|
There was a very comprehensive article written by TL staff members about 10 days ago discussing the Ravager. See here:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/498719-legacy-of-the-week-ravager
Unfortunately, I couldn't answer many of these questions because my opinion of the Ravager is based on my play style: I mech against all three races. When I see Polt or other Bio Terran's play versus the Ravager, I don't see as much of an issue with "Ravager Bombs" since you can simply side-step their attack (in some cases).
With mech, avoiding the Ravager attacks becomes problematic because of its mobility. I am very concerned about the variety of Terran play style as it stands today. For instance, Pro players that are traditionally 'mech only' like HTOMario or ESCGoOdy have either switched to Bio or are playing different races (like GoOdy did in the last HSC qualifier as Protoss) because they admittedly find the map pool either not conducive to mech or they find TvZ nearly unplayable as a consistent mech Terran.
After reviewing my replay below, I feel the unit just counters too many things: Mines, Tanks, liberator, Thors, killing scvs (behind mineral line), and even sniping Terran Orbital commands. I have many replays with the Ravager, but I found this one most revealing because it gives a sense of how, over a 40 minutes game, ground mech interacts with Ravagers. I didn't want to post replays about early Ravager pushes on maps like Ulrena because some early Roach/Ravager aggression that is very strong is likely related to the map pool.
I think the overarching theme of this post is not necessarily Ravager issues; rather the role the Ravager plays forces a limited play style and reduces the viability of mech - something I don't think is good for the game. I am an aggressive, non-turtle, mech player and it feels like it lost a lot of power in LOTV to the point TvZ has turned "bio only." If I were just focusing on Mech TvZ and changes to the Ravager, I would likely address their movement speed to make it less forgiving when launching their "bombs"; similar to how Swarm Hosts in HOTS could not run away if all their locust died to an advancing mech army, but this could cause issues against Bio for Zerg.
Please Note: I did "GG" after the game and had a very amicable discussion about the Ravager with my opponent post gameplay. He played very well regardless of the state of the unit.
http://ggtracker.com/matches/6272734
|
Unpopular opinion incoming:
Bio kills mech more than ravagers.
Bio is just better - so much better that mech isn't usually worth pursuing. You buff mech to compensate and Terran is bonkers. You nerf ravagers (which will happen, I'm sure) and you'll have more viable mech, sure; but people will still opt for bio 9 times out of 10.
I'll edit this to say what I've been saying for ages and ages: if tanks did more damage, ravagers wouldn't be a threat to mech. Tanks outrange ravagers. You have to move into tank range to fire the corrosive bile. If there's no supporting army with the ravager, they die to tanks. Problem is, people will dart in with their army, eat some tank hits with roaches and move out after ravagers fire. Tanks do such paltry damage that this is viable. It should be punished. If tanks hit hard people couldn't just walk in and whittle away your front lines.
A full-on 200/200 mech vs 200/200 zerg battle, even with ravagers, mech does well. It's the stuff at the start where they chip away at your numbers that hurts (at least in my experience).
But hey, we know tanks will always be secondary to bio. It's been like that for 5 years. Clearly that's their vision of Terran.
|
"Unfortunately, I couldn't answer many of these questions because my opinion of the Ravager is based on my play style: I mech against all three races."
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the post, but I have to ask politely: why should we be concerned about an argument based on one player's eccentric play-style - or even a small subset of player styles (i.e., those who play the mech style in every match up)?
Further, we might question why you want a single unit composition to be viable against all three races. Doesn't that seem a bit strange? Also, how exactly is that good for the game?
As a Zerg player, I know that playing the same unit composition in HOTS (like Roach/Hydra) was simply not possible against Terran Bio; you would suffer too much damage to drops. Often you had to scout out and compose your units in reaction to your opponent. Thus, as Zerg, you could not stick to one unit composition and hope for success against all three races (like Roach/Hydra).
Just because the mech style might have been viable against all three races in the past doesn't mean it needs to continue to be viable. In fact, looking at all three races, the idea of a single mid-to-late game unit composition (mech) that is effective in all three match ups may have been unique to Terran.
Even if that's not the case, this basically seems to be your argument: "I've always made this unit composition against every race. There's this new unit that makes that less viable. So, please nerf that unit."
|
The ravager is definitely good vs Mech at the moment, but I don't think it is what kills the playstyle in TvZ.
The style is and has always been dead vs Protoss. It has been dead at times against Zerg. And it has been the weaker style in TvT for most of SC2's existance.
There are many reasons why Mech isn't such a great style and I think the ravager is a rather peripheral problem while the true reason in my opinion is mainly that Mech lacks the midgame antiground power itself. Which leads into problems on all fronts:
- antiair (can you really afford it? The units are there, but mixing them in is a very risky thing)
- pushing power (opponent's can take bases very freely against Mech; midgame pushes aren't that bad but so allin that a scouting opponent often gets a gamewinning advantage from you trying them)
- infrastructure (you often have to decide between a decent setup with armories, factories and starports or actually being capable of holding of pushes)
I feel like the siege tank is the core problem here. Its powercurve is too exponential, making the unit too weak in lower numbers and borderline too strong when you have an army of those fortifying a position. The old call for overkill/damage buffed tanks comes to mind...
I mean, alternatively other units could also take over that role, but since they are either cheap resource dumps (hellbats, widow mines) or rather all-around with antiair possibly mobility and other traits (cyclone, widow mine, Thor, liberator) it's really on the siege tank or maybe the banshee to just have the power to hold the line.
|
frankly, I personally found mech unbearable to play when bliz took away the option to stall with swarmhosts so you're only left with the option to brace for a 45+ min game suiciding hundreds of roaches while managing 5 bases hoping he makes a mistake. Whatever bliz does to correct the ravager situation, I hope it doesn't go back to that frustrating interaction.
I really don't understand how tanks get cpuntered by roach ravager unless a corrosive bile volley kills 2-3 tanks at a time. I still fear that mech has more potential against z now compared to before because:
1. A single liberator to threaten mineral lines forces minimum 300 gas worth of ravagers to stay home
2. Wide as fuck 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, etc and when drones die to suicidal bf hellions, it's not as easy as before to replace them. More reasons for roaches to stay home
3. Far distances of other bases forces you to get corruptors just to shoo away the liberator. All that gas is not going to roach ravager
4. I dont even know anymore when is a good idea to tech switch to mutas to put pressure against mech and force him to spend minerals on scvs and turrets instead of scans and hellions which excerbates #2 & #3.
|
Mech being unviable is a good thing
|
On November 27 2015 12:02 Reki wrote:
frankly, I personally found mech unbearable to play when bliz took away the option to stall with swarmhosts so you're only left with the option to brace for a 45+ min game suiciding hundreds of roaches while managing 5 bases hoping he makes a mistake. Whatever bliz does to correct the ravager situation, I hope it doesn't go back to that frustrating interaction.
I really don't understand how tanks get cpuntered by roach ravager unless a corrosive bile volley kills 2-3 tanks at a time. I still fear that mech has more potential against z now compared to before because:
1. A single liberator to threaten mineral lines forces minimum 300 gas worth of ravagers to stay home
2. Wide as fuck 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, etc and when drones die to suicidal bf hellions, it's not as easy as before to replace them. More reasons for roaches to stay home
3. Far distances of other bases forces you to get corruptors just to shoo away the liberator. All that gas is not going to roach ravager
4. I dont even know anymore when is a good idea to tech switch to mutas to put pressure against mech and force him to spend minerals on scvs and turrets instead of scans and hellions which excerbates #2 & #3.
then throw down a spore in two in places to stop liberators
or heres a fancy idea, move your queen(s) around the bigass circle and force an unsiege?
|
On November 27 2015 12:32 arb wrote:
or heres a fancy idea, move your queen(s) around the bigass circle and force an unsiege?
Not on maps like scrap station 2015 where it can set camp on impassable terrain. More annoying if its on your 3rd or 4th and you have to move queens all the way there which doesn't do much. You're better off making 3 spores on each base or playing a chasing game with your single spore until a corruptor pops.
|
On November 27 2015 02:27 heywoodflloyd wrote:Show nested quote +"Unfortunately, I couldn't answer many of these questions because my opinion of the Ravager is based on my play style: I mech against all three races." I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the post, but I have to ask politely: why should we be concerned about an argument based on one player's eccentric play-style - or even a small subset of player styles (i.e., those who play the mech style in every match up)? Further, we might question why you want a single unit composition to be viable against all three races. Doesn't that seem a bit strange? Also, how exactly is that good for the game? As a Zerg player, I know that playing the same unit composition in HOTS (like Roach/Hydra) was simply not possible against Terran Bio; you would suffer too much damage to drops. Often you had to scout out and compose your units in reaction to your opponent. Thus, as Zerg, you could not stick to one unit composition and hope for success against all three races (like Roach/Hydra). Just because the mech style might have been viable against all three races in the past doesn't mean it needs to continue to be viable. In fact, looking at all three races, the idea of a single mid-to-late game unit composition (mech) that is effective in all three match ups may have been unique to Terran. Even if that's not the case, this basically seems to be your argument: "I've always made this unit composition against every race. There's this new unit that makes that less viable. So, please nerf that unit."
To answer your question about catering to my play style I guess I have to define Mech: Your main army composition comes out of the Factory and Starport (primarily Factory with support from the Starport or else it would be Sky Terran). This does not mean I always make X amount of Tanks, X amount of Thors, and X amount of Helions or WM etc; I need to adjust my army composition depending on what I scan from my opponent. If I see Ling/Ultra then Helion/Thor; If I see mass Roach/Hyrda/Viper then mass Tank/WM/Viking. It is not like I don't adapt to what compositions I see. Mech, contrary to many opinions, is very hard to play because of the tech switches, but it can be very strong too. This play style has been used by many pro's in HOTS, like Flash and forGG. So as a Zerg (which your are), think of this way, if massing T3 units against another race stopped being viable wouldn't that diminish the games variety? I'm talking about exploring different pathways in the game that make it interesting to play. I don't think that making 'Bio' the only viable solution to TvZ is a very interesting solution and does not contribute to the longevity of Sc2.
|
On November 27 2015 02:43 Big J wrote:The ravager is definitely good vs Mech at the moment, but I don't think it is what kills the playstyle in TvZ. The style is and has always been dead vs Protoss. It has been dead at times against Zerg. And it has been the weaker style in TvT for most of SC2's existance. There are many reasons why Mech isn't such a great style and I think the ravager is a rather peripheral problem while the true reason in my opinion is mainly that Mech lacks the midgame antiground power itself. Which leads into problems on all fronts: - antiair (can you really afford it? The units are there, but mixing them in is a very risky thing)
- pushing power (opponent's can take bases very freely against Mech; midgame pushes aren't that bad but so allin that a scouting opponent often gets a gamewinning advantage from you trying them)
- infrastructure (you often have to decide between a decent setup with armories, factories and starports or actually being capable of holding of pushes)
I feel like the siege tank is the core problem here. Its powercurve is too exponential, making the unit too weak in lower numbers and borderline too strong when you have an army of those fortifying a position. The old call for overkill/damage buffed tanks comes to mind... I mean, alternatively other units could also take over that role, but since they are either cheap resource dumps (hellbats, widow mines) or rather all-around with antiair possibly mobility and other traits (cyclone, widow mine, Thor, liberator) it's really on the siege tank or maybe the banshee to just have the power to hold the line.
Your points are valid and there is a fine balance. Ironically, which got me to GM, is my TvP mech. Which I perceive as more of a mid-game problem (as you describe) than Zerg. But I think you can squelch both Zerg and Protoss mass expansion by constant harass (either Helbat, Liberator, WM (drop), or Banshee). Sometimes TvP mech victories can be attributed to the fact your opponent does not know how to properly respond to mech, which can be part of the strategy; much like a person playing the 'Random' race; this can happen in TvZ too.
To your points about the mid-game: I think many players when they hear "Mech" they think turtle Avilo (no offense Avilo). But the truth is there can be many timing attacks with Mech depending on the damage dealt early game. Siege Tanks are pretty crappy unless you have 20+ of them which has worked for me when I see my opponent massing "squishy" units like Stalkers or Roaches. But Overall, it is what you feign to your opponent that can win you the game: Such as building a Raven to destroy any Observers and dropping late factories so they are in-the-dark about mech.
My point is their was a viable style of Mech and that window is slowly closing. Now, even if I "trick" my opponent or deny scouting capability to my base, it doesn't really matter...they have units that counter both Bio and Mech. So what is the point?
|
On November 27 2015 12:28 Paljas wrote:
Mech being unviable is a good thing
Define Mech. If you want less variety to Sc2, that is a bad thing. FYI: Bio all day long is not fun to watch nor play.
|
On November 27 2015 13:35 SirPinky wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2015 02:27 heywoodflloyd wrote:"Unfortunately, I couldn't answer many of these questions because my opinion of the Ravager is based on my play style: I mech against all three races." I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the post, but I have to ask politely: why should we be concerned about an argument based on one player's eccentric play-style - or even a small subset of player styles (i.e., those who play the mech style in every match up)? Further, we might question why you want a single unit composition to be viable against all three races. Doesn't that seem a bit strange? Also, how exactly is that good for the game? As a Zerg player, I know that playing the same unit composition in HOTS (like Roach/Hydra) was simply not possible against Terran Bio; you would suffer too much damage to drops. Often you had to scout out and compose your units in reaction to your opponent. Thus, as Zerg, you could not stick to one unit composition and hope for success against all three races (like Roach/Hydra). Just because the mech style might have been viable against all three races in the past doesn't mean it needs to continue to be viable. In fact, looking at all three races, the idea of a single mid-to-late game unit composition (mech) that is effective in all three match ups may have been unique to Terran. Even if that's not the case, this basically seems to be your argument: "I've always made this unit composition against every race. There's this new unit that makes that less viable. So, please nerf that unit." To answer your question about catering to my play style I guess I have to define Mech: Your main army composition comes out of the Factory and Starport (primarily Factory with support from the Starport or else it would be Sky Terran). This does not mean I always make X amount of Tanks, X amount of Thors, and X amount of Helions or WM etc; I need to adjust my army composition depending on what I scan from my opponent. If I see Ling/Ultra then Helion/Thor; If I see mass Roach/Hyrda/Viper then mass Tank/WM/Viking. It is not like I don't adapt to what compositions I see. Mech, contrary to many opinions, is very hard to play because of the tech switches, but it can be very strong too. This play style has been used by many pro's in HOTS, like Flash and forGG. So as a Zerg (which your are), think of this way, if massing T3 units against another race stopped being viable wouldn't that diminish the games variety? I'm talking about exploring different pathways in the game that make it interesting to play. I don't think that making 'Bio' the only viable solution to TvZ is a very interesting solution and does not contribute to the longevity of Sc2.
Especially since terrans have been playing the same bio playstyle since WoL. Like Big J brought up, the problem in mech lies in it's anti-air and the siege tank. It has no reliable anti-air on the ground, and the goliath would be an acceptable band-aid fix. As for the tank...I forgot who said it in this thread, but its too weak in small numbers (important for positional play) and too strong in a 200/200 army. Buffing damage and removing overkill protection would probably be the best course of action as it makes tanks strong in smaller numbers, but that power curve diminishes as more siege tanks accumulate which makes it harder to use in large numbers as good players will be able to distribute the focus firing evenly. A win-win situation: positional play is healthy for the game (and healthy for mech) and a buff for it would be appreciated, and making mech have a much higher micro skill cap... I fail to see how thats bad.
I guess why people hate mech is because its so turtly into deathbally. It doesn't need to be like this. The tank (the should-be backbone of the mech army) is highly positional. But in SC2, securing an arbitrary location and defensing it doesn't mean much: the advantage doesn't feel like much, really. The only place where you get this positional advantage is at home, and mech needs a long time to build up an army to push out, so from what I understand, thats why its so campy. If mech were stronger and could hold positions with well positioned hellbats, a few tanks and some air support (Goliaths? Cyclones? Vikings? Missile turrets?), I think it should lead to cooler games. Players would need to split up their forces in turn and play accordingly: using flanks or some important abilities to wear them down (protoss had to use stasis in broodwar, maybe drops, immortals leading the charge with barrier and being picked up by warp prisms + disruptors in SC2).
Bio and mech are polar opposites, and the word "Terran" shouldn't have you just thinking about a legion of marines flying in a medivac. Bio is very anti-positional (thats fine tbh, not all matchups need to be positional to be fun. Bio vs zerg has always been incredible to play and watch), decisive and "intense" playstyle, whereas mech (should be) is positional, deliberate, and patient. When I face a terran, It should be like im facing a random player: I need to scout which race I'm facing: bio or mech.
Instead of relying on a massive push to make it across the map, mech should be all about inching your way forward, securing key locations and defending them. The mass pushes are left to bio. The slow pushes that take entire games are mech. And mech doesn't have to be boring: the skill in both players lies in using strategy and powerful spells/specialized units (instead of raw firepower) to constantly shift the lines of war. Zerg has vipers, terran has siege tanks. Of course this is idealized, but I do believe that if blizzard tries hard enough, this can come true.
So, what are my suggestions? For now its:
Goliaths as a reliable and powerful anti-air option instead of the viking
Siege tanks with a maelstrom upgrade (20-40 damage) (since theyre already powerful enough vs swarmy units like the marine and the hellbat got the zergling covered and need to be stronger against induvidual units such as protoss units and ultralisks) and removed overkill protection
Of course, this won't instantly fix the game, but its a step in the right direction. In my heart, the LoTV beta doesn't have to end. But at some point it should. As for the cyclone, it fills a cool niche role, and it can be that weird unit brought out in certain situatutions (like the swarmhost)
I could also go on a rant about some other changes, but I'll refrain from doing so. Those 2 changes should be satisfactory
EDIT: The liberator should stay out of mech play. The tank should have just about all the ground damage covered. The liberator is fine in bio play though.
|
Tanks counter ravagers as well as roaches.
|
On November 27 2015 14:05 DilemaH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2015 13:35 SirPinky wrote:On November 27 2015 02:27 heywoodflloyd wrote:"Unfortunately, I couldn't answer many of these questions because my opinion of the Ravager is based on my play style: I mech against all three races." I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the post, but I have to ask politely: why should we be concerned about an argument based on one player's eccentric play-style - or even a small subset of player styles (i.e., those who play the mech style in every match up)? Further, we might question why you want a single unit composition to be viable against all three races. Doesn't that seem a bit strange? Also, how exactly is that good for the game? As a Zerg player, I know that playing the same unit composition in HOTS (like Roach/Hydra) was simply not possible against Terran Bio; you would suffer too much damage to drops. Often you had to scout out and compose your units in reaction to your opponent. Thus, as Zerg, you could not stick to one unit composition and hope for success against all three races (like Roach/Hydra). Just because the mech style might have been viable against all three races in the past doesn't mean it needs to continue to be viable. In fact, looking at all three races, the idea of a single mid-to-late game unit composition (mech) that is effective in all three match ups may have been unique to Terran. Even if that's not the case, this basically seems to be your argument: "I've always made this unit composition against every race. There's this new unit that makes that less viable. So, please nerf that unit." To answer your question about catering to my play style I guess I have to define Mech: Your main army composition comes out of the Factory and Starport (primarily Factory with support from the Starport or else it would be Sky Terran). This does not mean I always make X amount of Tanks, X amount of Thors, and X amount of Helions or WM etc; I need to adjust my army composition depending on what I scan from my opponent. If I see Ling/Ultra then Helion/Thor; If I see mass Roach/Hyrda/Viper then mass Tank/WM/Viking. It is not like I don't adapt to what compositions I see. Mech, contrary to many opinions, is very hard to play because of the tech switches, but it can be very strong too. This play style has been used by many pro's in HOTS, like Flash and forGG. So as a Zerg (which your are), think of this way, if massing T3 units against another race stopped being viable wouldn't that diminish the games variety? I'm talking about exploring different pathways in the game that make it interesting to play. I don't think that making 'Bio' the only viable solution to TvZ is a very interesting solution and does not contribute to the longevity of Sc2. Especially since terrans have been playing the same bio playstyle since WoL. Like Big J brought up, the problem in mech lies in it's anti-air and the siege tank. It has no reliable anti-air on the ground, and the goliath would be an acceptable band-aid fix. As for the tank...I forgot who said it in this thread, but its too weak in small numbers (important for positional play) and too strong in a 200/200 army. Buffing damage and removing overkill protection would probably be the best course of action as it makes tanks strong in smaller numbers, but that power curve diminishes as more siege tanks accumulate which makes it harder to use in large numbers as good players will be able to distribute the focus firing evenly. A win-win situation: positional play is healthy for the game (and healthy for mech) and a buff for it would be appreciated, and making mech have a much higher micro skill cap... I fail to see how thats bad. I guess why people hate mech is because its so turtly into deathbally. It doesn't need to be like this. The tank (the should-be backbone of the mech army) is highly positional. But in SC2, securing an arbitrary location and defensing it doesn't mean much: the advantage doesn't feel like much, really. The only place where you get this positional advantage is at home, and mech needs a long time to build up an army to push out, so from what I understand, thats why its so campy. If mech were stronger and could hold positions with well positioned hellbats, a few tanks and some air support (Goliaths? Cyclones? Vikings? Missile turrets?), I think it should lead to cooler games. Players would need to split up their forces in turn and play accordingly: using flanks or some important abilities to wear them down (protoss had to use stasis in broodwar, maybe drops, immortals leading the charge with barrier and being picked up by warp prisms + disruptors in SC2). Bio and mech are polar opposites, and the word "Terran" shouldn't have you just thinking about a legion of marines flying in a medivac. Bio is very anti-positional (thats fine tbh, not all matchups need to be positional to be fun. Bio vs zerg has always been incredible to play and watch), decisive and "intense" playstyle, whereas mech (should be) is positional, deliberate, and patient. When I face a terran, It should be like im facing a random player: I need to scout which race I'm facing: bio or mech. Instead of relying on a massive push to make it across the map, mech should be all about inching your way forward, securing key locations and defending them. The mass pushes are left to bio. The slow pushes that take entire games are mech. And mech doesn't have to be boring: the skill in both players lies in using strategy and powerful spells/specialized units (instead of raw firepower) to constantly shift the lines of war. Zerg has vipers, terran has siege tanks. Of course this is idealized, but I do believe that if blizzard tries hard enough, this can come true. So, what are my suggestions? For now its: Goliaths as a reliable and powerful anti-air option instead of the viking Siege tanks with a maelstrom upgrade (20-40 damage) (since theyre already powerful enough vs swarmy units like the marine and the hellbat got the zergling covered and need to be stronger against induvidual units such as protoss units and ultralisks) and removed overkill protection Of course, this won't instantly fix the game, but its a step in the right direction. In my heart, the LoTV beta doesn't have to end. But at some point it should. As for the cyclone, it fills a cool niche role, and it can be that weird unit brought out in certain situatutions (like the swarmhost) I could also go on a rant about some other changes, but I'll refrain from doing so. Those 2 changes should be satisfactory EDIT: The liberator should stay out of mech play. The tank should have just about all the ground damage covered. The liberator is fine in bio play though.
First off, thanks for the long and thoughtful post. I couldn't agree with your more on your summary of Mech play. Especially on the part that "Mech doesn't have to be boring". Many players perceive Mech as a "turtle style" that lasts for hours. But your example of a "slow push" or someone sieging a players base I find very exciting. Will they hold? Will their opponent drop/nydus/warp prism instead? It creates unique gameplay. For instance, one time, MarineKing, in a large tournament (I forget which one), overcame WhiteRa by making 3 factories and mass helions. Will you see that in LOTV? Probably not due to the Pylon cannon. Nonetheless, I'm not saying the game is less balanced; however, in its current state it favors only one type of play - Bio.
Although I do need some clarity on your suggestions about units from Sc1 like the Goliath and maelstrom. I'm not too sure I understand.
|
On November 27 2015 02:15 Mjolnir wrote:
Unpopular opinion incoming:
Bio kills mech more than ravagers.
Bio is just better - so much better that mech isn't usually worth pursuing. You buff mech to compensate and Terran is bonkers. You nerf ravagers (which will happen, I'm sure) and you'll have more viable mech, sure; but people will still opt for bio 9 times out of 10.
I'll edit this to say what I've been saying for ages and ages: if tanks did more damage, ravagers wouldn't be a threat to mech. Tanks outrange ravagers. You have to move into tank range to fire the corrosive bile. If there's no supporting army with the ravager, they die to tanks. Problem is, people will dart in with their army, eat some tank hits with roaches and move out after ravagers fire. Tanks do such paltry damage that this is viable. It should be punished. If tanks hit hard people couldn't just walk in and whittle away your front lines.
A full-on 200/200 mech vs 200/200 zerg battle, even with ravagers, mech does well. It's the stuff at the start where they chip away at your numbers that hurts (at least in my experience).
But hey, we know tanks will always be secondary to bio. It's been like that for 5 years. Clearly that's their vision of Terran.
I don't think your opinion is unpopular; in fact, it is spot on. Bio is better than Mech most of the time. Tanks should do more damage. In Sc2 you should have defensive and offensive units. Right now the tank falls in the middle of the two categories - similar to the Cyclone. Blizzard needs to make up their mind. I choose the Siege Tank mainly because of its splash damage; nonetheless, sometimes I need to laugh when I see 4-5 Immortals kill over 15 tanks that are unprotected by bufferings units like Helbats or mines. Or have one blinding cloud render most of my army useless.
I would, however, disagree with your statement about a 200/200 army these days "doing well" versus a Zerg. This is the reason for the genesis of my post. Currently a maxed out Zerg is trading evenly, if not better, versus mech. If you look at my replay you can see my point. For a race that can tech switch so easily yet at the same time trade efficiently does not make sense (regarding Mech). So the logic appear to be that Bio is the only solution (which is sad for the game).
|
On November 27 2015 16:25 SirPinky wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2015 14:05 DilemaH wrote:On November 27 2015 13:35 SirPinky wrote:On November 27 2015 02:27 heywoodflloyd wrote:"Unfortunately, I couldn't answer many of these questions because my opinion of the Ravager is based on my play style: I mech against all three races." I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the post, but I have to ask politely: why should we be concerned about an argument based on one player's eccentric play-style - or even a small subset of player styles (i.e., those who play the mech style in every match up)? Further, we might question why you want a single unit composition to be viable against all three races. Doesn't that seem a bit strange? Also, how exactly is that good for the game? As a Zerg player, I know that playing the same unit composition in HOTS (like Roach/Hydra) was simply not possible against Terran Bio; you would suffer too much damage to drops. Often you had to scout out and compose your units in reaction to your opponent. Thus, as Zerg, you could not stick to one unit composition and hope for success against all three races (like Roach/Hydra). Just because the mech style might have been viable against all three races in the past doesn't mean it needs to continue to be viable. In fact, looking at all three races, the idea of a single mid-to-late game unit composition (mech) that is effective in all three match ups may have been unique to Terran. Even if that's not the case, this basically seems to be your argument: "I've always made this unit composition against every race. There's this new unit that makes that less viable. So, please nerf that unit." To answer your question about catering to my play style I guess I have to define Mech: Your main army composition comes out of the Factory and Starport (primarily Factory with support from the Starport or else it would be Sky Terran). This does not mean I always make X amount of Tanks, X amount of Thors, and X amount of Helions or WM etc; I need to adjust my army composition depending on what I scan from my opponent. If I see Ling/Ultra then Helion/Thor; If I see mass Roach/Hyrda/Viper then mass Tank/WM/Viking. It is not like I don't adapt to what compositions I see. Mech, contrary to many opinions, is very hard to play because of the tech switches, but it can be very strong too. This play style has been used by many pro's in HOTS, like Flash and forGG. So as a Zerg (which your are), think of this way, if massing T3 units against another race stopped being viable wouldn't that diminish the games variety? I'm talking about exploring different pathways in the game that make it interesting to play. I don't think that making 'Bio' the only viable solution to TvZ is a very interesting solution and does not contribute to the longevity of Sc2. Especially since terrans have been playing the same bio playstyle since WoL. Like Big J brought up, the problem in mech lies in it's anti-air and the siege tank. It has no reliable anti-air on the ground, and the goliath would be an acceptable band-aid fix. As for the tank...I forgot who said it in this thread, but its too weak in small numbers (important for positional play) and too strong in a 200/200 army. Buffing damage and removing overkill protection would probably be the best course of action as it makes tanks strong in smaller numbers, but that power curve diminishes as more siege tanks accumulate which makes it harder to use in large numbers as good players will be able to distribute the focus firing evenly. A win-win situation: positional play is healthy for the game (and healthy for mech) and a buff for it would be appreciated, and making mech have a much higher micro skill cap... I fail to see how thats bad. I guess why people hate mech is because its so turtly into deathbally. It doesn't need to be like this. The tank (the should-be backbone of the mech army) is highly positional. But in SC2, securing an arbitrary location and defensing it doesn't mean much: the advantage doesn't feel like much, really. The only place where you get this positional advantage is at home, and mech needs a long time to build up an army to push out, so from what I understand, thats why its so campy. If mech were stronger and could hold positions with well positioned hellbats, a few tanks and some air support (Goliaths? Cyclones? Vikings? Missile turrets?), I think it should lead to cooler games. Players would need to split up their forces in turn and play accordingly: using flanks or some important abilities to wear them down (protoss had to use stasis in broodwar, maybe drops, immortals leading the charge with barrier and being picked up by warp prisms + disruptors in SC2). Bio and mech are polar opposites, and the word "Terran" shouldn't have you just thinking about a legion of marines flying in a medivac. Bio is very anti-positional (thats fine tbh, not all matchups need to be positional to be fun. Bio vs zerg has always been incredible to play and watch), decisive and "intense" playstyle, whereas mech (should be) is positional, deliberate, and patient. When I face a terran, It should be like im facing a random player: I need to scout which race I'm facing: bio or mech. Instead of relying on a massive push to make it across the map, mech should be all about inching your way forward, securing key locations and defending them. The mass pushes are left to bio. The slow pushes that take entire games are mech. And mech doesn't have to be boring: the skill in both players lies in using strategy and powerful spells/specialized units (instead of raw firepower) to constantly shift the lines of war. Zerg has vipers, terran has siege tanks. Of course this is idealized, but I do believe that if blizzard tries hard enough, this can come true. So, what are my suggestions? For now its: Goliaths as a reliable and powerful anti-air option instead of the viking Siege tanks with a maelstrom upgrade (20-40 damage) (since theyre already powerful enough vs swarmy units like the marine and the hellbat got the zergling covered and need to be stronger against induvidual units such as protoss units and ultralisks) and removed overkill protection Of course, this won't instantly fix the game, but its a step in the right direction. In my heart, the LoTV beta doesn't have to end. But at some point it should. As for the cyclone, it fills a cool niche role, and it can be that weird unit brought out in certain situatutions (like the swarmhost) I could also go on a rant about some other changes, but I'll refrain from doing so. Those 2 changes should be satisfactory EDIT: The liberator should stay out of mech play. The tank should have just about all the ground damage covered. The liberator is fine in bio play though. First off, thanks for the long and thoughtful post. I couldn't agree with your more on your summary of Mech play. Especially on the part that "Mech doesn't have to be boring". Many players perceive Mech as a "turtle style" that lasts for hours. But your example of a "slow push" or someone sieging a players base I find very exciting. Will they hold? Will their opponent drop/nydus/warp prism instead? It creates unique gameplay. For instance, one time, MarineKing, in a large tournament (I forget which one), overcame WhiteRa by making 3 factories and mass helions. Will you see that in LOTV? Probably not due to the Pylon cannon. Nonetheless, I'm not saying the game is less balanced; however, in its current state it favors only one type of play - Bio. Although I do need some clarity on your suggestions about units from Sc1 like the Goliath and maelstrom. I'm not too sure I understand.
I only suggest the Goliath because mech needs a solid and reliable source of anti-air. The Goliath is just this: a solid anti-air option with no strings attached. Plus, the cyclone has found it's own niche role and I don't think it should be changed. It's for surviving some early game pushes, driving off drop ships, and usefull for base raids with hellions. As for the thor... I don't know.
The maelstrom upgrade is because tanks can deal with groups of smaller units easily, but struggles against larger enemies (enemy thors, Protoss in general and especially the Ultralisk). Mech lacks that anti-large ground unit damage, and the tank, being the staple of mech play, should be this. A few extra buffs to aoe, damage etc are all secondary. Plus, out of all the changes, this makes deathball ing with mech the worst: damage will be lost with overkill protection off, and the damage will fall off the most with maelstrom: only a few tanks will hit their primary target, making maelstrom not benefit them too much against medium sized groups of units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
