M vs Muta/Bling doesn't hold a candle to Muta/Bling versus Marine/Tank/Medivac.
|
4M vs Muta/Bling doesn't hold a candle to Muta/Bling versus Marine/Tank/Medivac.
The latter was way more passive since terran had a much harder times ecaping from a lost engagement. In WOL vs zerg bio + tank had to sit in the base for 14 minutes before moving out with a timing attack.
Tanks in BW functioned better vs zerg as terran had natural map control when going bio vs zerg. When tanks are used defensively in the midgame, they are honestly quite boring.
|
On April 10 2015 01:27 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 00:39 Hider wrote:We saw this with overbuffing fun mobile styles like: Medivac, Mutalisk, Widow Mine, Oracle.
While we did end up with a good standard metagame, it's a stale one, because the other styles simply don't have the overbuffed units. I don't think there is anything wrong with forcing awesome styles. TvZ 4M vs Muta/bling is great. However, other styles should have received buffs/tweaks as well, and that's the real problem here. 4M vs Muta/Bling doesn't hold a candle to Muta/Bling versus Marine/Tank/Medivac.
I think what people forget with the 2011 MLB vs MM/Tank metagame is that a lot of the excitement of it came from people trying to transition away from those styles and then being tough holds when the infestors, ultras or broodlords barely came out or the high eco muta/ling/bling bust hit before the terran had stabilized from his failed timing or tried to tech to ghosts or semimech.
The difference is really that these days it's really just MLB vs 4M for 25mins or even longer, while back in the days it was 1-2 such engagements and then people would go to different compositions.
It's hardly compareable though, just because of the level of play.
|
Watching Demuslim play Cyclone mech vs Zerg is like Warhound era all over again. Very ugly.
|
On April 10 2015 04:01 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Watching Demuslim play Cyclone mech vs Zerg is like Warhound era all over again. Very ugly.
Nah, don't say that, they aren't a-click units, they are m-click units. 
But yeah on a more serious note, watching Stephano making Roaches, Hydras, Swarm Hosts and Vipers while Demuslim was making just Hellions and masses of Cyclones(and few Banshees that didn't matter at all...) and was always trading efficiently even with Vipers, is seriously horrifying.
I am pretty positive that they will nerf it soon though.
|
On April 10 2015 04:06 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 04:01 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Watching Demuslim play Cyclone mech vs Zerg is like Warhound era all over again. Very ugly. Nah, don't say that, they aren't a-click units, they are m-click units. But yeah on a more serious note, watching Stephano making Roaches, Hydras, Swarm Hosts and Vipers while Demuslim was making just Hellions and masses of Cyclones(and few Banshees that didn't matter at all...) and was always trading efficiently even with Vipers, is seriously horrifying. I am pretty positive that they will nerf it soon though.
As Stephano said on stream right after that game, he lost because he turtled on 3 bases going for lurkers, not because of cyclones. Demuslim rushed up to 4 bases.
|
On April 10 2015 04:08 HewTheTitan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 04:06 Ramiz1989 wrote:On April 10 2015 04:01 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Watching Demuslim play Cyclone mech vs Zerg is like Warhound era all over again. Very ugly. Nah, don't say that, they aren't a-click units, they are m-click units. But yeah on a more serious note, watching Stephano making Roaches, Hydras, Swarm Hosts and Vipers while Demuslim was making just Hellions and masses of Cyclones(and few Banshees that didn't matter at all...) and was always trading efficiently even with Vipers, is seriously horrifying. I am pretty positive that they will nerf it soon though. As Stephano said on stream right after that game, he lost because he turtled on 3 bases going for lurkers, not because of cyclones. Demuslim rushed up to 4 bases.
Well, after the last game he said he has no clue how to beat it. Air units are off the table according to him, Vipers are nice but the vipers have to go home to regenerate while the cyclones are always shooting and zerglings are unplayable against hellbats.
But I wouldn't be too quick on it, I think banelings and infestors could work if they are really going full cyclone/hellbat without tank support? Maybe not since it is still 200HP armored so no bonus from banelings and rather quick so you can split it easily, with the lock on even during shots. But for 150/150/techlab I'm a bit amazed how easily the Terrans get up to those big cyclone amounts so fast while the zerg players I'm watching seem to always be on somewhat equal army size with roach/hydra type of play.
I guess hellbat good unit.
|
On April 10 2015 04:08 HewTheTitan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2015 04:06 Ramiz1989 wrote:On April 10 2015 04:01 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Watching Demuslim play Cyclone mech vs Zerg is like Warhound era all over again. Very ugly. Nah, don't say that, they aren't a-click units, they are m-click units. But yeah on a more serious note, watching Stephano making Roaches, Hydras, Swarm Hosts and Vipers while Demuslim was making just Hellions and masses of Cyclones(and few Banshees that didn't matter at all...) and was always trading efficiently even with Vipers, is seriously horrifying. I am pretty positive that they will nerf it soon though. As Stephano said on stream right after that game, he lost because he turtled on 3 bases going for lurkers, not because of cyclones. Demuslim rushed up to 4 bases.
So, did anything indicate on the stream that he would be able to beat it with better economy? Nope, Demuslim always got the upper hand and was more cost-efficient even though Stephano had Vipers and actually managed to abduct those Cyclones. Better economy just means that Stephano would last longer and that's all.
|
SC2 siege tank just sucks at pushing offensively. It is good at turtling because of synergy with the raven but that's a terribly unfun unit interaction.
The siege tank is terrible at pushing offensively because there are way too many units that outdps it against buildings. Unlike the BW version, the SC2 version will never win a base trade against units like the marauder and immortal. There are also way too many units that can easily close the gap with the siege tank. It's really bad at pushing against zerg on creep. Blink stalkers easily close the gap against siege tanks. Stimmed bio easily closes the gap against siege tanks.
I think the medivac change is the wrong direction to take. Blizzard is removing the one weakness of the siege tank that opponents should be taking advantage of. The siege tank should be stronger, not more mobile.
|
On April 09 2015 17:27 starslayer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Now I Love the idea of being able to defend and be aggressive, but like i said in hots it hard/not possible to be aggro and in LOTV ( not in beta so dont know to well) seems you can only be aggro or starve to death.and this seem to be what the community and Blizzard wants. most games I play or watch,i find people hate turtle play be it toss, mech , or BL infestor, and to an extant i do to because it can be boring.
I hate the idea that turtle styles always promote boring gameplay. It is difficult to argue from a Starcraft 2 stand point because the economic system has been fucked up since the very beginning and I have so sparse evidence in sc2 for the potentials of mobile vs immobile styles. I can only refer people to TvT mech vs bio for the potential interactions that can result.
On April 09 2015 18:01 phodacbiet wrote:
Honestly I think we shouldn't try to rush to conclusion and patch things up quickly, even if something appears to be broken at first. Remember what happens in wings and hots? We should just wait to see what the koreans can come up with in GSL before making decisions.
Sorry the wait and see mentality cannot be applied any longer. As I've outlined in my post, Blizzard has already started pushing out traditional mech in favor of this mobile style. I don't believe this should continue.
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.
If it's not that bad of a concept then I see no reason to be forcing it out as Blizzard seems to be doing. It should be addressed and improved upon. I think a change to the economic system makes this possible.
New units may provide enough diversity to keep the game interesting but maintaining strategic options definitely increase diversity. I see no reason to gamble.
On April 09 2015 18:57 Vanadiel wrote:
Honestly, I feel it would be a very big plus if passive/defensive play was no longer possible in Legacy of the Void, mech is -in my opinion- the most boring thing to watch and to play against.
Again this does not have to be the case if the mobile player is given the right tools. These tools can be brought about through the economic system.
On April 09 2015 20:25 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@OP
Well written post. I am worried about those things as well. I wouldn't mind for Cyclone/Hellion to be a major part of Mech, similar to how Vultures were in BW, but it shouldn't be the main core. (Right now though I don't think they are the main core as you still will want ideally to fight with tanks since cyclones are supply inefficient and don't scale).
Worried about TvT marine tank, maybe if they add a 1-2 second drop/pickup time or something on sieged tanks, it will make it so that rearranging tanks via medviacs in battle is possible, but a risk, but while still saving time in situations where you want to move sieged tanks than unsieging before picking up, then reseiging (6 extra seconds).
Blizz wants there to be more action and interaction throughout the map, that's good. But like you said there should be a choice to go for an immobile style, at least for Terran and somewhat Protoss. If as long as one side going immobile has the stronger army than the other side, then it will be dynamic (like TvP with terran pressuring protoss, or even ZvT with zerg pressuring terran).
I think the problem with immobile styles occurs only if there's a lot of situations/MUs where both styles will just turtle and never fight (HotS Mech vs SH/Viper/Spore/Queen/Etc).
I really hope they get it right, they usually do, and I really want to play some really fun mech. I don't think the chances are good unfortunately that they will change the mining model to something that does effectively what BW did (I love the concept of mech being on 2-3 bases with less income, but being able to fight 4-5 base protoss with higher production for example).
Agreed with the first paragraph. Hider mentioned mech's relationship to static defense and mutalisks a few posts ago. I think a decent relationship can be established using hellion/cyclone as harassment tools and supplements to a tank core. That's however a balance issue and bit further down the line in terms of discussion.
The Mech vs SH was the result of the economy though. Because zerg was incapable of gaining economic leads and using high income trades, they were forced into an ultra cost efficient army to combat mech. I think this can be addressed through the economy. As for whether or not Blizzard is actually willing to adopt a new economic system, this is the last chance to just get everything out there. In 3 months perhaps Blizzard will be too set on the system we have in place and even less receptive. We can already see they've pretty much set their sights on this mobile mech style as I went over in the OP.
On April 09 2015 22:08 ejozl wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Now as for Mech:
I don't think Mech is losing it's characteristics, rather than they're just scaling everything towards a faster pace. So Mech will still be as slow compared to the mobile compositions as it was before IMO.
I think for how Mech will work out in LotV will be with one part of the army being the mobile one: Cyclone/Hellion and one part the slow one: Tanks+whatever. So the Cyclone+Hellion will sort of work like Blink Stalkers in delaying the expanding of the opponent and doing some light harass, taking map control, but then when the big battle happens it needs to combine with the slower and bigger army.
Having a mobile harass force of cyclone/hellion force combined with a tank core is exactly what I would want. That is not what the LOTV economy promotes. It forces cyclone/hellion into the core role and the tank acts as a secondary unit. This does not maintain the immobilities associates with traditional mech.
On April 09 2015 23:47 avilo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The only thing we all need to be careful of is giving feedback to blizzard in regards to the cyclone/tank.
Because mark my words, if you guys and myself give good arguments as to tanks sucking and cyclones being the better option...blizzard in the past has interpreted that as this:
"Oh, let's just nerf the hell out of the cyclone and not do anything else to the tank."
Believe me, if the past is any indicator, blizzard will just leave the tank really, really weak and gut the cyclone till mech really is not viable.
So i think it should be clear that right now as it appears...mech involving tanks is severely nerfed in the beta. Because they are so terrible in low numbers, and obviously action and attacks start happening constantly with low unit numbers like with ravagers/cyclones...it's just a very bad environment for tanks that were previously nerfed a few years ago.
It's near impossible to spread out tanks across 4 bases early on in the game...and a lot of times "early on in the game" now is equal to 4 bases.
The tank would be more suitable at 2 supply in this economy to be honest, and costing 100 gas instead of 125 because then it would be a more tradeable unit and promote tank pushes instead of just turtle mech.
I just hope blizzard doesn't see the cyclone as "mech is viable, let's call it a day."
I think we're jumping the gun a bit again. Before we even address balance of the cyclone and tank we should be establishing more basic ideas. The question I posed was whether or not people even care to preserve the traditional mech style. If we don't even care to keep the style, then balancing the tank as a core unit is pretty much irrelevant.
On April 10 2015 01:07 Teoita wrote:
Yeah just to be clear, for the millionth time: "true mech" should be something that has the siege tank as a core unit, NOT something where bio isn't the core unit. Raven/viking turtle in the lategame isn't "true mech", and neither is making a few cyclones, thors, hellions or what have you.
Yes this was stated in the OP. For example, a Thor based mech style will be slow but is missing key features of a tank composition like weakness in small numbers and strong use of terrain.
On April 10 2015 01:27 BronzeKnee wrote:
Therefore, I think the chances of Mech returning to positional based play is exactly 0%. In order for true mech to work, then the Siege Tank must be the primary damage dealer as it was in BW. Goliaths provided protection from air units, and Vultures added Spider Mines and close support for protection against melee units. Blizzard doesn't seem to want that, they want other factory units doing big damage like the Thor and Widow Mines.
Finally, we need to remember that the size of these new maps makes it very difficult for positional play to succeed. Positional units are increasingly strong the smaller the map is. These new maps are giant which opens up a lot of weak points for multitaskers to abuse.
It may be 0% but we should at least recognize this and discuss if it is worth salvaging. As for the maps, it's completely fine if some maps allow for mech and others don't. We always have bio to work with.
|
Agreed with the first paragraph. Hider mentioned mech's relationship to static defense and mutalisks a few posts ago. I think a decent relationship can be established using hellion/cyclone as harassment tools and supplements to a tank core. That's however a balance issue and bit further down the line in terms of discussion.
I think 3 changes could make mech feel a ton more awesome with LOTV economy:
(1) Cyclone nerf/adjustment
(2) New terran AA
(3) Siege tank 2 supply + a late game upgrade.
(Carrier nerf also).
With these changes, ´mech will be pretty mobile and have harass potential in the midgame. This allows them to secure bases. Once on 4+bases, it is assumed that we enter the late game, where Tanks can get a lot better. Suddenly tanks become viable again and we can have a type of gameplay where you can split up tanks all over the map.
I don't see any reason though to attempt to make mech about Siege tanks in the midgame where defending with tanks is pretty easy and most likely just stagnates the game.
|
On April 10 2015 06:44 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Agreed with the first paragraph. Hider mentioned mech's relationship to static defense and mutalisks a few posts ago. I think a decent relationship can be established using hellion/cyclone as harassment tools and supplements to a tank core. That's however a balance issue and bit further down the line in terms of discussion. I think 3 changes could make mech feel a ton more awesome with LOTV economy: (1) Cyclone nerf/adjustment (2) New terran AA (3) Siege tank 2 supply + a late game upgrade. (Carrier nerf also). With these changes, ´mech will be pretty mobile and have harass potential in the midgame. This allows them to secure bases. Once on 4+bases, it is assumed that we enter the late game, where Tanks can get a lot better. Suddenly tanks become viable again and we can have a type of gameplay where you can split up tanks all over the map. I don't see any reason though to attempt to make mech about Siege tanks in the midgame where defending with tanks is pretty easy and most likely just stagnates the game.
That actually might be fine for mech styles. I'm not sure if you watched much brood war but your post reminded me of Flash vs Calm on Fighting Spirit.
Quick Summary: Mass tanks defending bottom left and bottom right. A bio army floats in the middle looking to defend where the zerg tries to attack
+ Show Spoiler [Flash vs Calm VOD] +
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.
|
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?
|
Italy12246 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?
|
Canada13389 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.
|
Canada13389 Posts
I can understand that line of reasoning completely 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
