|
On May 03 2013 03:53 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 05:26 aZealot wrote:
I think you are right, Grumbels. I've also long felt that the demand for Mech (i.e pure Mech) was arbitrary. Sure, it would be nice if it was possible, but I don't believe it necessary for SC2. It certainly should not be some holy grail to be pursued to the exclusion of other play styles for Terran, and especially with regard to its effects on other races and in other match-ups. Only someone who doesn't understand deeper game depth concepts would arbitrarily mark Falling's post as "nostalgia" (a bit earlier in this thread) or be ignorant why properly done positional play (and a less steroided economic system, however this is another topic) would improve this game significantly. A demand for a better game is not "arbitrary", and it doesn't have to come at the exclusion of anything.
Incorrect. A demand for mech for the sake of mech is arbitrary. Neither does a demand for mech necessarily mean a better game. Don't mistake the two. Or suddenly pretend that they are one and the same thing.
As someone who has seen this incessant cry for mech since WOL, Grumbels may actually be onto something in saying that there is an element of nostalgia in this demand. It is BW based. Whether it belongs in SC2 is another (unproven) matter.
|
On May 03 2013 05:37 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:53 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 02 2013 05:26 aZealot wrote:
I think you are right, Grumbels. I've also long felt that the demand for Mech (i.e pure Mech) was arbitrary. Sure, it would be nice if it was possible, but I don't believe it necessary for SC2. It certainly should not be some holy grail to be pursued to the exclusion of other play styles for Terran, and especially with regard to its effects on other races and in other match-ups. Only someone who doesn't understand deeper game depth concepts would arbitrarily mark Falling's post as "nostalgia" (a bit earlier in this thread) or be ignorant why properly done positional play (and a less steroided economic system, however this is another topic) would improve this game significantly. A demand for a better game is not "arbitrary", and it doesn't have to come at the exclusion of anything. Incorrect. A demand for mech for the sake of mech is arbitrary. Neither does a demand for mech necessarily mean a better game. Don't mistake the two. Or suddenly pretend that they are one and the same thing. As someone who has seen this incessant cry for mech since WOL, Grumbels may actually be onto something in saying that there is an element of nostalgia in this demand. It is BW based. Whether it belongs in SC2 is another (unproven) matter.
In the interest of making the game more enjoyable it would be better if there was no bio play or mech play, but rather tech switches between them as well as mixed armies using both bio and mech.
|
On May 03 2013 05:41 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:37 aZealot wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 02 2013 05:26 aZealot wrote:
I think you are right, Grumbels. I've also long felt that the demand for Mech (i.e pure Mech) was arbitrary. Sure, it would be nice if it was possible, but I don't believe it necessary for SC2. It certainly should not be some holy grail to be pursued to the exclusion of other play styles for Terran, and especially with regard to its effects on other races and in other match-ups. Only someone who doesn't understand deeper game depth concepts would arbitrarily mark Falling's post as "nostalgia" (a bit earlier in this thread) or be ignorant why properly done positional play (and a less steroided economic system, however this is another topic) would improve this game significantly. A demand for a better game is not "arbitrary", and it doesn't have to come at the exclusion of anything. Incorrect. A demand for mech for the sake of mech is arbitrary. Neither does a demand for mech necessarily mean a better game. Don't mistake the two. Or suddenly pretend that they are one and the same thing. As someone who has seen this incessant cry for mech since WOL, Grumbels may actually be onto something in saying that there is an element of nostalgia in this demand. It is BW based. Whether it belongs in SC2 is another (unproven) matter. In the interest of making the game more enjoyable it would be better if there was no bio play or mech play, but rather tech switches between them as well as mixed armies using both bio and mech. Bingo. How to get to that point in a balanced fashion is a different matter entirely, though.
|
On May 03 2013 05:41 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:37 aZealot wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 02 2013 05:26 aZealot wrote:
I think you are right, Grumbels. I've also long felt that the demand for Mech (i.e pure Mech) was arbitrary. Sure, it would be nice if it was possible, but I don't believe it necessary for SC2. It certainly should not be some holy grail to be pursued to the exclusion of other play styles for Terran, and especially with regard to its effects on other races and in other match-ups. Only someone who doesn't understand deeper game depth concepts would arbitrarily mark Falling's post as "nostalgia" (a bit earlier in this thread) or be ignorant why properly done positional play (and a less steroided economic system, however this is another topic) would improve this game significantly. A demand for a better game is not "arbitrary", and it doesn't have to come at the exclusion of anything. Incorrect. A demand for mech for the sake of mech is arbitrary. Neither does a demand for mech necessarily mean a better game. Don't mistake the two. Or suddenly pretend that they are one and the same thing. As someone who has seen this incessant cry for mech since WOL, Grumbels may actually be onto something in saying that there is an element of nostalgia in this demand. It is BW based. Whether it belongs in SC2 is another (unproven) matter. In the interest of making the game more enjoyable it would be better if there was no bio play or mech play, but rather tech switches between them as well as mixed armies using both bio and mech.
Biomech is SOOO good and it really frustrates me when I see Terrans complain about Bio or Mech being underpowered in the late game. Hellbat/Ghost/Medivac compositions are just mean when used alongside Mech units.
|
On May 03 2013 09:19 Jasiwel wrote:
Hellbat/Ghost/Medivac compositions are just mean when used alongside Mech units.
Won't people classify that as "Mech with ghosts?"
|
I never played BW, never watched BW, and really don't care about BW. Indeed, I didn't even know BW existed until I'd been playing SC2 for several months.
Mech is a very different way of playing Terran from bio or bio-mech, requiring different skills, concepts and strategies. Moreover, it's very different to play against mech rather than bio or bio-mech. This creates interesting games, it creates variety, it rewards players who have the skills to utilise both, and it opens up Terran to people who prefer a different style of play from frantic bio-ball micro.
Now, I actually really disliked the brief period in 2011 when literally all TvT was mech vs mech, but having it be viable is a huge positive from both a playing and spectating perspective, and to argue otherwise is really just to argue against variety.
Whether the other races have similar variety is irrelevant to this point.
|
|
|
On May 03 2013 11:39 woopr wrote:
what do you guys think about blizzard making tanks 2 supply?
Um, Blizzard isn't making tanks 2 supply. Don't know where you got that from.
|
On May 03 2013 05:37 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:53 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 02 2013 05:26 aZealot wrote:
I think you are right, Grumbels. I've also long felt that the demand for Mech (i.e pure Mech) was arbitrary. Sure, it would be nice if it was possible, but I don't believe it necessary for SC2. It certainly should not be some holy grail to be pursued to the exclusion of other play styles for Terran, and especially with regard to its effects on other races and in other match-ups. Only someone who doesn't understand deeper game depth concepts would arbitrarily mark Falling's post as "nostalgia" (a bit earlier in this thread) or be ignorant why properly done positional play (and a less steroided economic system, however this is another topic) would improve this game significantly. A demand for a better game is not "arbitrary", and it doesn't have to come at the exclusion of anything. Incorrect. A demand for mech for the sake of mech is arbitrary. Neither does a demand for mech necessarily mean a better game. Don't mistake the two. Or suddenly pretend that they are one and the same thing. As someone who has seen this incessant cry for mech since WOL, Grumbels may actually be onto something in saying that there is an element of nostalgia in this demand. It is BW based. Whether it belongs in SC2 is another (unproven) matter.
it's boring to just have one style. Even in WoL, for zerg which goes the deathball, there are different ways to get the deathball up: skipping upgrades for faster broodlords; ultras then broodlords; muta then hive etc
Right now bio (or bio mine in TvZ) is just in every matchup except TvT where bio mech is used.
we want to have more diversity in the games
|
On May 03 2013 11:54 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:37 aZealot wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 02 2013 05:26 aZealot wrote:
I think you are right, Grumbels. I've also long felt that the demand for Mech (i.e pure Mech) was arbitrary. Sure, it would be nice if it was possible, but I don't believe it necessary for SC2. It certainly should not be some holy grail to be pursued to the exclusion of other play styles for Terran, and especially with regard to its effects on other races and in other match-ups. Only someone who doesn't understand deeper game depth concepts would arbitrarily mark Falling's post as "nostalgia" (a bit earlier in this thread) or be ignorant why properly done positional play (and a less steroided economic system, however this is another topic) would improve this game significantly. A demand for a better game is not "arbitrary", and it doesn't have to come at the exclusion of anything. Incorrect. A demand for mech for the sake of mech is arbitrary. Neither does a demand for mech necessarily mean a better game. Don't mistake the two. Or suddenly pretend that they are one and the same thing. As someone who has seen this incessant cry for mech since WOL, Grumbels may actually be onto something in saying that there is an element of nostalgia in this demand. It is BW based. Whether it belongs in SC2 is another (unproven) matter. it's boring to just have one style. Even in WoL, for zerg which goes the deathball, there are different ways to get the deathball up: skipping upgrades for faster broodlords; ultras then broodlords; muta then hive etc Right now bio (or bio mine in TvZ) is just in every matchup except TvT where bio mech is used. we want to have more diversity in the games
Of course it's boring to have only one style but Terran is not the only race with that problem in HOTS. When Terran goes MMMM Zerg pretty much has to go Ling -> Muta -> Ultra and Protoss has to get to Colossus/HT/Archons for splash to handle the bio. Everyone is constricted. If Terran "deserves" to have diversity in their builds so do Protoss and Zerg which is why I hate the crying about "mech isn't viable waaah". Sure, Vipers + Roach Hydra, for example, may be too strong vs mech. Another issue, however, is that this same Zerg build sucks vs MMMM. I'm all for each race having multiple viable builds but it's absurdly difficult to balance and if Terran deserves to have mech/bio then Protoss and Zerg sure as heck need their own viable alternatives.
|
On May 03 2013 12:27 vRadiatioNv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 11:54 ETisME wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 aZealot wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 02 2013 05:26 aZealot wrote:
I think you are right, Grumbels. I've also long felt that the demand for Mech (i.e pure Mech) was arbitrary. Sure, it would be nice if it was possible, but I don't believe it necessary for SC2. It certainly should not be some holy grail to be pursued to the exclusion of other play styles for Terran, and especially with regard to its effects on other races and in other match-ups. Only someone who doesn't understand deeper game depth concepts would arbitrarily mark Falling's post as "nostalgia" (a bit earlier in this thread) or be ignorant why properly done positional play (and a less steroided economic system, however this is another topic) would improve this game significantly. A demand for a better game is not "arbitrary", and it doesn't have to come at the exclusion of anything. Incorrect. A demand for mech for the sake of mech is arbitrary. Neither does a demand for mech necessarily mean a better game. Don't mistake the two. Or suddenly pretend that they are one and the same thing. As someone who has seen this incessant cry for mech since WOL, Grumbels may actually be onto something in saying that there is an element of nostalgia in this demand. It is BW based. Whether it belongs in SC2 is another (unproven) matter. it's boring to just have one style. Even in WoL, for zerg which goes the deathball, there are different ways to get the deathball up: skipping upgrades for faster broodlords; ultras then broodlords; muta then hive etc Right now bio (or bio mine in TvZ) is just in every matchup except TvT where bio mech is used. we want to have more diversity in the games Of course it's boring to have only one style but Terran is not the only race with that problem in HOTS. When Terran goes MMMM Zerg pretty much has to go Ling -> Muta -> Ultra and Protoss has to get to Colossus/HT/Archons for splash to handle the bio. Everyone is constricted. If Terran "deserves" to have diversity in their builds so do Protoss and Zerg which is why I hate the crying about "mech isn't viable waaah". Sure, Vipers + Roach Hydra, for example, may be too strong vs mech. Another issue, however, is that this same Zerg build sucks vs MMMM. I'm all for each race having multiple viable builds but it's absurdly difficult to balance and if Terran deserves to have mech/bio then Protoss and Zerg sure as heck need their own viable alternatives.
other races do have their own alternatives, but Terran is the one to dictate the other race's build because P and Z can't force terran to play mech. But T can force P to go immortal chargelot or sky heavy to deal with mech T or colossus storm against bio T; or Z going for roach hydra viper for mech or ling muta baneling ultra against bio mine.
|
On May 03 2013 03:49 Sissors wrote:@Rabiator, true (and tbh downside of watching flash vs innovation, it looks really alot worse  ), but it is also a matter how much they want to invest in defense. Put down some widow mines and it would quickly stop. Or more missile turrets like what Kas did in some places..
Obviously you can defend against it, but that isnt the point ... which is that it looks silly and boring to have two Terrans do Hellbat drops on each others base at the same time. It isnt exciting as a Reaper or two doing harrassment and a big part of that are the "Hellbat gets healed by the Medivac" (which make the Hellbats pretty safe due to their high hp in addition to the healing) and the slow speed. Reapers at least are fragile and need skill to micro well, but Hellbats are just slow and have brute strength.
tl;dr
Reapers are more exciting to watch as harrassment units compared to Hellbats.
|
On May 03 2013 13:29 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 12:27 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 03 2013 11:54 ETisME wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 aZealot wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 02 2013 05:26 aZealot wrote:
I think you are right, Grumbels. I've also long felt that the demand for Mech (i.e pure Mech) was arbitrary. Sure, it would be nice if it was possible, but I don't believe it necessary for SC2. It certainly should not be some holy grail to be pursued to the exclusion of other play styles for Terran, and especially with regard to its effects on other races and in other match-ups. Only someone who doesn't understand deeper game depth concepts would arbitrarily mark Falling's post as "nostalgia" (a bit earlier in this thread) or be ignorant why properly done positional play (and a less steroided economic system, however this is another topic) would improve this game significantly. A demand for a better game is not "arbitrary", and it doesn't have to come at the exclusion of anything. Incorrect. A demand for mech for the sake of mech is arbitrary. Neither does a demand for mech necessarily mean a better game. Don't mistake the two. Or suddenly pretend that they are one and the same thing. As someone who has seen this incessant cry for mech since WOL, Grumbels may actually be onto something in saying that there is an element of nostalgia in this demand. It is BW based. Whether it belongs in SC2 is another (unproven) matter. it's boring to just have one style. Even in WoL, for zerg which goes the deathball, there are different ways to get the deathball up: skipping upgrades for faster broodlords; ultras then broodlords; muta then hive etc Right now bio (or bio mine in TvZ) is just in every matchup except TvT where bio mech is used. we want to have more diversity in the games Of course it's boring to have only one style but Terran is not the only race with that problem in HOTS. When Terran goes MMMM Zerg pretty much has to go Ling -> Muta -> Ultra and Protoss has to get to Colossus/HT/Archons for splash to handle the bio. Everyone is constricted. If Terran "deserves" to have diversity in their builds so do Protoss and Zerg which is why I hate the crying about "mech isn't viable waaah". Sure, Vipers + Roach Hydra, for example, may be too strong vs mech. Another issue, however, is that this same Zerg build sucks vs MMMM. I'm all for each race having multiple viable builds but it's absurdly difficult to balance and if Terran deserves to have mech/bio then Protoss and Zerg sure as heck need their own viable alternatives. other races do have their own alternatives, but Terran is the one to dictate the other race's build because P and Z can't force terran to play mech. But T can force P to go immortal chargelot or sky heavy to deal with mech T or colossus storm against bio T; or Z going for roach hydra viper for mech or ling muta baneling ultra against bio mine.
They don't have alternatives if Terran can force them into playing a single style lol. You said it yourself, TvP/Z is MMM all day every day and Protoss and Zerg answers to it are very limited. If mech were to get buffed to be viable vs all compositions then Viper + Roach Hydra must be buffed to be viable vs MMMM and Protoss must receive at least 1 other viable composition as well. It's only fair.
|
On May 03 2013 13:29 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 12:27 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 03 2013 11:54 ETisME wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 aZealot wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 02 2013 05:26 aZealot wrote:
I think you are right, Grumbels. I've also long felt that the demand for Mech (i.e pure Mech) was arbitrary. Sure, it would be nice if it was possible, but I don't believe it necessary for SC2. It certainly should not be some holy grail to be pursued to the exclusion of other play styles for Terran, and especially with regard to its effects on other races and in other match-ups. Only someone who doesn't understand deeper game depth concepts would arbitrarily mark Falling's post as "nostalgia" (a bit earlier in this thread) or be ignorant why properly done positional play (and a less steroided economic system, however this is another topic) would improve this game significantly. A demand for a better game is not "arbitrary", and it doesn't have to come at the exclusion of anything. Incorrect. A demand for mech for the sake of mech is arbitrary. Neither does a demand for mech necessarily mean a better game. Don't mistake the two. Or suddenly pretend that they are one and the same thing. As someone who has seen this incessant cry for mech since WOL, Grumbels may actually be onto something in saying that there is an element of nostalgia in this demand. It is BW based. Whether it belongs in SC2 is another (unproven) matter. it's boring to just have one style. Even in WoL, for zerg which goes the deathball, there are different ways to get the deathball up: skipping upgrades for faster broodlords; ultras then broodlords; muta then hive etc Right now bio (or bio mine in TvZ) is just in every matchup except TvT where bio mech is used. we want to have more diversity in the games Of course it's boring to have only one style but Terran is not the only race with that problem in HOTS. When Terran goes MMMM Zerg pretty much has to go Ling -> Muta -> Ultra and Protoss has to get to Colossus/HT/Archons for splash to handle the bio. Everyone is constricted. If Terran "deserves" to have diversity in their builds so do Protoss and Zerg which is why I hate the crying about "mech isn't viable waaah". Sure, Vipers + Roach Hydra, for example, may be too strong vs mech. Another issue, however, is that this same Zerg build sucks vs MMMM. I'm all for each race having multiple viable builds but it's absurdly difficult to balance and if Terran deserves to have mech/bio then Protoss and Zerg sure as heck need their own viable alternatives. other races do have their own alternatives, but Terran is the one to dictate the other race's build because P and Z can't force terran to play mech. But T can force P to go immortal chargelot or sky heavy to deal with mech T or colossus storm against bio T; or Z going for roach hydra viper for mech or ling muta baneling ultra against bio mine.
There is a drawback to the Terran race though and it should be a good enough to "pay" for any alleged advantages: Terrans cant tech-switch as easily as the other two races and they need the largest amount of production facilities for "expensive stuff" already. I think that should give them some advantages on other sides of the battle ...
|
|
|
On May 03 2013 16:50 woopr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 11:48 aksfjh wrote:On May 03 2013 11:39 woopr wrote:
what do you guys think about blizzard making tanks 2 supply? Um, Blizzard isn't making tanks 2 supply. Don't know where you got that from. what do you guys think about tanks being 2 supply and blizzard potentially implementing the change in the future? 
I don't know about them ever buffing the tank in any way shape or form.. but everyone would agree that a supply change from 3 to 2 is one of the potential buffs that doesn't "break" matchups and buff the tank as the game goes on.
A 2 supply tank would mean that a maxed out mech army based on tanks have 50% more firepower (100 supply worth of tanks would result in 33 tanks now and 50 tanks if 2 supply), can afford to spread them around for defense and doesn't quite change it's unit/timing relationships.
However.. I still see the widow mine being an issue because it has overlapped the tanks role somewhat. Blizzard needs to figure about a way where for example players have the incentive to go either tank or WM for bio support in TvZ. WM would mean cheaper more mobile higher risk/reward path while the tank provides solid ground support similiar what the WM is capable of.
The biggest issue here is how the WM is capable of killing 20+ lings where as a tank won't with a single volley..
|
On May 03 2013 17:26 YyapSsap wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 16:50 woopr wrote:On May 03 2013 11:48 aksfjh wrote:On May 03 2013 11:39 woopr wrote:
what do you guys think about blizzard making tanks 2 supply? Um, Blizzard isn't making tanks 2 supply. Don't know where you got that from. what do you guys think about tanks being 2 supply and blizzard potentially implementing the change in the future? I don't know about them ever buffing the tank in any way shape or form.. but everyone would agree that a supply change from 3 to 2 is one of the potential buffs that doesn't "break" matchups and buff the tank as the game goes on. A 2 supply tank would mean that a maxed out mech army based on tanks have 50% more firepower (100 supply worth of tanks would result in 33 tanks now and 50 tanks if 2 supply), can afford to spread them around for defense and doesn't quite change it's unit/timing relationships. However.. I still see the widow mine being an issue because it has overlapped the tanks role somewhat. Blizzard needs to figure about a way where for example players have the incentive to go either tank or WM for bio support in TvZ. WM would mean cheaper more mobile higher risk/reward path while the tank provides solid ground support similiar what the WM is capable of. The biggest issue here is how the WM is capable of killing 20+ lings where as a tank won't with a single volley..
"everyone" is not quite true...
When around max, mech is by far strongest already. It's like everything else but supplyefficiency where you may need to fix problems.
|
On May 03 2013 17:45 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 17:26 YyapSsap wrote:On May 03 2013 16:50 woopr wrote:On May 03 2013 11:48 aksfjh wrote:On May 03 2013 11:39 woopr wrote:
what do you guys think about blizzard making tanks 2 supply? Um, Blizzard isn't making tanks 2 supply. Don't know where you got that from. what do you guys think about tanks being 2 supply and blizzard potentially implementing the change in the future? I don't know about them ever buffing the tank in any way shape or form.. but everyone would agree that a supply change from 3 to 2 is one of the potential buffs that doesn't "break" matchups and buff the tank as the game goes on. A 2 supply tank would mean that a maxed out mech army based on tanks have 50% more firepower (100 supply worth of tanks would result in 33 tanks now and 50 tanks if 2 supply), can afford to spread them around for defense and doesn't quite change it's unit/timing relationships. However.. I still see the widow mine being an issue because it has overlapped the tanks role somewhat. Blizzard needs to figure about a way where for example players have the incentive to go either tank or WM for bio support in TvZ. WM would mean cheaper more mobile higher risk/reward path while the tank provides solid ground support similiar what the WM is capable of. The biggest issue here is how the WM is capable of killing 20+ lings where as a tank won't with a single volley.. "everyone" is not quite true... When around max, mech is by far strongest already. It's like everything else but supplyefficiency where you may need to fix problems.
Its not. For instance a maxed out bio army is slightly weaker in terms of firepower but its sheer mobility makes it such a better composition. That "trade" of sheer firepower vs mobility just isn't there. Instead its more like ~20% firepower while crippling yourself to expensive units with zero mobility compared to bio.
Plus a straight up Protoss deathball is far superior in terms of mobility AND firepower.
The fact of the matter is that unless they have the ability to take that sheer firepower to zone out areas and can deal with anything on the ground (I mean literally blow things to bits like they were previously known for), bio is just superior in everyway especially when they don't lack the firepower at all.
|
On May 03 2013 17:53 YyapSsap wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 17:45 Big J wrote:On May 03 2013 17:26 YyapSsap wrote:On May 03 2013 16:50 woopr wrote:On May 03 2013 11:48 aksfjh wrote:On May 03 2013 11:39 woopr wrote:
what do you guys think about blizzard making tanks 2 supply? Um, Blizzard isn't making tanks 2 supply. Don't know where you got that from. what do you guys think about tanks being 2 supply and blizzard potentially implementing the change in the future? I don't know about them ever buffing the tank in any way shape or form.. but everyone would agree that a supply change from 3 to 2 is one of the potential buffs that doesn't "break" matchups and buff the tank as the game goes on. A 2 supply tank would mean that a maxed out mech army based on tanks have 50% more firepower (100 supply worth of tanks would result in 33 tanks now and 50 tanks if 2 supply), can afford to spread them around for defense and doesn't quite change it's unit/timing relationships. However.. I still see the widow mine being an issue because it has overlapped the tanks role somewhat. Blizzard needs to figure about a way where for example players have the incentive to go either tank or WM for bio support in TvZ. WM would mean cheaper more mobile higher risk/reward path while the tank provides solid ground support similiar what the WM is capable of. The biggest issue here is how the WM is capable of killing 20+ lings where as a tank won't with a single volley.. "everyone" is not quite true... When around max, mech is by far strongest already. It's like everything else but supplyefficiency where you may need to fix problems. Its not. For instance a maxed out bio army is slightly weaker in terms of firepower but its sheer mobility makes it such a better composition. That "trade" of sheer firepower vs mobility just isn't there. Instead its more like ~20% firepower while crippling yourself to expensive units with zero mobility compared to bio. Plus a straight up Protoss deathball is far superior in terms of mobility AND firepower. The fact of the matter is that unless they have the ability to take that sheer firepower to zone out areas and can deal with anything on the ground (I mean literally blow things to bits like they were previously known for), bio is just superior in everyway especially when they don't lack the firepower at all.
that's just not true. Half of bios mobility comes from drops/medivacs - which are very good with hellbats as well. The other half gets easily matched by hellions.
Mech does not lack supplyefficiency, it simply lacks a counter to high health units. The Tanks measily 12/17(sieged) 15/25dps(unsieged) are just bad compared to 20dps you get from a single marauder when shooting a single target (like a big one). The Thor with 47dps and 400HP can fullfill that role to a small degree, but it's not a real counter to them like the marauder and it lacks splash to deal with smaller such units in the midgame.
|
On May 03 2013 05:37 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 03:53 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 02 2013 05:26 aZealot wrote:
I think you are right, Grumbels. I've also long felt that the demand for Mech (i.e pure Mech) was arbitrary. Sure, it would be nice if it was possible, but I don't believe it necessary for SC2. It certainly should not be some holy grail to be pursued to the exclusion of other play styles for Terran, and especially with regard to its effects on other races and in other match-ups. Only someone who doesn't understand deeper game depth concepts would arbitrarily mark Falling's post as "nostalgia" (a bit earlier in this thread) or be ignorant why properly done positional play (and a less steroided economic system, however this is another topic) would improve this game significantly. A demand for a better game is not "arbitrary", and it doesn't have to come at the exclusion of anything. Incorrect. A demand for mech for the sake of mech is arbitrary. Neither does a demand for mech necessarily mean a better game. Don't mistake the two. Or suddenly pretend that they are one and the same thing.
A demand based on concrete and proven game theory tested through time, by definition, isn't arbitrary; misusing a word only hurts your own argument. You're going to have to accept sooner or later that proper mech, in spirit, is healthy for SC2 because of the concepts it embodies.
Correct.
On May 03 2013 05:37 aZealot wrote:As someone who has seen this incessant cry for mech since WOL, Grumbels may actually be onto something in saying that there is an element of nostalgia in this demand. It is BW based. Whether it belongs in SC2 is another (unproven) matter.
Only someone who doesn't understand deeper game depth concepts would arbitrarily mark Falling's post as "nostalgia" (a bit earlier in this thread) or would be ignorant as to why properly done positional play (and a less steroided economic system, however this is another topic) would (and has to some extent with the little positional based tidbits added in HotS) improve this game significantly. Grumbels isn't on to much other than argumentum ad lapidem.
On May 03 2013 13:29 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 12:27 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 03 2013 11:54 ETisME wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 aZealot wrote:On May 03 2013 03:53 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 02 2013 05:26 aZealot wrote:
I think you are right, Grumbels. I've also long felt that the demand for Mech (i.e pure Mech) was arbitrary. Sure, it would be nice if it was possible, but I don't believe it necessary for SC2. It certainly should not be some holy grail to be pursued to the exclusion of other play styles for Terran, and especially with regard to its effects on other races and in other match-ups. Only someone who doesn't understand deeper game depth concepts would arbitrarily mark Falling's post as "nostalgia" (a bit earlier in this thread) or be ignorant why properly done positional play (and a less steroided economic system, however this is another topic) would improve this game significantly. A demand for a better game is not "arbitrary", and it doesn't have to come at the exclusion of anything. Incorrect. A demand for mech for the sake of mech is arbitrary. Neither does a demand for mech necessarily mean a better game. Don't mistake the two. Or suddenly pretend that they are one and the same thing. As someone who has seen this incessant cry for mech since WOL, Grumbels may actually be onto something in saying that there is an element of nostalgia in this demand. It is BW based. Whether it belongs in SC2 is another (unproven) matter. it's boring to just have one style. Even in WoL, for zerg which goes the deathball, there are different ways to get the deathball up: skipping upgrades for faster broodlords; ultras then broodlords; muta then hive etc Right now bio (or bio mine in TvZ) is just in every matchup except TvT where bio mech is used. we want to have more diversity in the games Of course it's boring to have only one style but Terran is not the only race with that problem in HOTS. When Terran goes MMMM Zerg pretty much has to go Ling -> Muta -> Ultra and Protoss has to get to Colossus/HT/Archons for splash to handle the bio. Everyone is constricted. If Terran "deserves" to have diversity in their builds so do Protoss and Zerg which is why I hate the crying about "mech isn't viable waaah". Sure, Vipers + Roach Hydra, for example, may be too strong vs mech. Another issue, however, is that this same Zerg build sucks vs MMMM. I'm all for each race having multiple viable builds but it's absurdly difficult to balance and if Terran deserves to have mech/bio then Protoss and Zerg sure as heck need their own viable alternatives. other races do have their own alternatives, but Terran is the one to dictate the other race's build because P and Z can't force terran to play mech. But T can force P to go immortal chargelot or sky heavy to deal with mech T or colossus storm against bio T; or Z going for roach hydra viper for mech or ling muta baneling ultra against bio mine.
And BLs force Vikings (which are useless vs Ultras), and Ultras force Marauders (which are useless to BLs), and Infestors force Ghosts, and Swarmhosts force Siege Tank/Raven/Air, and Colossus force Vikings (which are useless to chargelot 20 gateway remax), and HT force Ghosts, and HT + Skytoss forces Thor/Raven or Ghost/Viking. Terran is forced (at the threat of losing) to have the right composition too so your post is not fully inaccurate as there's a lot of forcing going on in every matchup with all races, and if anything Zerg and Protoss are more abusive with forcing Terran to do things because Terran can't tech switch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
