|
On July 03 2015 07:39 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
I don't understand why so many people are demanding mech revolve around tanks. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy tank play. I love TvT and both sides maneuver around each other to gain a better position, but I don't see what's wrong with Bliz trying to have mech work with other units.
If tanks are pivotal vT, but vP and vZ its hardly used, I am ok with that. But they need to give mech another route against the other two races. If that is with Cyclones and Liberators, then ok cool. Currently in HotS mech has near zero viability against Protoss and Zerg.
Do we really want tanks to be the only mech route against all races?
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/360325-in-defence-of-mech
That blog is a pretty good summary of what people are usually getting at when they complain about the tank being de-emphasized in factory compositions. Generally "immobile main army" and "mech" are considered more or less synonymous, and if the game shifts away from those principles people think it's worse.
That doesn't mean that everything has to be about the tank; the widow mine, for instance, also has to root itself to do its work, so it is arguably also an immobile unit to have in the main army. Harass units like vultures or hellions can serve support roles, either by harassing, scouting, or simply "tanking" damage for the siege tanks. But if you have, say, a hellion/cyclone/thor composition, it's not "mech" in the classical sense.
|
i think many people just want there to be a slow, powerful, setup style. - something that isnt viable in the game right now. most people dont want "mech" as in building mechanical units. Its the style of play they want.
If you wanted a mechanical unit that just hits hard, and is viable . you could just make immortals.
|
I find it unbelievably laughable that people want more of a unit that is less mobile and barely as interesting as the old Swarm Host.
|
Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers
|
On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote:
Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers
You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy.
|
Awesome, still can't wait for ladder though!
|
On July 03 2015 09:08 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote:
Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy.
That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives.
Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already.
|
On July 03 2015 09:25 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 09:08 Big J wrote:On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote:
Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy. That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives. Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already.
the economy change already forces mech to be more spread out which makes it possible to buff them straight up because you can't have them all together anymore.
|
i hope the cyclone gets buffed, it was op and then a few patches later its like the worst mech unit, needs that aa right off the bat
|
On July 03 2015 09:25 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 09:08 Big J wrote:On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote:
Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy. That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives. Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already.
Damage vs shields is band aid and it is bad.
Tanks are super good vs low hp army and bad vs high HP army.
A way to fix that is to remove the smart firing that prevents them from overkill and introduce the malestorm rounds from WoL campaign to give tanks extra damage vs single target without affecting splash.
Result: Tanks better vs high hp armies. Tanks are not so strong vs low hp as with splits sac small groups can draw out initial shots giving low hp army better chance.
Both tank user and the attacker need to micro.
|
On July 03 2015 10:05 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 09:25 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 03 2015 09:08 Big J wrote:On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote:
Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy. That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives. Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already. Damage vs shields is band aid and it is bad.
How in the world is it a band aid? Is Marauders having +Armored a band aid? Lol.
A way to fix that is to remove the smart firing that prevents them from overkill and introduce the malestorm rounds from WoL campaign to give tanks extra damage vs single target without affecting splash.
I repeat: there is a zero percent chance of Blizzard making dumb tanks in 2015. It's just not going to happen. It would make misused tanks less useful than misused casters without smartcast, and smartcast isn't going anywhere, so neither is smart targeting.
|
United States12224 Posts
On July 03 2015 10:22 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 10:05 WrathSCII wrote:On July 03 2015 09:25 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 03 2015 09:08 Big J wrote:On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote:
Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy. That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives. Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already. Damage vs shields is band aid and it is bad. How in the world is it a band aid? Is Marauders having +Armored a band aid? Lol. Show nested quote +
A way to fix that is to remove the smart firing that prevents them from overkill and introduce the malestorm rounds from WoL campaign to give tanks extra damage vs single target without affecting splash.
I repeat: there is a zero percent chance of Blizzard making dumb tanks in 2015. It's just not going to happen. It would make misused tanks less useful than misused casters without smartcast, and smartcast isn't going anywhere, so neither is smart targeting.
It's a bandaid because it affects one matchup disproportionately. It's sloppy design and they've straight-up said that's not their ideal solution. It's much easier to justify a change of "vs Mech" or "vs Bio" because there's added flexibility involved in player choice. By adding a modifier that targets only one race, that only serves to make good units overpowered or sucky units slightly less sucky.
|
United States4883 Posts
All right, so I thought I'd add a few thoughts about this post ^^.
1) Holy sh** mother****** balls %&$# wat Blizzard is actually giving us weekly updates. This is all we've been asking for all along, we just wanted to feel like we were being heard instead of posting tons of suggestion and idea threads, and then getting a lackluster patch where they change something insignificant like hellbat splash radius or something -- like, where did all of the positive and constructive ideas from the community go?
So, basically, this is a huge improvement on Blizzard's part, and it amazes me that they were surprised that we felt out of touch, especially considering how incredibly little we heard from them in the first few weeks of the beta. I hope they keep the updates rolling in; it would be a real shame if this dropped off in a week or two and we went back to the way things were.
2) The proposed Ghost snipe is actually identical to the Raven seeker missile redesign in the beginning of HotS beta, and that did not go well because it was basically just a worse version of Yamato at the same tech. Putting it onto the ghost relieves some of the redundancy, but does not change the fact that it is a spammable damage ability which contributes to deathball play and large "whoever wins this fight wins the game" engagements. I agree with them on skillshots, but they definitely need to ditch the idea of snipe altogether and just come up with something better -- even the weird armor drone was a better idea.
3) Pro players and ESPORTS are supported by the viewers, and thereby the players as well. The most important thing is the gameplay -- make the game fun to play, and people will play and watch it. I think it's a trap to get caught up in "map diversity" and things of that nature without addressing the real concern of making playing on the maps fun. Destructible rocks and watch towers were a good start, but maps in general are very lackluster and rigid in design mostly due to the restrictions placed on each race via their design (as well as a host of other issues like high ground advantage, space control, etc.). Blizzard should be working towards making maps more dynamic rather than making them more imbalanced. However, that said, I'm glad they're trying new things rather than sticking to the careful, tender, "SC2 is a small fragile baby who can't take any amount of change or it'll die" approach they've always had.
4) The mech changes feel fairly directionless. Blizzard simply cannot make up their mind about mech upgrades, and seem to have no idea how to balance the two compositions together without simply ignoring the other. The ravager change is fine -- good QoL change, and it's good to see that they're progressing with the Liberator (though there is still a lot of concern that this simply overlaps with the tank and makes it even more obsolete).
Anyways, I'm just glad Blizzard is communicating with the community, and I hope they keep it up!
|
On July 03 2015 11:36 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 10:22 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 03 2015 10:05 WrathSCII wrote:On July 03 2015 09:25 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 03 2015 09:08 Big J wrote:On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote:
Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy. That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives. Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already. Damage vs shields is band aid and it is bad. How in the world is it a band aid? Is Marauders having +Armored a band aid? Lol.
A way to fix that is to remove the smart firing that prevents them from overkill and introduce the malestorm rounds from WoL campaign to give tanks extra damage vs single target without affecting splash.
I repeat: there is a zero percent chance of Blizzard making dumb tanks in 2015. It's just not going to happen. It would make misused tanks less useful than misused casters without smartcast, and smartcast isn't going anywhere, so neither is smart targeting. It's a bandaid because it affects one matchup disproportionately. It's sloppy design and they've straight-up said that's not their ideal solution. It's much easier to justify a change of "vs Mech" or "vs Bio" because there's added flexibility involved in player choice. By adding a modifier that targets only one race, that only serves to make good units overpowered or sucky units slightly less sucky.
Everything in the game affects MUs disproportionately. In BW, the Queen had a spell called Infest Command Center that straight up could not be used at all in any MU other than ZvT. Lockdown straight up could not be cast in TvZ. Irradiate had no competitive uses outside of TvZ. Would you say they are all examples of bandaid solutions in BW? Because that to me devalues the term and distracts from the real problems in SC2.
I agree that +Shields damage wouldn't be the most elegant design, but 1) the Widow Mine already has it so there's precedent in SC2, so if Blizzard did say what you say they said about the Tank, that's just bullshit, and 2) I'm not personally aware of a solution I would deem more elegant. It may well be the best in a sea of mediocre solutions.
|
United States12224 Posts
On July 03 2015 12:21 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 11:36 Excalibur_Z wrote:On July 03 2015 10:22 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 03 2015 10:05 WrathSCII wrote:On July 03 2015 09:25 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 03 2015 09:08 Big J wrote:On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote:
Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy. That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives. Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already. Damage vs shields is band aid and it is bad. How in the world is it a band aid? Is Marauders having +Armored a band aid? Lol.
A way to fix that is to remove the smart firing that prevents them from overkill and introduce the malestorm rounds from WoL campaign to give tanks extra damage vs single target without affecting splash.
I repeat: there is a zero percent chance of Blizzard making dumb tanks in 2015. It's just not going to happen. It would make misused tanks less useful than misused casters without smartcast, and smartcast isn't going anywhere, so neither is smart targeting. It's a bandaid because it affects one matchup disproportionately. It's sloppy design and they've straight-up said that's not their ideal solution. It's much easier to justify a change of "vs Mech" or "vs Bio" because there's added flexibility involved in player choice. By adding a modifier that targets only one race, that only serves to make good units overpowered or sucky units slightly less sucky. Everything in the game affects MUs disproportionately. In BW, the Queen had a spell called Infest Command Center that straight up could not be used at all in any MU other than ZvT. Lockdown straight up could not be cast in TvZ. Irradiate had no competitive uses outside of TvZ. Would you say they are all examples of bandaid solutions in BW? Because that to me devalues the term and distracts from the real problems in SC2. I agree that +Shields damage wouldn't be the most elegant design, but 1) the Widow Mine already has it so there's precedent in SC2, so if Blizzard did say what you say they said about the Tank, that's just bullshit, and 2) I'm not personally aware of a solution I would deem more elegant. It may well be the best in a sea of mediocre solutions.
Infest Command Center was a holdover from back when the Queen also had Infest Nexus. My memory's a little chicken-or-egg on whether the lore influenced the design or whether the addition of another ability edged out the Nexus ability on the command card and they changed the lore to fit. There were plans to have Queens infest both other races' town hall structures though.
The Lockdown example doesn't fit because Terrans have mechs as well as Protoss. That makes it useful for TvT and TvP. Irradiate affected all three races (the competitive usage is irrelevant, the possibilities are the focus of design and not the direct application). If a unit or ability affects more than one race then it's fine even if niche, but if it affects only one race differently then it's not a design they should seek to repeat, especially if the design affects all units of that race evenly, which the Widow Mine does.
|
On July 03 2015 12:50 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 12:21 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 03 2015 11:36 Excalibur_Z wrote:On July 03 2015 10:22 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 03 2015 10:05 WrathSCII wrote:On July 03 2015 09:25 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 03 2015 09:08 Big J wrote:On July 03 2015 09:05 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote:
Why do people say tanks need a buff? in high number they absolutely destroy bio or roach/hydra. I could see a buff against toss. The problem is that in very small numbers tanks are weak, but in large numbers is terrifying. So how do you buff a tank when you only have a couple, but keep them from being op in large numbers You introduce a mechanism that counterbalances them being in large numbers. For example they could all target the same zergling and thereby waste shots, instead of perfectly avoiding to shoot targets that other tanks already destroy. I call this suggestion overdestroy. That's not going to happen in 2015. We need to be providing less frustrating and unintuitive alternatives. Best and easiest solution I can think of is +Shields damage. With their added maneuverability, they might be usable in TvZ already. Damage vs shields is band aid and it is bad. How in the world is it a band aid? Is Marauders having +Armored a band aid? Lol.
A way to fix that is to remove the smart firing that prevents them from overkill and introduce the malestorm rounds from WoL campaign to give tanks extra damage vs single target without affecting splash.
I repeat: there is a zero percent chance of Blizzard making dumb tanks in 2015. It's just not going to happen. It would make misused tanks less useful than misused casters without smartcast, and smartcast isn't going anywhere, so neither is smart targeting. It's a bandaid because it affects one matchup disproportionately. It's sloppy design and they've straight-up said that's not their ideal solution. It's much easier to justify a change of "vs Mech" or "vs Bio" because there's added flexibility involved in player choice. By adding a modifier that targets only one race, that only serves to make good units overpowered or sucky units slightly less sucky. Everything in the game affects MUs disproportionately. In BW, the Queen had a spell called Infest Command Center that straight up could not be used at all in any MU other than ZvT. Lockdown straight up could not be cast in TvZ. Irradiate had no competitive uses outside of TvZ. Would you say they are all examples of bandaid solutions in BW? Because that to me devalues the term and distracts from the real problems in SC2. I agree that +Shields damage wouldn't be the most elegant design, but 1) the Widow Mine already has it so there's precedent in SC2, so if Blizzard did say what you say they said about the Tank, that's just bullshit, and 2) I'm not personally aware of a solution I would deem more elegant. It may well be the best in a sea of mediocre solutions. Infest Command Center was a holdover from back when the Queen also had Infest Nexus. My memory's a little chicken-or-egg on whether the lore influenced the design or whether the addition of another ability edged out the Nexus ability on the command card and they changed the lore to fit. There were plans to have Queens infest both other races' town hall structures though.
It was a specific lore reason that they decided not to have infested Protoss units or structures. They said it felt like a slap in the face that the Protoss could be corrupted by a lowly biological race, and they made the appearance of infested Protoss in the comics only semi-canon.
|
United States7483 Posts
Not a single comment on Protoss. I'm genuinely interested in why that is: is it that they think Protoss is fine as is and doesn't need work (seems unlikely), or because they're working so hard on the terran and zerg stuff that they don't have time for Protoss right now, or is it that they're working on a lot of Protoss stuff but have nothing concrete to share yet?
|
On July 03 2015 13:26 Whitewing wrote:
Not a single comment on Protoss. I'm genuinely interested in why that is: is it that they think Protoss is fine as is and doesn't need work (seems unlikely), or because they're working so hard on the terran and zerg stuff that they don't have time for Protoss right now, or is it that they're working on a lot of Protoss stuff but have nothing concrete to share yet?
Protoss is very precariously balanced. Void Ray all ins were devastating. Blink had to be chain nerfed into balance. MSC was all over the place and is finally okay. All the pylon warp in nerfs. The T and Z stuff has more room to wiggle.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 03 2015 13:29 Dota_Lust wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 13:26 Whitewing wrote:
Not a single comment on Protoss. I'm genuinely interested in why that is: is it that they think Protoss is fine as is and doesn't need work (seems unlikely), or because they're working so hard on the terran and zerg stuff that they don't have time for Protoss right now, or is it that they're working on a lot of Protoss stuff but have nothing concrete to share yet? Protoss is very precariously balanced. Void Ray all ins were devastating. Blink had to be chain nerfed into balance. MSC was all over the place and is finally okay. All the pylon warp in nerfs. The T and Z stuff has more room to wiggle.
I was referring to Protoss in LOTV, which isn't really working at all right now. It's pretty much mass adept every game until you either win (somehow), or you lose.
|
On July 03 2015 13:36 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 13:29 Dota_Lust wrote:On July 03 2015 13:26 Whitewing wrote:
Not a single comment on Protoss. I'm genuinely interested in why that is: is it that they think Protoss is fine as is and doesn't need work (seems unlikely), or because they're working so hard on the terran and zerg stuff that they don't have time for Protoss right now, or is it that they're working on a lot of Protoss stuff but have nothing concrete to share yet? Protoss is very precariously balanced. Void Ray all ins were devastating. Blink had to be chain nerfed into balance. MSC was all over the place and is finally okay. All the pylon warp in nerfs. The T and Z stuff has more room to wiggle. I was referring to Protoss in LOTV, which isn't really working at all right now. It's pretty much mass adept every game until you either win (somehow), or you lose.
I really really hope the lack of change to Protoss is because they have some sort of huge change in their racial design in the works that they're not willing to share right now. I know that's super unlikely but I can dream, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
