|
On January 01 2016 00:56 DinoMight wrote:
Lol, listen to yourself. It's not that bio is bad, it's that it instantly loses to Reavers and Storm.
Okay then...
On January 01 2016 01:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What he is saying is reavers hard countering an entire tech tree is good game design, but immortals soft countering an entire tech tree is bad game design.
I am saying neither of that.
What I am saying is that perhaps it would be nice for a change to see different unit compositions being used in different match ups. I mean, right now it is kind of like that but its very subtle. Maybe people wouldnt be crying for mech if mech was the more prominent unit composition in one match up while bio is the preferred composition in the other match ups. I am not sure if this would make the playing experience any better but it could improve the viewing experience.
What I am saying is that, if you want to see more mech, maybe you dont need to buff mech and you dont need to nerf bio. Maybe you need to change something about either of the other races.
|
On January 01 2016 00:25 DinoMight wrote:
Blizzard didn't fragment the upgrades because they thought, you know, Terran should have two completely different play styles.
They fragmented the upgrades because when they initially designed the game, before a pro scene ever existed, it made sense to them. The same way that a flying Command Center can't land on a Zergling. The same way that Banshee pilots are Female. Why? Who the fuck knows. That's how they designed it.
Now as players we want to play the best possible way. This is why bio is prevalent.
Even if "mech was viable" people would still play bio if bio was better. In order for mech to really truly be viable it would have to be JUST AS GOOD or better than bio.
IMO this isn't going to happen because it's really hard to beat the Marine on cost effectiveness.
Also, buffing certain mech units too much will make people just use them WITH bio (see the Liberator).
I'm here wondering if you are a time traveler because it seems you skipped almost all of HotS, where, you know, both where prevalent.
|
On December 31 2015 12:14 pure.Wasted wrote:
I'm going to respond to your post a little bit out of order, Spyridon, so I can more clearly show where I'm coming from.
...
That said, I find great irony in the image you paint of me as some sort of mech extremist, when the very first thing I did in my post was agree with you that "bio" is a very relative term. If I think that it's OK for "bio" to have, under its umbrella, some WMs, some Tanks, some Thors, some Medivacs, some Liberators, you don't think that I might also be OK with "mech" having, under its umbrella, some Marauder hit squads, or some Medivacs to move the Tanks around, or some Liberators adding extra space control?
As I read through your post, I was trying to understand your side of the argument, but the question that kept popping up in my mind is "why exactly is this person responding to me in the first place?". Because basically all of your arguments are implying I said things I never did, and/or trying to claim the game encourages compositions to be made from 1 production building just because 1 of the 9 matchups in the game at one point of SC2's life had a metagame where TvT was mostly (not even primarily) mech. When even the matchups in the point you mention were actually bio + mech rather than mech alone (before late game).
Then you went on with the "extremist" comments, which don't really make sense, because your first response to my post was disagreeing, and now your claiming you were agreeing with some thoughts about bio? You did not even mention bio at all during your first post to me!
I don't think your an extremist, I think you are a liar and are obviously trolling. It becomes very obvious when people can just scroll up to see what your claiming now is a lie. "The first thing you said to me" was NOT agreeing with me about bio, blatant lie.
And then the most obvious sign...
Brood War.
"The entire design of Terran [in Brood War] supports this - You need 1 production building in order to tech to the next. How much more obvious do they have to be that you are not supposed to use [Mech] alone?"
When, in fact, Brood War mech had a less varied unit comp than SC2 bio OR SC2 mech.
So you'll excuse me for taking your word for understanding Blizzard's philosophy on mech with a grain of salt in the future.
Nice job trying to be slight, but you STRAIGHT UP EDITED MY QUOTE!
I never mentioned anything about Brood War at all in that post of mine!!!
After doing that you can't even claim to be trying to make a logical point or have a conversation about this. Editing my words in order to argue shows malicious intent.
Thanks for proving your trolling so I can disregard you in the future and save the discussions for people who are actually serious.
On December 31 2015 23:48 p68 wrote:
I wanted to address a few points that weren't already covered here. I started a FAQ that anyone can feel free to edit and/or expand upon.
Why should mech be viable? Protoss players don't demand that robo play should be viable!
1. The Terran ground army is still fragmented by upgrades; not a single upgrade is universally shared across all ground units.
2. Factory units, in general, do not mesh well with bio gameplay.
But for attack and armor, there's five upgrades total for each race anyway!
One has to consider the average length of LOTV matches, the costs, and the tech involved. Terran must obtain a tier 3 tech building, the Armory, to start mech upgrades. Protoss and Zerg require a Tier 1 building.
Additionally, if each race wanted to get their ground units fully upgraded in a timely manner, consider the initial investment involved:
Zerg: three drones + three evolution chambers = 375/0 + opportunity cost of three larvae
Protoss: three forges: 450/0
Terran: two engineering bays + two armories = 550/200 + cost of lost mining time for each worker for the entire duration of construction
...
If the Terran ground army is supposed to be fragmented by upgrades and playstyle, one would anticipate that there would be some benefit for doing so. At least initially, it seems like this was Blizzard's intention. Recall back in WoL that Terran had 6 total attack and armor upgrades. Factory units had completely separate upgrades from bio or air, just like in Brood War. We saw this changed in HOTS, but the upgrade design still deterred players from playing a biomech style. Now that Blizzard has backpedaled from the factory+air style that the HOTS upgrade combinations promoted, it's more unclear what Blizzard's intent is at this point. I think what we're seeing now are the consequences of uncertainty from the design team.
Thank you for an actual SERIOUS discussion post!
On the topic of upgrades, I do think the numbers do not quite do reality justice considering most of the price you mention is in minerals rather than gas, and Terrans macro mechanic directly increases mineral production (a strength the other races do not have). So while there is some gas cost, at the same time the mineral cost time investment is effectively lower than the numbers say from what you listed.
With that said, I somewhat disagree with the statement that factory units do not mesh with well bio gameplay. In more bio heavy compositions (outside of drops) factory units as support are fairly common, as well as bio if we're talking about drop gameplay.
Your last paragraph, I completely agree with. One of my biggest problems with SC2's development is it does not seem like they have a clear vision of what they want. They wait until a problem and then try to fix it, but if you do that without a vision it becomes "bandaids" rather than "tweaking the game to fit their vision". Their goals have changed over the years and exactly as you said, we are seeing consequences of uncertainty, and that is found everywhere in the game nowdays, as well as pretty much the whole lotv beta was an aura of uncertainty.
Sadly, of all the Blizzard games from Diablo onward, SC2 seems to have the poorest design team/designs decisions of them all... Even worse than D3's...
|
On January 01 2016 01:53 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2016 00:25 DinoMight wrote:
Blizzard didn't fragment the upgrades because they thought, you know, Terran should have two completely different play styles.
They fragmented the upgrades because when they initially designed the game, before a pro scene ever existed, it made sense to them. The same way that a flying Command Center can't land on a Zergling. The same way that Banshee pilots are Female. Why? Who the fuck knows. That's how they designed it.
Now as players we want to play the best possible way. This is why bio is prevalent.
Even if "mech was viable" people would still play bio if bio was better. In order for mech to really truly be viable it would have to be JUST AS GOOD or better than bio.
IMO this isn't going to happen because it's really hard to beat the Marine on cost effectiveness.
Also, buffing certain mech units too much will make people just use them WITH bio (see the Liberator). I'm here wondering if you are a time traveler because it seems you skipped almost all of HotS, where, you know, both where prevalent.
Not vs P...
LotV econ change killed off mech more than unit changes IMO in the Z and T MUs.
|
On January 01 2016 01:45 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2016 00:56 DinoMight wrote:
Lol, listen to yourself. It's not that bio is bad, it's that it instantly loses to Reavers and Storm.
Okay then... Show nested quote +On January 01 2016 01:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What he is saying is reavers hard countering an entire tech tree is good game design, but immortals soft countering an entire tech tree is bad game design.
I am saying neither of that. What I am saying is that perhaps it would be nice for a change to see different unit compositions being used in different match ups. I mean, right now it is kind of like that but its very subtle. Maybe people wouldnt be crying for mech if mech was the more prominent unit composition in one match up while bio is the preferred composition in the other match ups. I am not sure if this would make the playing experience any better but it could improve the viewing experience. What I am saying is that, if you want to see more mech, maybe you dont need to buff mech and you dont need to nerf bio. Maybe you need to change something about either of the other races.
Bio was only useful in one matchup in BW. For the most part, Siege Tanks and Reavers hard countered them into oblivion.
In SC2, you have a more mixed style with units used in all three trees in all three matchups. More unit diversity, and more unity cohesion. So when people talk about "Mech" not being as good as bio it makes no sense to me--since no matchup uses only Marine/Maruader/Ghost
Its either Marine/Medivac/Tank, Marine/Medivac/Widowmine, Marine/Marauder/Medivac/Widowmine, Marine/Marauder/Medicav/Liberator, and on and on and on....
So the only thing we hear when people ask for mech only is "Can we please cut off one of the three tech trees terran uses."
Now, if the goal is to be similar to BW, then that's a different discussion. Pick which matchup you want mech to be good in, then give that race weaknesses to tanks and give them OP units against bio. Problem solved.
|
There was no "pure" bio in Brood War. Even SKTerran TvZ still had science vessels and dropships. Anyway, BW received no balance patches for years, so if SC2 can't produce more diversity with many more units and an active balance team, then that's a tremendous failure by any measure.
Also, the problem isn't that pure factory compositions aren't viable, it's that the only non-bio units that get built are those that work with bio. So either retool factory units to give them better synergy with bio, or make them stand on their own.
We wouldn't be seeing nearly as many complaints if Factory + Starport (aka WoL or HoTS mech) was viable anywhere, or if people used the factory to produce something other than mines (though maybe marine-tank will be a thing, it's still early).
That said, I don't think "mech" TvZ is as far off from viable as people seem to think. The EJK-style (I've also seen Gumiho use it) Cyclone/Hellion + Liberator/Tank/Speed Banshee (in the lategame) is pretty strong, and might even end up as the favored way to play after the parasitic bomb nerf and Thor buff.
If we end up with bio-mech TvT, bio-mech or mech TvZ, bio-mech TvP, that's a pretty acceptable state of affairs, IMO.
|
From what I understand, when people talk about "Mech", they're talking about an army composition where Siege Tanks are the core backbone of the unit since it entirely promotes positional play. I've discussed this at length before, but my goal, which it comes to "mech", is that the core unit composition comes from the factory and they have the needed support units from the starport(Vikings, Ravens, Liberators) or barracks(Ghost). It's the inverse of bio play.
When HotS had Factory and Starport upgrades combined together, this honestly worked perfectly. All that was left was tweaking individual stats, especially vs P. Ever since they half-reverted that change and LotV gave stronger units to Z and P, shit got sour.
|
Liberators are the flagship positional unit now, not siege tanks. While I'd prefer tanks in that role, it's much more important that the role be filled at all.
|
On January 01 2016 04:04 Athenau wrote:
There was no "pure" bio in Brood War. Even SKTerran TvZ still had science vessels and dropships. Anyway, BW received no balance patches for years, so if SC2 can't produce more diversity with many more units and an active balance team, then that's a tremendous failure by any measure.
By that reasoning there is no "pure" bio in SC2 either. You need medivacs at minimum, often factory support as well.
In WoL and HotS I didn't really care for mech because of the way the economy worked. The optimal Mech play was to never attack and split map with air units while never introducing vulnerabilities which was stupid. In LotV where you actually need more than 3-4 bases and assuming it becomes harder to split map as a result I think taking a second look at mech might be worth it. But this has little to do with balance, more of a design thing.
|
On January 01 2016 05:04 Athenau wrote:
Liberators are the flagship positional unit now, not siege tanks. While I'd prefer tanks in that role, it's much more important that the role be filled at all.
I would say they both fill the role, just Siege tanks fail at it in small numbers while Liberators are perfect at it in the same situation. Similarly, in large numbers Siege tanks are stronger than Liberators, mainly because they control far more space and their damage adds up better than Liberators, plus Liberators also have to assist in the anti-air role.
Together they have some pretty strong synergy in positional play. Part of the reason why I feel we need to evolve past the old-school mech play. Starport units are so important that it can't happen anyway. There just needs to be a core unit for mech along with the Hellbat.
|
On January 01 2016 05:22 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2016 05:04 Athenau wrote:
Liberators are the flagship positional unit now, not siege tanks. While I'd prefer tanks in that role, it's much more important that the role be filled at all. I would say they both fill the role, just Siege tanks fail at it in small numbers while Liberators are perfect at it in the same situation. Similarly, in large numbers Siege tanks are stronger than Liberators, mainly because they control far more space and their damage adds up better than Liberators, plus Liberators also have to assist in the anti-air role. Together they have some pretty strong synergy in positional play. Part of the reason why I feel we need to evolve past the old-school mech play. Starport units are so important that it can't happen anyway. There just needs to be a core unit for mech along with the Hellbat.
There was the cyclone during beta wherr hellion cyclone front with creeping up liberator siege tank army provided very good tool for mech to force engagement
But now it got nerfed to point only cyclone based comp (hellion cyclone starport) really works as it can't take heat from enemy, just rely on kiting and harassing like bio
|
On January 01 2016 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2016 01:45 RoomOfMush wrote:On January 01 2016 00:56 DinoMight wrote:
Lol, listen to yourself. It's not that bio is bad, it's that it instantly loses to Reavers and Storm.
Okay then... On January 01 2016 01:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What he is saying is reavers hard countering an entire tech tree is good game design, but immortals soft countering an entire tech tree is bad game design.
I am saying neither of that. What I am saying is that perhaps it would be nice for a change to see different unit compositions being used in different match ups. I mean, right now it is kind of like that but its very subtle. Maybe people wouldnt be crying for mech if mech was the more prominent unit composition in one match up while bio is the preferred composition in the other match ups. I am not sure if this would make the playing experience any better but it could improve the viewing experience. What I am saying is that, if you want to see more mech, maybe you dont need to buff mech and you dont need to nerf bio. Maybe you need to change something about either of the other races. Bio was only useful in one matchup in BW. For the most part, Siege Tanks and Reavers hard countered them into oblivion. In SC2, you have a more mixed style with units used in all three trees in all three matchups. More unit diversity, and more unity cohesion. So when people talk about "Mech" not being as good as bio it makes no sense to me--since no matchup uses only Marine/Maruader/Ghost Its either Marine/Medivac/Tank, Marine/Medivac/Widowmine, Marine/Marauder/Medivac/Widowmine, Marine/Marauder/Medicav/Liberator, and on and on and on.... So the only thing we hear when people ask for mech only is "Can we please cut off one of the three tech trees terran uses."Now, if the goal is to be similar to BW, then that's a different discussion. Pick which matchup you want mech to be good in, then give that race weaknesses to tanks and give them OP units against bio. Problem solved.
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. Especially the part i underline/bolded
|
Mech and bio compositions have coexisted in Wings/HotS in both TvT and TvZ. So it's absolutely possible to design it that way and the 'cutting off tech tree' problem y'all are talking about doesn't exist.
|
On January 01 2016 06:17 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2016 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 01 2016 01:45 RoomOfMush wrote:On January 01 2016 00:56 DinoMight wrote:
Lol, listen to yourself. It's not that bio is bad, it's that it instantly loses to Reavers and Storm.
Okay then... On January 01 2016 01:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What he is saying is reavers hard countering an entire tech tree is good game design, but immortals soft countering an entire tech tree is bad game design.
I am saying neither of that. What I am saying is that perhaps it would be nice for a change to see different unit compositions being used in different match ups. I mean, right now it is kind of like that but its very subtle. Maybe people wouldnt be crying for mech if mech was the more prominent unit composition in one match up while bio is the preferred composition in the other match ups. I am not sure if this would make the playing experience any better but it could improve the viewing experience. What I am saying is that, if you want to see more mech, maybe you dont need to buff mech and you dont need to nerf bio. Maybe you need to change something about either of the other races. Bio was only useful in one matchup in BW. For the most part, Siege Tanks and Reavers hard countered them into oblivion. In SC2, you have a more mixed style with units used in all three trees in all three matchups. More unit diversity, and more unity cohesion. So when people talk about "Mech" not being as good as bio it makes no sense to me--since no matchup uses only Marine/Maruader/Ghost Its either Marine/Medivac/Tank, Marine/Medivac/Widowmine, Marine/Marauder/Medivac/Widowmine, Marine/Marauder/Medicav/Liberator, and on and on and on.... So the only thing we hear when people ask for mech only is "Can we please cut off one of the three tech trees terran uses."Now, if the goal is to be similar to BW, then that's a different discussion. Pick which matchup you want mech to be good in, then give that race weaknesses to tanks and give them OP units against bio. Problem solved. This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. Especially the part i underline/bolded
Don't see why that is a problem. Marines are used early game and Ghosts are added in late game. If Ghosts weren't so god awfully expensive we'd see them a lot more too.
|
On January 01 2016 06:58 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2016 06:17 Spyridon wrote:On January 01 2016 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 01 2016 01:45 RoomOfMush wrote:On January 01 2016 00:56 DinoMight wrote:
Lol, listen to yourself. It's not that bio is bad, it's that it instantly loses to Reavers and Storm.
Okay then... On January 01 2016 01:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What he is saying is reavers hard countering an entire tech tree is good game design, but immortals soft countering an entire tech tree is bad game design.
I am saying neither of that. What I am saying is that perhaps it would be nice for a change to see different unit compositions being used in different match ups. I mean, right now it is kind of like that but its very subtle. Maybe people wouldnt be crying for mech if mech was the more prominent unit composition in one match up while bio is the preferred composition in the other match ups. I am not sure if this would make the playing experience any better but it could improve the viewing experience. What I am saying is that, if you want to see more mech, maybe you dont need to buff mech and you dont need to nerf bio. Maybe you need to change something about either of the other races. Bio was only useful in one matchup in BW. For the most part, Siege Tanks and Reavers hard countered them into oblivion. In SC2, you have a more mixed style with units used in all three trees in all three matchups. More unit diversity, and more unity cohesion. So when people talk about "Mech" not being as good as bio it makes no sense to me--since no matchup uses only Marine/Maruader/Ghost Its either Marine/Medivac/Tank, Marine/Medivac/Widowmine, Marine/Marauder/Medivac/Widowmine, Marine/Marauder/Medicav/Liberator, and on and on and on.... So the only thing we hear when people ask for mech only is "Can we please cut off one of the three tech trees terran uses."Now, if the goal is to be similar to BW, then that's a different discussion. Pick which matchup you want mech to be good in, then give that race weaknesses to tanks and give them OP units against bio. Problem solved. This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. Especially the part i underline/bolded Don't see why that is a problem. Marines are used early game and Ghosts are added in late game. If Ghosts weren't so god awfully expensive we'd see them a lot more too.
Not saying that there is a problem. I'm just trying to point out the distinction that in SC2, trying to focus on 1 production building is generally a bad idea, and just saying "mech need to be stronger" are very vague statements in SC2.
If players really want to submit some good feedback to improve Terran, saying things like "mech needs to be stronger" are pretty worthless. Because my definition of mech might differ from your definition of mech.
Does a player making a statement "mech needs to be stronger" mean that they want mech to be viable as the entire pure composition? Or does it mean they want mech to have better utility or better synergy with bio? Without knowing exactly what the problem is, and the reasoning as to why mech needs to be stronger in a specific area, the comments are going to be taken as a grain of salt.
It gets even more confusing when people say "mech needs a dedicated AA unit like goliath". That is pretty weak feedback. But if that is what they really wanted, if they were to say "Mech should be viable as a pure composition, so they should have a dedicated AA unit", that's actually feedback worth something.
As of right now, we do need to take in to consideration that the game is simply not designed that way though. Their changes and community updates have made it clear they don't want that. If it were to become prevalent in a matchup, it would likely be nerfed. So what use would it be telling Blizzard mech needs strong AA? Meanwhile their going with the policy right now that players need to use varied production buildings, so the AA feedback is pointless. You need to run before you could walk, and you need Blizzard to accept a single production path before they will be buffing AA for each production path.
So if you are really insistent on playing "pure" mech for example, you are making it hard on yourself, and your feedback should simply be "mech should be viable as a pure composition so they should do X". And if your feedback is simply that mech UNITS should be stronger when used in compositions with other tech paths, you should simply state that.
Feedback needs to be specific. It must describe a perceived problem, and optionally a solution.
All the posts saying "Mech needs X", "Mech is too weak", "Mech is worthless in lotv"... that's worthless feedback. Define mech, then move on to the problem.
|
On January 01 2016 13:57 Spyridon wrote:
If players really want to submit some good feedback to improve Terran, saying things like "mech needs to be stronger" are pretty worthless. Because my definition of mech might differ from your definition of mech.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that when people talk about mech they're referring to mech as it has existed in the game over the course of five and a half years unless otherwise stated.
|
On January 01 2016 13:57 Spyridon wrote:
If players really want to submit some good feedback to improve Terran, saying things like "mech needs to be stronger" are pretty worthless. Because my definition of mech might differ from your definition of mech.
As the previous comment states, mech has already existed through the entirety of SC2, so theres no "my definition vs your definition" of mech, there are differences in how people think this can be achieved, but it has been a thing before. (In case you didn't knew btw, it used all 3 production buildings for things like ghosts, vikings, medivacs, ravens, etc. Its just that the core was factory units)
On January 01 2016 13:57 Spyridon wrote:
As of right now, we do need to take in to consideration that the game is simply not designed that way though. Their changes and community updates have made it clear they don't want that.
The ones where they explicitly say they wan't more mech play? or the one where they said they wanted more distinction between the 3 types of units (bio, mech air) each to be a style of its own?.
No, Blizzard has said they wanted more mech play, more so...
On January 01 2016 13:57 Spyridon wrote:
If it were to become prevalent in a matchup, it would likely be nerfed. So what use would it be telling Blizzard mech needs strong AA? Meanwhile their going with the policy right now that players need to use varied production buildings, so the AA feedback is pointless. You need to run before you could walk, and you need Blizzard to accept a single production path before they will be buffing AA for each production path.
They are doing this change (the thor one), if you read the feedback report, because they wan't to help with mech play, in other words they are adressing mech factory based AA.
So you may be of the opinion that terran should be only bio and mech shouldn't be a strat, but blizzard does not shares that opinion, at least.
|
On January 01 2016 13:57 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2016 06:58 HeroMystic wrote:On January 01 2016 06:17 Spyridon wrote:On January 01 2016 03:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 01 2016 01:45 RoomOfMush wrote:On January 01 2016 00:56 DinoMight wrote:
Lol, listen to yourself. It's not that bio is bad, it's that it instantly loses to Reavers and Storm.
Okay then... On January 01 2016 01:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What he is saying is reavers hard countering an entire tech tree is good game design, but immortals soft countering an entire tech tree is bad game design.
I am saying neither of that. What I am saying is that perhaps it would be nice for a change to see different unit compositions being used in different match ups. I mean, right now it is kind of like that but its very subtle. Maybe people wouldnt be crying for mech if mech was the more prominent unit composition in one match up while bio is the preferred composition in the other match ups. I am not sure if this would make the playing experience any better but it could improve the viewing experience. What I am saying is that, if you want to see more mech, maybe you dont need to buff mech and you dont need to nerf bio. Maybe you need to change something about either of the other races. Bio was only useful in one matchup in BW. For the most part, Siege Tanks and Reavers hard countered them into oblivion. In SC2, you have a more mixed style with units used in all three trees in all three matchups. More unit diversity, and more unity cohesion. So when people talk about "Mech" not being as good as bio it makes no sense to me--since no matchup uses only Marine/Maruader/Ghost Its either Marine/Medivac/Tank, Marine/Medivac/Widowmine, Marine/Marauder/Medivac/Widowmine, Marine/Marauder/Medicav/Liberator, and on and on and on.... So the only thing we hear when people ask for mech only is "Can we please cut off one of the three tech trees terran uses."Now, if the goal is to be similar to BW, then that's a different discussion. Pick which matchup you want mech to be good in, then give that race weaknesses to tanks and give them OP units against bio. Problem solved. This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. Especially the part i underline/bolded Don't see why that is a problem. Marines are used early game and Ghosts are added in late game. If Ghosts weren't so god awfully expensive we'd see them a lot more too. Not saying that there is a problem. I'm just trying to point out the distinction that in SC2, trying to focus on 1 production building is generally a bad idea, and just saying "mech need to be stronger" are very vague statements in SC2. If players really want to submit some good feedback to improve Terran, saying things like "mech needs to be stronger" are pretty worthless. Because my definition of mech might differ from your definition of mech. Does a player making a statement "mech needs to be stronger" mean that they want mech to be viable as the entire pure composition? Or does it mean they want mech to have better utility or better synergy with bio? Without knowing exactly what the problem is, and the reasoning as to why mech needs to be stronger in a specific area, the comments are going to be taken as a grain of salt. It gets even more confusing when people say "mech needs a dedicated AA unit like goliath". That is pretty weak feedback. But if that is what they really wanted, if they were to say "Mech should be viable as a pure composition, so they should have a dedicated AA unit", that's actually feedback worth something. As of right now, we do need to take in to consideration that the game is simply not designed that way though. Their changes and community updates have made it clear they don't want that. If it were to become prevalent in a matchup, it would likely be nerfed. So what use would it be telling Blizzard mech needs strong AA? Meanwhile their going with the policy right now that players need to use varied production buildings, so the AA feedback is pointless. You need to run before you could walk, and you need Blizzard to accept a single production path before they will be buffing AA for each production path. So if you are really insistent on playing "pure" mech for example, you are making it hard on yourself, and your feedback should simply be "mech should be viable as a pure composition so they should do X". And if your feedback is simply that mech UNITS should be stronger when used in compositions with other tech paths, you should simply state that. Feedback needs to be specific. It must describe a perceived problem, and optionally a solution. All the posts saying "Mech needs X", "Mech is too weak", "Mech is worthless in lotv"... that's worthless feedback. Define mech, then move on to the problem.
There's been an immense amount of feedback on how to make mech work from everyone, not just TL (though TL has the most solid and informative posts), saying exact suggestions on how to make mech work, and I would assume wasn't worthless. People saying what you describe are mainly people that are tired of saying the same thing for the past five years.
Similarly, "re-combine air and mech upgrades" is also a popular saying ever since they half-reverted it.
|
PvZ at 41,66% for December. Since early 2011 only once any matchup was at 41% level.
Weird thing is when i watch Koreans Protoss they usually do quite well int this matchup.
|
Is the bonus Pool System gone? havent played in 4 days still my bonus pool is 0 ?! anybody got any infromations or can cofirm that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
