|
On January 05 2014 03:30 lukem wrote:
I hope everyone is keeping in mind how much these changes will ultimately effect Allins specifically reviving the 1/1/1. All of these changes need to be an upgrade at the armory or something.. You could go with the + dmg to shields but at the very least make it somewhat mid to late game upgrade to prevent this from just being a straight allin buff. Maybe I'm just terrible but good terrans who don't use their ghosts sloppy create some of the most fun matches by having that late game micro battle.
I don't know if 1/1/1 will be viable again since there is still the 13 ranges PO that deal pretty good against tanks.
|
On January 05 2014 03:37 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2014 03:30 lukem wrote:
I hope everyone is keeping in mind how much these changes will ultimately effect Allins specifically reviving the 1/1/1. All of these changes need to be an upgrade at the armory or something.. You could go with the + dmg to shields but at the very least make it somewhat mid to late game upgrade to prevent this from just being a straight allin buff. Maybe I'm just terrible but good terrans who don't use their ghosts sloppy create some of the most fun matches by having that late game micro battle. I don't know if 1/1/1 will be viable again since there is still the 13 ranges PO that deal pretty good against tanks.
They should leave po the same then and just nerf the retardation that is the oracle
|
+ 10 ST damage vs shields? Boy, I'm glad that you lot are not in charge, and that Blizzard have said that will not happen.
As to the Oracle, you may be right. But, then, Blizzard thought it was "cool" and wanted to see more of it...
|
On January 05 2014 03:43 aZealot wrote:
+ 10 ST damage vs shields? Boy, I'm glad that you lot are not in charge, and that Blizzard have said that will not happen.
As to the Oracle, you may be right. But, then, Blizzard thought it was "cool" and wanted to see more of it...
I read somewhere that you were pretty mad about nerfing protoss, so you know, your biased vision of the game and your "I want to have it easy" isn't helping very much in a constructive discussion.
|
On January 05 2014 03:30 lukem wrote:
I hope everyone is keeping in mind how much these changes will ultimately effect Allins specifically reviving the 1/1/1. All of these changes need to be an upgrade at the armory or something.. You could go with the + dmg to shields but at the very least make it somewhat mid to late game upgrade to prevent this from just being a straight allin buff. Maybe I'm just terrible but good terrans who don't use their ghosts sloppy create some of the most fun matches by having that late game micro battle.
Also I have no idea why po is being nerfed instead of the absolutely insane oracle. I play toss and that unit is stupid
Yeah, I find it pretty comical that our feedback is somehow relevant now, when everyone has complained about the oracle since it was buffed. Even toss players have said it didn't need to be buffed, or at least not to the degree that it was buffed. But ofc that was David Kim's idea, and obviously he is infallible, so what's the point of giving feedback now? If he doesn't already know, who could possibly know better?
Then again, the oracle must not be too bad if you can change PO in a meaningless way in p vs t, yet they're doing back flips over it, while toss players don't even care... If that distraction can take one's mind off the oracle, then it must be fine. Nothing makes sense to me.
Personally, I think time warp lasts way longer than needed. There's no matchup where I need it to last 30 seconds. I just really don't get not buffing things like sensor towers or nerfing time warp, which clearly lasts way longer than it needs to. I just have this image in my head of everyone on the balance team trying to all-in/cheese everyone, all day. There's just no other way for me to explain it.
|
On January 05 2014 03:29 Kestnuts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2014 02:58 Faust852 wrote:On January 05 2014 02:49 Kestnuts wrote:
I'm totally okay with making mech more viable in all matchups, but I'd like to see it become a little more mechanically demanding to execute. I feel like on certain maps it's possible for a much weaker player to abuse a mech build for easy wins (Granted, I haven't played on any of the new maps yet.) It's not as mechanically demanding as bio in a certain way, but in other aspect it's much harder depending your playstyle. If you play aggressive with mech, like timing attack and drop heavy, it's as hard as bio in every aspect but splitting where you don't split in fight but you have to position yourself perfectly, and it's not that easy. If you play more of a passive style, you have to react to everything that comes to you perfectly, react very fast to every aggression on the minimap (same as bio but with a much slower army so.). You have to scout like a beast to have the perfect composition everytime because you might lose to 3 broodlords if you don't have enough vikings, to a sick SH transition if you don't have enough tanks or to a mass muta if you don't have enough thor. It's something you don't really care about when you play bio centric style for exemple. That's true, and I'm not saying I'm a total expert, since I haven't played terran since WoL, but from what I remember it seemed like it was harder to kill mech than it is to play it. Not so much the hellbat drop-heavy mech style, but the turtle on 3base to a deathball mech style. It's beatable, no doubt, but I'd like it to be a little less easy to turtle in any matchup, period, and as a zerg player I wish we had more options to aggressively shut down a turtling terran or toss without going totally all in. I don't enjoy camping outside a terrans base with swarmhosts and vipers and starving them out for 45 minutes, I guess.
Like you said, you are not an expert so you don't get to be the judge to say which style is harder to play, mech just requires a different skillset to play than bio. As Masters league Terran (both bio and mech) I have to say that mech is much much harder to pull off than bio, even when most of the ladder has horrible reactions to mech. I practice a lot with my clan mates and although I have played less than 500 BIO ladder games I have a much easier time beating with bio than with mech, in which I have thousands of games and I know the style inside out.
Zergs get mad then whey lose the 45minute game to Terran mech even though Zerg was already dead at the 20minute mark, it's just that mech is so bad that it will take so long to kill an enemy, even if the enemy spent the whole game building the wrong unit compositions and trading horribly. So Zergs get this impression that they "fought all game long and used every unit" but still lost but it's just because mech is so bad in the first place that the games take so long.
Zerg allined you 2 times, failed horribly but you still don't have a critical mass of units? Don't even try to move out and punish the zerg! Or they will pop a bunch of swarm hosts and suddenly you can't do any offensive move with your tanks until you have 10 ravens.
The ignorance surrounding mech is truly astounding but I suppose they must come from either very narrow minded people and/or people in low leagues in which mech might be stronger than bio because noobs can't macro.
|
On January 05 2014 03:39 lukem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2014 03:37 Faust852 wrote:On January 05 2014 03:30 lukem wrote:
I hope everyone is keeping in mind how much these changes will ultimately effect Allins specifically reviving the 1/1/1. All of these changes need to be an upgrade at the armory or something.. You could go with the + dmg to shields but at the very least make it somewhat mid to late game upgrade to prevent this from just being a straight allin buff. Maybe I'm just terrible but good terrans who don't use their ghosts sloppy create some of the most fun matches by having that late game micro battle. I don't know if 1/1/1 will be viable again since there is still the 13 ranges PO that deal pretty good against tanks. They should leave po the same then and just nerf the retardation that is the oracle
I wouldn't mind a slight nerf to Particle Beam, either damage or energy cost, but it shouldn't be overnerfed into oblivion.
|
On January 05 2014 05:15 Daralii wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2014 03:39 lukem wrote:On January 05 2014 03:37 Faust852 wrote:On January 05 2014 03:30 lukem wrote:
I hope everyone is keeping in mind how much these changes will ultimately effect Allins specifically reviving the 1/1/1. All of these changes need to be an upgrade at the armory or something.. You could go with the + dmg to shields but at the very least make it somewhat mid to late game upgrade to prevent this from just being a straight allin buff. Maybe I'm just terrible but good terrans who don't use their ghosts sloppy create some of the most fun matches by having that late game micro battle. I don't know if 1/1/1 will be viable again since there is still the 13 ranges PO that deal pretty good against tanks. They should leave po the same then and just nerf the retardation that is the oracle I wouldn't mind a slight nerf to Particle Beam, either damage or energy cost, but it shouldn't be overnerfed into oblivion.
We could just roll back the utterly unnecessary speed buff and it would be a lot better.
|
On January 05 2014 03:43 aZealot wrote:
+ 10 ST damage vs shields? Boy, I'm glad that you lot are not in charge, and that Blizzard have said that will not happen.
As to the Oracle, you may be right. But, then, Blizzard thought it was "cool" and wanted to see more of it...
Where did Blizzard say that +shield damage for siege tanks will not happen?
|
On January 05 2014 04:56 fried_rice wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2014 03:29 Kestnuts wrote:On January 05 2014 02:58 Faust852 wrote:On January 05 2014 02:49 Kestnuts wrote:
I'm totally okay with making mech more viable in all matchups, but I'd like to see it become a little more mechanically demanding to execute. I feel like on certain maps it's possible for a much weaker player to abuse a mech build for easy wins (Granted, I haven't played on any of the new maps yet.) It's not as mechanically demanding as bio in a certain way, but in other aspect it's much harder depending your playstyle. If you play aggressive with mech, like timing attack and drop heavy, it's as hard as bio in every aspect but splitting where you don't split in fight but you have to position yourself perfectly, and it's not that easy. If you play more of a passive style, you have to react to everything that comes to you perfectly, react very fast to every aggression on the minimap (same as bio but with a much slower army so.). You have to scout like a beast to have the perfect composition everytime because you might lose to 3 broodlords if you don't have enough vikings, to a sick SH transition if you don't have enough tanks or to a mass muta if you don't have enough thor. It's something you don't really care about when you play bio centric style for exemple. That's true, and I'm not saying I'm a total expert, since I haven't played terran since WoL, but from what I remember it seemed like it was harder to kill mech than it is to play it. Not so much the hellbat drop-heavy mech style, but the turtle on 3base to a deathball mech style. It's beatable, no doubt, but I'd like it to be a little less easy to turtle in any matchup, period, and as a zerg player I wish we had more options to aggressively shut down a turtling terran or toss without going totally all in. I don't enjoy camping outside a terrans base with swarmhosts and vipers and starving them out for 45 minutes, I guess. Like you said, you are not an expert so you don't get to be the judge to say which style is harder to play, mech just requires a different skillset to play than bio. As Masters league Terran (both bio and mech) I have to say that mech is much much harder to pull off than bio, even when most of the ladder has horrible reactions to mech. I practice a lot with my clan mates and although I have played less than 500 BIO ladder games I have a much easier time beating with bio than with mech, in which I have thousands of games and I know the style inside out. Zergs get mad then whey lose the 45minute game to Terran mech even though Zerg was already dead at the 20minute mark, it's just that mech is so bad that it will take so long to kill an enemy, even if the enemy spent the whole game building the wrong unit compositions and trading horribly. So Zergs get this impression that they "fought all game long and used every unit" but still lost but it's just because mech is so bad in the first place that the games take so long. Zerg allined you 2 times, failed horribly but you still don't have a critical mass of units? Don't even try to move out and punish the zerg! Or they will pop a bunch of swarm hosts and suddenly you can't do any offensive move with your tanks until you have 10 ravens. The ignorance surrounding mech is truly astounding but I suppose they must come from either very narrow minded people and/or people in low leagues in which mech might be stronger than bio because noobs can't macro.
That was kind of rude. You don't get to say who's allowed to judge what. I've played both races at least to a diamond level and I think mech is less difficult to play than whatever zerg has to do to beat it. It's a lot more mechanically demanding to beat than it is to execute. I don't know why more players don't use it, besides the benefit of meta gaming your opponent, who normally expects a 4m push, it's ridiculously cost efficient and extremely difficult to kill once the terran is maxed. I'm not saying anybody that plays mech is bad, i just don't think it should be possible for any race or unit comp to wall in on 3 bases and let your opponent take the rest of the map, and still have anything better than a snowballs chance in hell of winning. At that point your opponent should be able to just remax again and again and wear you down no matter what you're doing. This goes deeper than unit comps, it's a game design issue that I find deeply frustrating.
|
On January 05 2014 05:26 PineapplePizza wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2014 03:43 aZealot wrote:
+ 10 ST damage vs shields? Boy, I'm glad that you lot are not in charge, and that Blizzard have said that will not happen.
As to the Oracle, you may be right. But, then, Blizzard thought it was "cool" and wanted to see more of it... Where did Blizzard say that +shield damage for siege tanks will not happen?
Something a while ago about not having multiple attributes (e.g. + vs armour/+ vs shields and so on). DB said it in an interview a while ago. Of course, they might revisit that decision. I hope they don't though. It would make Biomech OP against Protoss, IMO (unless handled carefully, maybe, with a return of siege tank research and the anti-shield shell also researchable). But, then I am not really a fan of ST based mech in SC2. It's not going to be the return of positional play a la BW as the economies allow max-out too early. Instead it will be a turtle bore fest which is the opposite of what Blizzard says they want for the game.
|
On January 05 2014 05:54 Kestnuts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2014 04:56 fried_rice wrote:On January 05 2014 03:29 Kestnuts wrote:On January 05 2014 02:58 Faust852 wrote:On January 05 2014 02:49 Kestnuts wrote:
I'm totally okay with making mech more viable in all matchups, but I'd like to see it become a little more mechanically demanding to execute. I feel like on certain maps it's possible for a much weaker player to abuse a mech build for easy wins (Granted, I haven't played on any of the new maps yet.) It's not as mechanically demanding as bio in a certain way, but in other aspect it's much harder depending your playstyle. If you play aggressive with mech, like timing attack and drop heavy, it's as hard as bio in every aspect but splitting where you don't split in fight but you have to position yourself perfectly, and it's not that easy. If you play more of a passive style, you have to react to everything that comes to you perfectly, react very fast to every aggression on the minimap (same as bio but with a much slower army so.). You have to scout like a beast to have the perfect composition everytime because you might lose to 3 broodlords if you don't have enough vikings, to a sick SH transition if you don't have enough tanks or to a mass muta if you don't have enough thor. It's something you don't really care about when you play bio centric style for exemple. That's true, and I'm not saying I'm a total expert, since I haven't played terran since WoL, but from what I remember it seemed like it was harder to kill mech than it is to play it. Not so much the hellbat drop-heavy mech style, but the turtle on 3base to a deathball mech style. It's beatable, no doubt, but I'd like it to be a little less easy to turtle in any matchup, period, and as a zerg player I wish we had more options to aggressively shut down a turtling terran or toss without going totally all in. I don't enjoy camping outside a terrans base with swarmhosts and vipers and starving them out for 45 minutes, I guess. Like you said, you are not an expert so you don't get to be the judge to say which style is harder to play, mech just requires a different skillset to play than bio. As Masters league Terran (both bio and mech) I have to say that mech is much much harder to pull off than bio, even when most of the ladder has horrible reactions to mech. I practice a lot with my clan mates and although I have played less than 500 BIO ladder games I have a much easier time beating with bio than with mech, in which I have thousands of games and I know the style inside out. Zergs get mad then whey lose the 45minute game to Terran mech even though Zerg was already dead at the 20minute mark, it's just that mech is so bad that it will take so long to kill an enemy, even if the enemy spent the whole game building the wrong unit compositions and trading horribly. So Zergs get this impression that they "fought all game long and used every unit" but still lost but it's just because mech is so bad in the first place that the games take so long. Zerg allined you 2 times, failed horribly but you still don't have a critical mass of units? Don't even try to move out and punish the zerg! Or they will pop a bunch of swarm hosts and suddenly you can't do any offensive move with your tanks until you have 10 ravens. The ignorance surrounding mech is truly astounding but I suppose they must come from either very narrow minded people and/or people in low leagues in which mech might be stronger than bio because noobs can't macro. That was kind of rude. You don't get to say who's allowed to judge what. I've played both races at least to a diamond level and I think mech is less difficult to play than whatever zerg has to do to beat it. It's a lot more mechanically demanding to beat than it is to execute. I don't know why more players don't use it, besides the benefit of meta gaming your opponent, who normally expects a 4m push, it's ridiculously cost efficient and extremely difficult to kill once the terran is maxed. I'm not saying anybody that plays mech is bad, i just don't think it should be possible for any race or unit comp to wall in on 3 bases and let your opponent take the rest of the map, and still have anything better than a snowballs chance in hell of winning. At that point your opponent should be able to just remax again and again and wear you down no matter what you're doing. This goes deeper than unit comps, it's a game design issue that I find deeply frustrating.
You can't hide your tech, if you never scout it's your problem, but you should not be surprised by mech.
If you let the terran player on 3 bases and you take the rest of the map, you just can't lose, or you were too greedy and that's why you lost to his push.
You shouldn't be able to beat maxed mech in one front fight, it is totally normal. There are plenty of way to kill the mech player, and the easiest way is to just massing SH, don't tell me it's hard to micro. If the terran player doesn't have a critical mass of tanks to deal against SH, he has auto lose. He can't do a sky transition on 3 bases too.
So all in all, you just don't know how to deal against mech, but don't take your case an universal evidence of mech being easier than bio.
|
On January 05 2014 06:04 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2014 05:26 PineapplePizza wrote:On January 05 2014 03:43 aZealot wrote:
+ 10 ST damage vs shields? Boy, I'm glad that you lot are not in charge, and that Blizzard have said that will not happen.
As to the Oracle, you may be right. But, then, Blizzard thought it was "cool" and wanted to see more of it... Where did Blizzard say that +shield damage for siege tanks will not happen? Something a while ago about not having multiple attributes (e.g. + vs armour/+ vs shields and so on). DB said it in an interview a while ago. Of course, they might revisit that decision. I hope they don't though. It would make Biomech OP against Protoss, IMO (unless handled carefully, maybe, with a return of siege tank research and the anti-shield shell also researchable). But, then I am not really a fan of ST based mech in SC2. It's not going to be the return of positional play a la BW as the economies allow max-out too early. Instead it will be a turtle bore fest which is the opposite of what Blizzard says they want for the game.
You don't know before at least some tests. Buffing the tank won't make it more mobile, and everyone know that's the big weakness of mech style, I refer you to Dayshi vs HerO on Frost, don't remember the tourney tho. Dayshi was well into the game before HerO decided to play the harass card, with WP and runby. HerO had a shitty composition to deal against Dayshi's Mech, so he wasn't able to take straight up fight. So in fact, if the terran player decide to go mech, the role will reverse, with the protoss having to multi harass and the terran will have to defend till he reachs a good enough army to attack. If you think PvT is balance at the moment, I don't see why switching role wouldn't be either.
|
On January 05 2014 05:54 Kestnuts wrote:
That was kind of rude. You don't get to say who's allowed to judge what. I've played both races at least to a diamond level and I think mech is less difficult to play than whatever zerg has to do to beat it. It's a lot more mechanically demanding to beat than it is to execute. I don't know why more players don't use it, besides the benefit of meta gaming your opponent, who normally expects a 4m push, it's ridiculously cost efficient and extremely difficult to kill once the terran is maxed. I'm not saying anybody that plays mech is bad, i just don't think it should be possible for any race or unit comp to wall in on 3 bases and let your opponent take the rest of the map, and still have anything better than a snowballs chance in hell of winning. At that point your opponent should be able to just remax again and again and wear you down no matter what you're doing. This goes deeper than unit comps, it's a game design issue that I find deeply frustrating.
You said you didn't play Terran since WOL? Things have surely changed since then and people got much much better. If you think 3 bases mech is unbeatable then you have no idea what you're talking about, you can't safely transition into sky until 4 bases and even then it's still hard because you'll be too spread out.
So all in all, you just don't know how to deal against mech, but don't take your case an universal evidence of mech being easier than bio.
This is spot on, if you're bad at dealing with mech and don't wanna put in the effort to get good at it (it's a lot of effort,I know, it's hard to even find practice on it, because of how bad it is) then it's ok, but don't go around shouting that the style that sees no use in pro-play (and it's current state it won't) and that a handful of people on the ladder use is "OP" or "too easy to execute".
|
On January 05 2014 06:18 fried_rice wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2014 05:54 Kestnuts wrote:
That was kind of rude. You don't get to say who's allowed to judge what. I've played both races at least to a diamond level and I think mech is less difficult to play than whatever zerg has to do to beat it. It's a lot more mechanically demanding to beat than it is to execute. I don't know why more players don't use it, besides the benefit of meta gaming your opponent, who normally expects a 4m push, it's ridiculously cost efficient and extremely difficult to kill once the terran is maxed. I'm not saying anybody that plays mech is bad, i just don't think it should be possible for any race or unit comp to wall in on 3 bases and let your opponent take the rest of the map, and still have anything better than a snowballs chance in hell of winning. At that point your opponent should be able to just remax again and again and wear you down no matter what you're doing. This goes deeper than unit comps, it's a game design issue that I find deeply frustrating. You said you didn't play Terran since WOL? Things have surely changed since then and people got much much better. If you think 3 bases mech is unbeatable then you have no idea what you're talking about, you can't safely transition into sky until 4 bases and even then it's still hard because you'll be too spread out. Show nested quote +So all in all, you just don't know how to deal against mech, but don't take your case an universal evidence of mech being easier than bio. This is spot on, if you're bad at dealing with mech and don't wanna put in the effort to get good at it (it's a lot of effort,I know, it's hard to even find practice on it, because of how bad it is) then it's ok, but don't go around shouting that the style that sees no use in pro-play (and it's current state it won't) and that a handful of people on the ladder use is "OP" or "too easy to execute".
I still occasionally play terran unranked, and I prefer to play mech when I do. It's just easier. I see where you could get that I think it's unbeatable from my last post, but at that point I was trying to make a general point that I think turtling styles are too strong in sc2. Sorry for the confusion. I got a fair amount of practice dealing with Mech when HoTS first came out, and then again after the recent upgrade buff. I'm nowhere near 100% at beating it, but I do better than 60%. It's just frustrating to play out a 45 minute game, and at the end, watch the replay and find out the terran had 1/3rd of the actions because the turtle mech style doesn't require you to be very fast. Now the more active style that involves a lot of dropping and poking at your opponent, I have no problem with. That style's really fun to play against, even though it's probably harder to beat when executed well. I don't know, I'm hung over and I feel like I'm not expressing my point very well.
|
I just watched the replay of my match against the last Zerg that BM'd me after a 40minute game(most of them do). The guy didn't even hotkey his units, I use 3 or 4 hotkeys for my final army and I know of other high lvl mechers (such as Dzerzhynsky) that use even more, I know the micro of my units inside out (it's not as easy as a-moving a protoss army for example), most zergs don't even split their units or even realize that you can run away from seekers, hell, I've seen Zergs in MASTER LEAGUE cast blinding cloud on Vikings.
So, you're mad that a person with less APM beats you? This game is not Dance Dance Revolution, feeling entitled to win the game just because you spammed units and spread a lot of creep is bs, the last zerg I beat had 200apm but didnt even hotkey his army, he was just spamming shit and BMing me after I raped him.
Also, there's no full "agressive" mech, I use a lot of Thor drops and Hellion->Hellbat runbys to kill expos and tech but against people that know what they're doing these kind of moves are not even POSSIBLE so sometimes all I can do is turtle into 4 or 5 bases and have to play a harder drawn out game.
Me and others have explained to you that it's not as easy as it looks to play high lvl mech but still, your posts just sound like QQing.
|
United States7483 Posts
This nerf to the PO will kill PvP and badly hurt PvZ gate expands, and will not change PvT much.
Nerf the oracle instead, the oracle is awful in PvP too, not just PvT.
|
Like the changes, think they are fair, The only matchup that PO is gonna really impact is PvP, 4 gate micro battles resume!
|
On January 05 2014 07:23 fried_rice wrote:
I just watched the replay of my match against the last Zerg that BM'd me after a 40minute game(most of them do). The guy didn't even hotkey his units, I use 3 or 4 hotkeys for my final army and I know of other high lvl mechers (such as Dzerzhynsky) that use even more, I know the micro of my units inside out (it's not as easy as a-moving a protoss army for example), most zergs don't even split their units or even realize that you can run away from seekers, hell, I've seen Zergs in MASTER LEAGUE cast blinding cloud on Vikings.
So, you're mad that a person with less APM beats you? This game is not Dance Dance Revolution, feeling entitled to win the game just because you spammed units and spread a lot of creep is bs, the last zerg I beat had 200apm but didnt even hotkey his army, he was just spamming shit and BMing me after I raped him.
Also, there's no full "agressive" mech, I use a lot of Thor drops and Hellion->Hellbat runbys to kill expos and tech but against people that know what they're doing these kind of moves are not even POSSIBLE so sometimes all I can do is turtle into 4 or 5 bases and have to play a harder drawn out game.
Me and others have explained to you that it's not as easy as it looks to play high lvl mech but still, your posts just sound like QQing.
...are you forgetting the part where I PLAY THIS STYLE WHEN I PLAY TERRAN? When I want to play less intense or maybe have a snack while I play (therefore not having full use of both hands) I play Terran mech unranked. I have not played terran as ranked since WoL, which I did not make clear in my first post. I'm not a spammy player other than early game when there's nothing to do, and I still hover around 210apm on average, even against mech. jesus, post an opinion and it turns into an internet dick-waving competition here, now I remember why I just lurk and never post.
|
We need fewer mineral nodes per Base on the maps.
If we get this the game will be more rewarding to players that can spread themselfs over the map in order to gain a larger mineral income. At the moment you NEVER benefit mineral income from having more then 3 bases and this is not good for gameplay at all.
This is because due to the supply cap you never have Workers enough to mine minerals from more then 3 bases at once.
So yea one major change i'd like to see in SC2 is fewer mineral nodes per base and I think that this would be a huge leap in a possitive direction for SC2 gameplay overall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
