Mech fixes - Page 2

On June 25 2015 01:42 WrathSCII wrote:
BW tanks were not OP. And protoss could have stasis most of the mech army and engage. Anyway we are not here to discuss BW TvP mech. We are talking about making Tanks hit harder on a single target. That would be much better than trolling with medivac.

What are your ideas about that and the mech design in general and how can it be improved?

On June 24 2015 22:39 WrathSCII wrote:
I guess I need to make some clarification.

I'm totally against the idea of picking sieged tanks. It is totally stupid as many already said, it goes against the definition of the unit. Beside the only reason they made it so is to promote harass as explained in LOTV beta video, as the worker massacre methods we have in HOTS needed more buffs...

I'm against massing Cyclones and call it mech. Mech is about composition. Not one unit army like the Cyclone was. Cyclone needs to have a defined role. I think the best role it can have is the anti air units (Mainly armored + capital ships) like the goliath was.

Thor is just too clunky and slow, the only reason it was created in the first place is to fulfill Blizzard's fantasy of the super T3 ultimate ground weapon that costs 300/200/6 for all races. Seriously we need to fill missing roles first. Thor is just... I don't know, I don't see a place for thor in the mech army and I'm with its removal though I know it won't happen.

Were BW tanks OP vs single target? Majority of the units in SC2 got heath buff and Tanks got damage nerf. IMO it is too weak vs 1 target hit. I'm all for allowing that upgrade to increase the single target damage WITHOUT affecting the splash.

On June 25 2015 04:29 parkufarku wrote:


You could make the case that BW tanks were a little OP. Progamers mentioned it, like Bisu, back in the old days. Stork said that Vultures should only come with 1 spider mine. Case in point, Mech TvP 200/200 was overwhelmingly strong. One of the strongest (if not the strongest) BW army belonged to Terran mech.

Even in BW, Siege tanks should have been 3 supply....the fact that they were not was the reason why T army had the famous deathball nickname.

Anyway, we are talking about 2 different games so let me bring back the focus.

I agree that tanks hitting harder on a single target would be a good choice for not having troll-tank-pickup.

But I would only advocate maybe 60~65 damage to single target, and making everything else about the tank the same.

Here's a thing. Terran mech doesn't HAVE to be viable. Terrans are not entitled to have every unit that comes out to be viable and responsive. You don't see Protoss players complaining that they can't Skytoss early/mid/late game for both races. It's silly entitlement that T players have been begging Blizzard for years. I'm actually glad Blizzard doesn't cater to this BS as a Terran player myself.

On June 25 2015 04:29 parkufarku wrote:


You could make the case that BW tanks were a little OP. Progamers mentioned it, like Bisu, back in the old days. Stork said that Vultures should only come with 1 spider mine. Case in point, Mech TvP 200/200 was overwhelmingly strong. One of the strongest (if not the strongest) BW army belonged to Terran mech.

Even in BW, Siege tanks should have been 3 supply....the fact that they were not was the reason why T army had the famous deathball nickname.

Anyway, we are talking about 2 different games so let me bring back the focus.

I agree that tanks hitting harder on a single target would be a good choice for not having troll-tank-pickup.

But I would only advocate maybe 60~65 damage to single target, and making everything else about the tank the same.

Here's a thing. Terran mech doesn't HAVE to be viable. Terrans are not entitled to have every unit that comes out to be viable and responsive. You don't see Protoss players complaining that they can't Skytoss early/mid/late game for both races. It's silly entitlement that T players have been begging Blizzard for years. I'm actually glad Blizzard doesn't cater to this BS as a Terran player myself.

On June 25 2015 04:36 TMagpie wrote:


Here's the thing. Bio was not really viable in BW, but mech was. So a lot of BW fans want the dominant mech--but to hide it they say they also don't mind Bio, which is a lie since they wouldn't be complaining about mech if bio was actually "fine"

On June 24 2015 07:03 WrathSCII wrote:
Straight forward into the issues of Mech:
1. Tanks are weak in small numbers and too strong in large numbers.
2. Cyclones are very good vs ground but don't have AA anymore in early-mid game.
3. Thors does not have a clear role with Liberator coming to the game.

Discussion of Tanks:
The reason the tanks sucks in small numbers is because how weak their attack vs single target.
The reason the tanks too strong in large numbers is because they don't overkill.

What can be done to fix this issue?
1. Tanks can have the campaign single target damage upgrade in tech lap unlocked with armory or fusion core that affects ONLY single target attack and the splash damage remains the same. This fixes the tanks issue in small numbers.

2. Tanks can use reduction on the attack speed from 2.8 to 3.5 for example or they can be made to overkill. This fixes the tanks issue in large numbers.

Discussion of Cyclones:
In my opinion, Cyclones should be exact the opposite of what they are now. They should be mainly AA and maybe have AG attack that supports mech later. The issue that resulted in making cyclones too good at shutting everything early game is because they have the same attack for air and ground. Thus it was hard to be balanced against one without affecting the other. If it was like the Goliath, missiles for air and gun for ground, they could have been balanced easily.

What can be done to fix the Cyclones?
1. Introduce a different attack mode for the cyclones to separate the AG and AA so it can be easily balanced.
2. Make the Cyclone mainly AA unit as mech should have Hellion/Hellbats + Tanks as AG.

3. Cost fixes to be around 150/100 (for example) along with nerfs to HP (maybe around 140 would be good?).

Discussion of Thors:
Well... This is the hard part for me as I have no idea what thors could do. I hope to hear ideas from you about it.

On June 25 2015 04:14 Lexender wrote:

However I agree, since Blizz won't take away the smart fire ever, BW tanks may not be the best solution, though we do need stronger tanks somehow.

On June 25 2015 11:25 avilo wrote:


100% agree about the sentiment that cyclones should mainly be AA and get their anti-ground attack later on (the reverse of what it is now in beta).

Mech has no AA unit that is a consistent auto-attacker. Thors are not a reliable auto-attacker, neither are widow mines.

The reason mech is so difficult is because of that reason alone. In SC1, mech had the goliath which was an auto-attacker with a strong anti-air and long ranged attack.

IT would be interesting if blizzard tested reversing the current version of the cyclone - AA only at start of game, able to be upgraded at fusion core with the anti-ground attack.

On June 25 2015 15:13 Pontius Pirate wrote:

That is excessive pessimism. Blizzard has shown they are willing to (slowly) look at small engine and under-the-hood unit stats to adjust and make changes based on solid community arguments, as they did with scan range changes, and have specifically announced plans to deal with the prioritization of spreading before initiating attack commands for aerial units, and plans to deal with turret tracking.


This is actually pretty solid reasoning. Retool them so that their locking-on aspect is tied to either the same upgrade that enables ground attacking or the upgrade that gives them their ridiculous range. That way they serve as AA support in the mid-game, and once upgraded, become useful for taking down high-priority targets, as Blizz hoped for them. Granted, they hoped that they'd be used for that in the early game, but locking-on is really not an appropriate spell for the way that Cyclones were being used early on in the beta.

On June 25 2015 17:22 [F_]aths wrote:

I agree. While one or two high-ground tanks can make the difference in defending versus a mid-game attack, in the open field you need considerably more tanks to secure and advance your position. This is how I imagine mech: You take some risks with choosing this path and you give up a lot of mobility. But once you are over a threshold, the risk is worth taking.

On June 25 2015 18:30 WrathSCII wrote:



They are good at defending against low HP units like marine drops but not against high HP units like ultralisks / archons... etc. That is why I'm suggesting the single target damage buff.

On June 25 2015 23:32 parkufarku wrote:


Since when is one unit supposed to be good against everything? We don't see Protoss players be peeved that Immortals are great against Ultralisks but terrible against Lings

On June 25 2015 23:51 WrathSCII wrote:


Who the hell said make it good vs everything?! Do you see me asking for AA within siege tanks? I'm asking to make tanks better vs high HP units like Ultralisks / Archons / Colossus... etc. Their attack speed can be tuned down a bit, their splash radius can be tuned down a bit as it can help reduce tanks power in masses vs low hp army mass.

In BW, it needed 6 tanks (12 supply) to 1 shot kill fully upgraded ultralisk. In SC2, you need 9 tanks (27 supply) to 1 shot kill fully upgraded. See the huge supply difference that is needed? That is what I'm trying to address.

On June 26 2015 00:13 parkufarku wrote:


But that's exactly what you're saying. You want tanks to be good against Ultralisks / Archons, and you realize they don't HAVE to be good against those certain units.

You are comparing 2 different games with different stats. In BW, there were no mass marauders that could snipe out Ultras and slow them down. We should advocate that Medivac speed be removed because BW's dropships didn't have speed-boost...according to your logic.

On June 26 2015 00:17 Athenau wrote:
Immortals don't need to siege, don't have a minimum range, and don't do friendly splash. They also have hardened shields.

In return for these disadvantages, the tank is supposed to give you ground superiority when positioned properly. If it doesn't, then what's the point? No one is going to build immobile 150/125/3 units as glorified baneling killers if they don't have to, which is why you never see the tank in non-mirrors outside of odd timings in TvP and the (very) occasional mech game in TvZ.

In LoTV the Liberator has usurped the tank's role as a hard zone-control unit, while the tankivac is supposed be a...mini-reaver I guess? Someone on reddit called it a micro cannon which is as good a description as any.

While I can't say this is the most elegant state of affairs, it isn't terrible either. It certainly produces entertaining gameplay.