|
I don't buy the mech shared upgrade argument. For zerg and protoss to incorporate air units into the mix the ground and air upgrades are separate, 4 for zeg if he focuses on either ground melee or ranged, 5 for protoss no getting around that. Why is it fair that terran mech only needs 2 upgrades total when other races need 4-5?
If the argument is that mech pure ground doesn't work and you need air support to be viable, isn't the real problem source at the design of mech ground? Combining upgrades is a cheap way to fix balance issues isn't it? "Your units suck so you need half the upgrades that other races need?!"
As for muta switch, by the time mutas come out terran already has 1-1, and by the time terran has 2-2, unupgraded mutas can't do anything in a fight. Also the liberator shuts down mutas even without air upgrades, i just don't see why mech needs half the upgrades of other races.
If bio mech ever become a thing, it may be fair for mech to share armor upgrade with attack still separate so all races have 5 total upgrades, but as long as bio vs mech is a binary choice, terran already require the least number of upgrades as is.
|
Yes, it's 5 upgrades for the protoss tech tree (because of the shield, it's 4 otherwise).
It's 5 upgrades for the zerg tech tree (they get "combined" carapace melee upgrade)
It's 6 for terran. In order to make it worse, 4 of them must be searched in an expensive building (evo chamber and forge are cheap in comparison) and buildings upgrade are in the ebay so if you want them fast you need a 3rd one (wich nobody does anyway).
So as you say, other races need 5 upgrades and cheap buildings. Why would terran need 6 and expensive research facilities ?
|
On June 03 2015 04:48 ganil wrote:
Yes, it's 5 upgrades for the protoss tech tree (because of the shield, it's 4 otherwise).
It's 5 upgrades for the zerg tech tree (they get "combined" carapace melee upgrade)
It's 6 for terran. In order to make it worse, 4 of them must be searched in an expensive building (evo chamber and forge are cheap in comparison) and buildings upgrade are in the ebay so if you want them fast you need a 3rd one (wich nobody does anyway).
So as you say, other races need 5 upgrades and cheap buildings. Why would terran need 6 and expensive research facilities ?
Like i said, if bio mech becomes meta, i think mech armor upgrade can be shared so terran has 5 total, right now mech and bio is binary, so most games you only need 2. I can't recall any games where terran got all 6 upgrades, whereas protoss and zerg frequently needs to get 4-5.
One example is viking and corrupter vs colosus, zerg needs to invest in air upgrades separate from ground to buff corrupters, why should vikings share mech ground upgrades for free? Both units are made to solve one problem that is colosus, one race require more upgrades is fair?
As for armory being expensive, the spire cost even more gas, and zerg going heavy air needs 2 spires on top of evo chamber upgrades. Forge and cybercore are mineral only, so you have a fair point there that armory is expensive vs protoss. Even then, armory unlocks units, all races have expensive buildings that don't do anything except unlocking units/ progress the tech tree. In bio armory is often made just to get some hellbats or unupgraded thors.
|
Your argument would make sense if bio and much had shared upgrades, then it would be like protoss with ground shared upgrade. And shield is ON TOP OF ARMOR AND WEAPON. it's an advantage upgrade so don't count it like some kind of drawback.
|
On June 03 2015 04:48 ganil wrote:
Yes, it's 5 upgrades for the protoss tech tree (because of the shield, it's 4 otherwise).
It's 5 upgrades for the zerg tech tree (they get "combined" carapace melee upgrade)
It's 6 for terran. In order to make it worse, 4 of them must be searched in an expensive building (evo chamber and forge are cheap in comparison) and buildings upgrade are in the ebay so if you want them fast you need a 3rd one (wich nobody does anyway).
So as you say, other races need 5 upgrades and cheap buildings. Why would terran need 6 and expensive research facilities ?
Except Zerg still need Lair and then Hive to unlock their higher upgrades and spire is then needed for air upgrades; Protoss needs Twilight to unlock tier 2 and 3 and cybernetics core is needed for air.
On June 03 2015 07:09 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
Your argument would make sense if bio and much had shared upgrades, then it would be like protoss with ground shared upgrade. And shield is ON TOP OF ARMOR AND WEAPON. it's an advantage upgrade so don't count it like some kind of drawback.
Do you understand how Protoss upgrades work? Armor upgrades don't work until after shields have been used up. You have to upgrade shield and armor to get what terran or zerg get from 1 armor upgrade
|
On June 03 2015 07:09 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
Your argument would make sense if bio and much had shared upgrades, then it would be like protoss with ground shared upgrade. And shield is ON TOP OF ARMOR AND WEAPON. it's an advantage upgrade so don't count it like some kind of drawback.
Worst. Argument. Ever.
|
Maybe they should alter the thor a little bit to make it resemble/act more like a goliath. This way mech should get decent AA and there will be no need for both upgrades to be shared (ground/air). The thor has always been one of my least favourite units anyway. I've never been excited when a thor enters the battle.
|
I don't buy the mech shared upgrade argument. For zerg and protoss to incorporate air units into the mix the ground and air upgrades are separate, 4 for zeg if he focuses on either ground melee or ranged, 5 for protoss no getting around that. Why is it fair that terran mech only needs 2 upgrades total when other races need 4-5?
You might as well ask why aren't robo and gateway upgrades split into two? Terran actually has a total of 6 different upgrades. Zerg and toss only 5. That simply doesn't make sense when you take into account that terran has the most inflexible production, so if you want to balance the game around more unit diversity --> Don't make it very costly when you want to switch to a different tech route is the way to go.
|
On June 03 2015 12:46 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2015 07:09 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
Your argument would make sense if bio and much had shared upgrades, then it would be like protoss with ground shared upgrade. And shield is ON TOP OF ARMOR AND WEAPON. it's an advantage upgrade so don't count it like some kind of drawback. Worst. Argument. Ever.
Ahaha, clear sign that the discussion is entering a mentality where you can arrive at any conclusion. :D
BASED ON MY CALCULATION ZERG SHOULD HAVE ONLY ONE UPGRADE FOR ALL UNITS: ARMOUR AND ATTACK!!! IT IS ONLY FAIR! > : (
|
On June 03 2015 07:09 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
Your argument would make sense if bio and much had shared upgrades, then it would be like protoss with ground shared upgrade. And shield is ON TOP OF ARMOR AND WEAPON. it's an advantage upgrade so don't count it like some kind of drawback.
Shield upgrades are like armor but for a % of the life of the units. If a siege tank has 160HP, armor is applied for the total health.
However, if a stalker has 80HP + 80shields, armor only applies on the HP, and you have to wait for shield upgrades to be fully armored for the total health. Consider that because burst damage units (marines, marauders) scale very well vs protoss since shield upgrades are so rare.
Having shield upgrade is having armor upgrade split in 2, not an advantage.
|
Make the armory capable of researching 2 upgrades at the same time. That would balance it a bit.
|
Why not reduce the cost of the armory to 50 gas?, i mean - thats what they wanted to accomplish anyway?
|
On June 03 2015 19:50 weikor wrote:
Why not reduce the cost of the armory to 50 gas?, i mean - thats what they wanted to accomplish anyway?
That would make certain timing attacks more lethal. By game design they want u to dump that much gas before u can get stuff like Thors or Helbats. So making Armory capable of researching 2 upgrades at the same time will make the game as close as possible. Maybe add restriction that you can't research Mech attack and armor at the same time.(can research Mech attack and Air attack the same time)
|
I think people have missed the fact that there is a dynamic between the amount of upgrades and the strength and synergy of units. Terran has more upgrades because they possess the greatest potency in terms of inter-unit potency. Their army flows much better when going inbetween compositions (Think viking-mine-medivac composition and marine-marauder ratio). Zerg has fewer upgrades because their tech trees are weaker areas other than their respective advantages. Protoss upgrades are fewer generally because of the price of protoss units, and also that their different tech paths are strictly augmentive to Gateway.
It's impossible to analyse the situation fixing the power of the units of all races and then argue that Terran is worse off because they have 6 upgrades as opposed to 5.
|
On June 03 2015 22:11 TokO wrote:
I think people have missed the fact that there is a dynamic between the amount of upgrades and the strength and synergy of units. Terran has more upgrades because they possess the greatest potency in terms of inter-unit potency. Their army flows much better when going inbetween compositions (Think viking-mine-medivac composition and marine-marauder ratio). Zerg has fewer upgrades because their tech trees are weaker areas other than their respective advantages. Protoss upgrades are fewer generally because of the price of protoss units, and also that their different tech paths are strictly augmentive to Gateway.
It's impossible to analyse the situation fixing the power of the units of all races and then argue that Terran is worse off because they have 6 upgrades as opposed to 5.
This makes no sense! Protoss units have a ton better synergy between Robo and Gateway, and zerg has much better synergy between Speedlings, Roaches, Hydras than terran has between mech and starport. You would only get Vikings becasue you needed it as anti-air, but Mech/Viking has never been considered to be OP (only when you mix in PDD).
The only way this change could make remotely sense is if they want liberator + bio to be viable and they think that liberator + mech would be op if shared ups still exist. But again, why not directly write that, and more relevant, is that even true at all? Why not test it at least?
It's just a change that doesn't have any sound reasoning behind it, and the only reason people support is because it was like that in Brood War.
|
Hider is right, this is obviously just a balance change, they just think mech is too strong and/or don't want mech to be played as is, you simply can't mech alone since factory units aren't very well rounded. This change won't "give player choices", thats like when they nerfed the mine and said it was because they wanted players to choose betwen mines and tanks, that didn't happened because tanks were shit, so this is simply a nerf to mech no other way around it.
But I can see where they are comming from, the community has said that "mech is boring" and that they want "bio to have a lategame" so they added the liberator and Split the upgrades so when you go bio you can add Factory and starport units as the game goes on but you can't simply "go mech" anymore.
This will erase one of the few traits of terran gameplay (the bio - mech dichotomy) and make terran like the other races, but if that is what people wanted then I guess thats that, maybe they are listening then?
|
thats like when they nerfed the mine and said it was because they wanted players to choose betwen mines and tanks, that didn't happened because tanks were !@#$%^&*, so this is simply a nerf to mech no other way around it.
What they said back then was that they wanted Mines + Tanks to be used together, but the two units just didn't have any synergy together, so that was pretty easy to see that it never was gonna be the case.
But I can see where they are comming from, the community has said that "mech is boring" and that they want "bio to have a lategame" so they added the liberator and Split the upgrades so when you go bio you can add Factory and starport units as the game goes on but you can't simply "go mech" anymore.
Hmm and I guess people can still use the tank as it synergizes better with bio due to medivac pick up. And Cyclone's role as a hardcore to units that cannot catch up to it (e.g. Ultras).
Unfortunately, I think most people aren't that much into those changes. Sure if you are already playing Sc2, you will be like "yeh awesome i can mix in more units with my bio", but it's not a change that is gonna make poeple who quit 1-2 years ago come back to play it.
I think more people want standard mech to be viable, and then they give the mech players opportunites to harass while the opponent should have tools to break down a turtling mech player. And part of mech's harass options comes through the starport which no longer is as attractive an option. This is why heavy mech focussed play will likely be very turtlish whenever anyone attempts to try it.
|
On June 03 2015 22:22 Hider wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 03 2015 22:11 TokO wrote:
I think people have missed the fact that there is a dynamic between the amount of upgrades and the strength and synergy of units. Terran has more upgrades because they possess the greatest potency in terms of inter-unit potency. Their army flows much better when going inbetween compositions (Think viking-mine-medivac composition and marine-marauder ratio). Zerg has fewer upgrades because their tech trees are weaker areas other than their respective advantages. Protoss upgrades are fewer generally because of the price of protoss units, and also that their different tech paths are strictly augmentive to Gateway.
It's impossible to analyse the situation fixing the power of the units of all races and then argue that Terran is worse off because they have 6 upgrades as opposed to 5. This makes no sense! Protoss units have a ton better synergy between Robo and Gateway, and zerg has much better synergy between Speedlings, Roaches, Hydras than terran has between mech and starport. You would only get Vikings becasue you needed it as anti-air, but Mech/Viking has never been considered to be OP (only when you mix in PDD). The only way this change could make remotely sense is if they want liberator + bio to be viable and they think that liberator + mech would be op if shared ups still exist. But again, why not directly write that, and more relevant, is that even true at all? Why not test it at least? It's just a change that doesn't have any sound reasoning behind it, and the only reason people support is because it was like that in Brood War.
Necessity =/= Synergy. I have to disagree with the Speedling Roach Hydra argument, the power of those compositions tend to come from macro advantages rather than strength of the composition itself. It's the same as the zealots on PvZ for example, once lines become thich enough melee's melt to the units in the backline who would otherwise have trouble shooting.
The fact that you have a myriad of compositions mixing factory and starport together with bio in the mid-game for example in TvT and TvZ owes to the fact that your units synergize well. And I think that's what makes Terran match-ups the best ones. Choosing an arbitrary composition and saying that it's not OP (Which I never claimed) doesn't make my argument wrong. I don't think there is a lack of synergy in the Terran arsenal, and we shouldn't pretend that it's not an advantage for Terran (We can disagree about that though).
While I agree that Blizzard tend to do things without good reasons, I prefer the 6 upgrades for Terran. It might just be because it was like that in BW (This is not the only reason), because it adds uniqueness to the race, it opens up the possibility of making Terran sligtly stronger at the expense of having separated upgrades, as well as the argument above. I think it could be good to try to see things in other ways than the separation only being due to the introduction of the Liberator.
|
The fact that you have a myriad of compositions mixing factory and starport together with bio in the mid-game for example in TvT and TvZ owes to the fact that your units synergize well.
Past the early game, you see Vikings and tanks in tvt along with bio (occationally banshee).
You see Mines and bio in TvZ.
You See Vikings vs Colossus and Mines vs toss.
I don't know how you think this is such huge diversification. I see protoss players and zerg players mixing more units togeter.
Remember, when you are talking in favor of removing shared ups, you are implying that mixing in starport units and mech units would become too imbalanced in LOTV. There is no support behind that theory!
because it adds uniqueness to the race,
Here is a different way of making the race unique. Make only two upgrades that benefit both air, bio and starport units!!! This way you surely get a lot more diversification in terms of unit compositions, and you can balance the game in different ways around this. Not saying that blizzard should go this way, but it imo makes a lot more sense than the 6-upgrade approach if you are looking for uniqueness.
Terran sligtly stronger at the expense of having separated upgrades
I am still waiting for the tank buff, or what about Banshee upgrade requiring Fusion Core? How exactly does an indirect nerf to banshees in the midgame (where they are rarely seen anyway) and first compensate them with a lategame upgrade, create more interesting gameplay?
If Blizzard on the other hand a specific plan for how they see each unit fit into every matchups, and then would argue why shared ups would be problematic, I could sympathize more with their decision (even though I still probably wouldn't agree).
Or why couldn't we argue that more shared ups opens up for the opportunity to buff zerg and toss in various ways while taking into account that terran has inflexibility prodution and thus needs more shared upgrades than zerg and protoss (not fewer).
It might just be because it was like that in BW (
I believe that simple + damage/armor upgrades are an ancient idea that shouldn't be part of future RTS games. Upgrades should be more about changing the playstyle of certain units or have specific balance purposes. But +1 armor/weapon upgrades does neither.
They are a pointless complexity in my opinion, and while that doesn't imply Blizzard should remove all upgrades in LOTV (obviously unrealistic), I am of the opinion that you might as well use every opportunity to minimize the amount of "pointless" stuff in the game. Balancing the game around more upgrades is imo a step back for the genre.
|
On June 04 2015 00:14 Hider wrote:
I believe that simple + damage/armor upgrades are an ancient idea that shouldn't be part of future RTS games. Upgrades should be more about changing the playstyle of certain units or have specific balance purposes. But +1 armor/weapon upgrades does neither.
They are a pointless complexity in my opinion, and while that doesn't imply Blizzard should remove all upgrades in LOTV (obviously unrealistic), I am of the opinion that you might as well use every opportunity to minimize the amount of "pointless" stuff in the game. Balancing the game around more upgrades is imo a step back for the genre.
I don't think it is bad to have them, specially if they modify a bit the numerical interactions between them, like Zealots and Zerglings, Roaches and Zerglings, Zealots and Marines.... Having an upgrade lead heavily modifies the strength of that units in your favor. Also it helps balancing some units that might be too powerful early game by scaling them stronger late game.
It helps with balance and gives an interesting addition to plan macro a bit. It is true that +1 is dull most of the times and doesn't make much sense (it doesn't change the outcome as long as enemy has the same level of upgrades), but having a unit scalling +2 or +5 is very significant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
