| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 20 2013 23:54 Qikz wrote: Don't blame mech for that, blame the god awful maps. God awful maps? Huh, Newkirk is not really god awful map, style is ugly though. The new edition of Newkirk ofc. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
read on Why do I think that they think so? Because anything they added to the game from WoL to HotS seems to be a counter to the playstyle. So they are probably thinking that they have to screw the game over too much to make it work. Or as an incomplete list: Zealot Charge Immortal HotS Void Rays Tempest Viper Swarm Host ... So their approach seems to be, if we can't make it work by designing stuff for it, we won't force it into the game, because forcing it into the game would require us to rebalance/redesign/remove a lot of stuff, without knowing whether the outcome will be worth it. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On October 20 2013 23:54 Qikz wrote: Don't blame mech for that, blame the god awful maps. I'm not blaming mech; i'm blaming the SH and the Viper actually. EDIT: the map was bad to, yes. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 20 2013 17:30 YyapSsap wrote: Except in BW, mech allowed so much more creativity/diversity within the matchup. Protoss outside of the scout could use so many different compositions including a carrier force. It was positioning vs mobility/bruteforce/etc. With SC2, the opposing races are always forced to certain compositions (and certain units will never see the light of the day) or else your going to flat out die. If you make tanks suddenly viable to each matchup as the core unit, forgoing mobility for positional fire power.. it enables half of the units from the opposing races relevant again in the meta because they were specifically designed to counter tanks/factory based units. The relationship between positioning/firepower vs mobility is ALOT interesting to watch (think bio vs mech in SC2 TvT) than mobility vs mobility where the consequences are.. units are getting faster and faster!! Soon Oracles/Mutas at this rate will have move speed of 5.. Sadly tanks dont have that "fire power" even with its gimped mobility so it can never be that core unit. Its another reason why you cannot re-create BW "mech" ala positioning/zoning and creating tank lines all around the map because a few tanks cannot hold anything. Thats why some people think mech in SC2 is boring because you have to create a death ball (theres no choice really). If tanks were really devastating to approach.. T players would actually have incentives to start positioning them to take control of chokes or an area that enables more expansions or retreat path/reinforcements re-creating what BW "mech" was all about. Even in SC2 mech vs mech you don't see this happen outside one tank siege line as having them spread around would mean any one of those points can be exposed by a moderate mech force with hellbats spearheading the weak tank lines. For some of you that don't know, BW TvT mech was actually pretty fast paced (it would be slow to start then the pace would exponentially rise). I really wish they attempted at making the tank viable to be that core unit (reduce supply/cost or w/e). I also happen to think marauders should be 50 gas or higher because this means you cant get both marauders and tanks if one goes bio. Two things. First, I do not disagree with what you say. Single comp strategies were much more diverse in BW and allowed for MUCH more dynamic interaction. So even though Marine/Medic/Tank/Vessel was 99% of TvZ, it never felt like the same TvZ matchup twice. etc... Second, Marauders goes against everything that barracks play represents. Flavor wise, they are a massive mech unit that a guy jumps into that is as big or bigger than a vulture. It's HUGE. Design wise, they are the perfect Protoss unit. They are large hard hitting units with lots of hitpoints. I have no idea how they are a terran unit--at all. | ||
|
Vanadiel
France961 Posts
I don't really know how you could promote the "Flash mech" without buffing the "Goody" mech, I'd be glad if it is possible but it would probably requires a redesign of a lot of units, not just "buff Tanks/Thor..." or whatever. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 20 2013 19:20 Foxxan wrote: mech viable versus protoss is a huge difference Mech play vs protoss is already in SC2, it's called Swarmhost play. It also happens that PvZ is the most dynamic non-mirror matchup as well. Go figure. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 21 2013 00:06 Big J wrote: read on Or as an incomplete list: Zealot Charge Immortal HotS Void Rays Tempest Viper Swarm Host ... So their approach seems to be, if we can't make it work by designing stuff for it, we won't force it into the game, because forcing it into the game would require us to rebalance/redesign/remove a lot of stuff, without knowing whether the outcome will be worth it. Not convinced that the reason behind all of this is that they think mech is "limiting to the game's design". They probably just have this pathetic cliché that only fast & furious things are entertaining to watch, on top of not understanding anything to what mech is and being very content with their dumb system of hard counters. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
On October 21 2013 00:02 lolfail9001 wrote: God awful maps? Huh, Newkirk is not really god awful map, style is ugly though. The new edition of Newkirk ofc. Newkirk was a pretty cool map, the issue was that the Zerg decided to not use their techs to avoid standing armies. Only reason why those stalemates actually happened. Well and Terran not using Nukes. | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 21 2013 00:38 FeyFey wrote: Newkirk was a pretty cool map, the issue was that the Zerg decided to not use their techs to avoid standing armies. Only reason why those stalemates actually happened. Well and Terran not using Nukes. Their techs? Sorry, but as a fact, i can state that once Terran establishes that turtling position, tech switching is a waste of resources and actually doing that SH-viper turtle is the only really good way of fighting it. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On October 20 2013 23:35 pmp10 wrote: You need to see the bigger picture - initially Blizzard really intended for mech to work TvP. All 3 new terran units were meant specifically for that match-up: - widow mines were supposed to help with safe openings which mech TvP lacks (hence hitting cloaked targets like DTs) - hellbats are there to counter chargelots overrunning siege-tanks - warhounds to contest stalkers for map control and counter immortals Of course within 2 weeks they changed their mind completely and had no problem with mech nerfs/counters since then. I sort of disagree with this. By looking at how the units were designed to work and how they were balanced, IMO Blizzard (Browder) wanted a bio 2.0 from the factory to be viable. So to this effect we got a mechanical marauder and a mechanical firebat. It was always about "move and shoot" 1a units and not strategical/ positioning based play (as it's what we understand by "mech") When it got clear that the majority of the community did not want this crap, they scraped the Warhound and ANY plans for mech along with it. It was bio 2.0 or NOTHING. This is why nothing of note was ever done to the Siege Tank or to it's ridiculous hard counters. Since mech was never going to happen, they had to find a way to incorporate the new units in to the classic bio play; here we get the "bio" tag on the Hellbat and the balancing of the mine in to a mini Siege Tank. This latest proposed patch is the ONLY time Blizzard has ever thought about the viability of mech in a positive light. Though i think it's save to say that the proposed changes are not even close to being enough. | ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
On October 21 2013 00:24 Vanadiel wrote: To be honest, I think Blizzard probably doesn't want that the playstyle of some terrans "turtle behind planetary and turrets until deathball" to work because it leads to very boring play. Mech playstyle like the one Flash did on some game against DRG for example is nice to watch, but the other playstyle like Goody in WoL is, to me, just awful to play against and booooring to watch. I don't really know how you could promote the "Flash mech" without buffing the "Goody" mech, I'd be glad if it is possible but it would probably requires a redesign of a lot of units, not just "buff Tanks/Thor..." or whatever. There will be always race with best "late-game" army for each matchup and it of course promotes to turtle until you get your deathball composition. For example, TvZ WoL - Broodlord/Corruptor + Infestor, Zergs were turtling like there is no tomorrow... PvT - Deathball army with both HT/Colossus... With mech it is the same story. Now on the other hand, it becomes problematic and frustrating when race with faster economy/production/movement also has ability to turtle in best army composition. Late WoL days are prime example of how bullshit this is. Terran has the slowest production (while playing mech this can't be argued), economy and possibly map control of all races and Terran absolutely can't recover from fight as fast as other two races. So do the math which race should have the best army composition that can trade most effectively. Lots of people I play on ladder are having problems playing vs mech and they often dies while trying to fight me head on and letting me into late-late game where I can afford all upgrades, collect energy on Ravens, secure key spots with PF, etc... Then those players complan, how insane this is, while all they want to do is the same... I'm currently playing as unranked and at the start of the game I always tell my opponent that I'm going mech to see what they can do.. Most of the time they have no idea and just lose in a terrible way or do some gimmicky allin or timing push (which is what I want to learn how to play against). | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 21 2013 00:34 TheDwf wrote: Not convinced that the reason behind all of this is that they think mech is "limiting to the game's design". They probably just have this pathetic cliché that only fast & furious things are entertaining to watch, on top of not understanding anything to what mech is and being very content with their dumb system of hard counters. Yeah, I'm not gonna discuss this if your standpoint is to use the most vicious forum-missinterpretations of stuff that blizzard has never said like that. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 21 2013 00:58 Big J wrote: Yeah, I'm not gonna discuss this if your standpoint is to use the most vicious forum-missinterpretations of stuff that blizzard has never said like that. As if they were going to be honest in the vague statements they publish once in a blue moon; don't you know how companies work when it comes to PR? There is sadly no minsinterpretation in what I said, just the result of observing the game and even basic reading. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 21 2013 01:03 TheDwf wrote: As if they were going to be honest in the vague statements they publish once in a blue moon; don't you know how companies work when it comes to PR? There is sadly no minsinterpretation in what I said, just the result of observing the game and even basic reading. Did it ever come to you that even the stuff that gets missinterpreted as "antimech" is PR as well? That they said "we prefer bio/mine over bio/tank" because they want to advertise the game instead of grumbling around how the game could be better? Or that they said "we are not going to force mech into the game" because if they said anything else it could be interpreted as the game is incomplete, don't buy it? Of coure they are not going to be superhonest and talk about every little thing they would like to have changed, just so that the whole internet can go berserk about the developers being dissatisfied with their work. That does not mean we have to turn everything they say into horseshit. | ||
|
goody153
44236 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 21 2013 01:51 goody153 wrote: if the changes were approved .. when is this probably gonna be live again ? after blizzcon, for the next season(s) of WCS is the plan. | ||
|
Chaggi
Korea (South)1936 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 21 2013 01:57 Chaggi wrote: Big J, this isn't really related to the topic at hand but do you actually play the game? You're in like every topic lol yes i play it | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10133 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 21 2013 03:27 Godwrath wrote: How is the TvZ winrate ? I thought it was stabilizing towards the 50% already. If blizzard doesn't really want every TvZ to be 4M, why don't they unlock different tech paths for terrans instead of just nerfing the mine and doing something that adds almost nothing to tanks which get countered by regenmutas and vipers while they don't really make that big deal of damage on a engagement on sc2 ? I just don't get it. Bring back the total damage tanks and you can fucking nerf WM to the place they were suppossed to be, just to guard flanks, or help halting harass on expansions for mech. Sorry, using common sense is not allowed when trying to patch this game. Otherwise, it would be too easy. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
ByuN vs Solar
Clem vs Classic
Cure vs herO
Reynor vs MaxPax
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
