|
On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 03:54 HeroMystic wrote:On December 08 2015 03:35 parkufarku wrote:
Mech doesn't need to work. You don't see Protoss players complaining they can't go non-gateway toss Words cannot describe just how tired this stupid argument is. Therefore, I'll just say "the races are not the same" and leave it at that. If you try to press on this argument you'll only confirm how little thought you put into this. Can you explain how wanting mech to be competitive isn't "stupid" (irrational) at its core? You've just picked some production buildings and units that follow a non-combat theme (they're mechanical) and ask Blizzard to change the rules of the game so this theme of units you like building is viable to play on every map and against every race. There's no other group of SC2 players like the mech players. I think it's totally cool to have a composition that you like to play but it goes too far when discussing possibly changing of the rules of the game to make your little pet composition better. It all started with mech being viable in a different game and wanting an equivalent in SC2, which is not at all unlike comparing terran mech to protoss mech. The races aren't supposed to be the same and neither are the games. The completely arbitrary picking of certain terran units, the "mechanical" ones built from factories and starports, is so absurd as a basis for this whole movement that you don't even think about it anymore. Every time the mech petitioners go too far with how much they want the whole game to change to suit them, people have to come remind you how ridiculous it all is.
There are two things to keep separate in your argument.
1) "Mech", as in the desired composition being viable
2) the general viability of units and having various approaches/playstyles to win the game
1) is just the historically grown alternative in the Terran arsenal, and it's not half as made-up of a composition as you describe it here. Like the composition itself has been working in 2 matchups of SC2 for 5years, so you are going far overboard if you pretend there is no basic-shared theme here aside from the mechanical-tag. (production, upgrades, the share of mineral and gas units on the factory... I really don't need to tell you this though)
2) The whole idea behind it is that lots of Terran units just don't have a lot of uses and Mech is a rather natural approach to solve that problem for factory units. Sure we can have a "whatever works" approach to the game, always play bio, maybe even see the one or other tank or thors somewhere and never talk about it again. But why would we stop here when blizzard has been talking about improving the game and giving options for a long time?
|
On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 03:54 HeroMystic wrote:On December 08 2015 03:35 parkufarku wrote:
Mech doesn't need to work. You don't see Protoss players complaining they can't go non-gateway toss Words cannot describe just how tired this stupid argument is. Therefore, I'll just say "the races are not the same" and leave it at that. If you try to press on this argument you'll only confirm how little thought you put into this. Can you explain how wanting mech to be competitive isn't "stupid" (irrational) at its core? You've just picked some production buildings and units that follow a non-combat theme (they're mechanical) and ask Blizzard to change the rules of the game so this theme of units you like building is viable to play on every map and against every race. There's no other group of SC2 players like the mech players. I think it's totally cool to have a composition that you like to play but it goes too far when discussing possibly changing of the rules of the game to make your little pet composition better. It all started with mech being viable in a different game and wanting an equivalent in SC2, which is not at all unlike comparing terran mech to protoss mech. The races aren't supposed to be the same and neither are the games. The completely arbitrary picking of certain terran units, the "mechanical" ones built from factories and starports, is so absurd as a basis for this whole movement that you don't even think about it anymore. Every time the mech petitioners go too far with how much they want the whole game to change to suit them, people have to come remind you how ridiculous it all is.
If you're asking me why I want mech viable then you're asking the wrong person, because I've accepted that BW-style Mech isn't going to happen a long time ago. The problem is Factory/Starport units are very bad without upgrades, and it's not efficient/bad to get all upgrades at once.
And I've said this in another thread, but you can tell Blizzard realized this, which is why Cyclone uses spell damage, and Liberator's damage is pretty absurd. But for every other unit that isn't like this, they lose their worth as time goes on. When Air/Mech upgrades were completely separate, it was downright silly to mix these two compositions together effectively, especially if you had the idea of going Bio-Mech.
|
On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 03:54 HeroMystic wrote:On December 08 2015 03:35 parkufarku wrote:
Mech doesn't need to work. You don't see Protoss players complaining they can't go non-gateway toss Words cannot describe just how tired this stupid argument is. Therefore, I'll just say "the races are not the same" and leave it at that. If you try to press on this argument you'll only confirm how little thought you put into this. Can you explain how wanting mech to be competitive isn't "stupid" (irrational) at its core? You've just picked some production buildings and units that follow a non-combat theme (they're mechanical) and ask Blizzard to change the rules of the game so this theme of units you like building is viable to play on every map and against every race. There's no other group of SC2 players like the mech players. I think it's totally cool to have a composition that you like to play but it goes too far when discussing possibly changing of the rules of the game to make your little pet composition better. It all started with mech being viable in a different game and wanting an equivalent in SC2, which is not at all unlike comparing terran mech to protoss mech. The races aren't supposed to be the same and neither are the games. The completely arbitrary picking of certain terran units, the "mechanical" ones built from factories and starports, is so absurd as a basis for this whole movement that you don't even think about it anymore. Every time the mech petitioners go too far with how much they want the whole game to change to suit them, people have to come remind you how ridiculous it all is.
People aren't asking to arbitrarily be able to play with only units produced out of a one building, mech is a playstyle based entirely around the tank's slow, defensive/positional nature. No one is asking for hellion/cyclone or mass thor to be viable against all races on every map. They're asking to play something other than MMM, which by nature tends towards certain ways of playing the game that many players may not like, and not be at a significant disadvantage for it.
What exactly is so irrational about wanting styles of play to be viable other than MMM against every race? (All Terran does is MMM for 5 years ect as some Zerg/Protoss players love to bring up) Yes, there are a myriad of issues preventing mech from truly becoming a viable style but that does not invalidate people's wishes for there to be more than one core composition and general playstyle as Terran.
I find it more ridiculous that people are so vehemently against making changes to the game that actually allow for strategic options other than MMM + support unit (vikings/liberators/widow mines) for however many more years.
|
On December 08 2015 04:48 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:On December 08 2015 03:54 HeroMystic wrote:On December 08 2015 03:35 parkufarku wrote:
Mech doesn't need to work. You don't see Protoss players complaining they can't go non-gateway toss Words cannot describe just how tired this stupid argument is. Therefore, I'll just say "the races are not the same" and leave it at that. If you try to press on this argument you'll only confirm how little thought you put into this. Can you explain how wanting mech to be competitive isn't "stupid" (irrational) at its core? You've just picked some production buildings and units that follow a non-combat theme (they're mechanical) and ask Blizzard to change the rules of the game so this theme of units you like building is viable to play on every map and against every race. There's no other group of SC2 players like the mech players. I think it's totally cool to have a composition that you like to play but it goes too far when discussing possibly changing of the rules of the game to make your little pet composition better. It all started with mech being viable in a different game and wanting an equivalent in SC2, which is not at all unlike comparing terran mech to protoss mech. The races aren't supposed to be the same and neither are the games. The completely arbitrary picking of certain terran units, the "mechanical" ones built from factories and starports, is so absurd as a basis for this whole movement that you don't even think about it anymore. Every time the mech petitioners go too far with how much they want the whole game to change to suit them, people have to come remind you how ridiculous it all is. There are two things to keep separate in your argument. 1) "Mech", as in the desired composition being viable 2) the general viability of units and having various approaches/playstyles to win the game 1) is just the historically grown alternative in the Terran arsenal, and it's not half as made-up of a composition as you describe it here. Like the composition itself has been working in 2 matchups of SC2 for 5years, so you are going far overboard if you pretend there is no basic-shared theme here aside from the mechanical-tag. (production, upgrades, the share of mineral and gas units on the factory... I really don't need to tell you this though) 2) The whole idea behind it is that lots of Terran units just don't have a lot of uses and Mech is a rather natural approach to solve that problem for factory units. Sure we can have a "whatever works" approach to the game, always play bio, maybe even see the one or other tank or thors somewhere and never talk about it again. But why would we stop here when blizzard has been talking about improving the game and giving options for a long time?
Not every unit has to be viable in every matchup for it to be a good unit. When you ask for Blizzard to do that you're basically holding the rest of the game hostage to your demand for "factory units only" to be viable in all 3 MUs...
Also, maps change and the meta changes.. what's not in fashion now could work at another point in time. TY made mech happen vs Protoss a couple of times in Pro League. Tanks have been used on certain maps *with a bio follow-up.* SoS opened Tempests PvZ in a grand finals. ForGG opened mech and transitioned back into bio....
You can still build all those units if you want when the situation calls for them. It's good to have that diversity. But saying "you need to design me units so that I can play SC2 like Brood War" is silly.
|
I don't agree that vipers come out early enough to actually be the mech killer.
It's terrible scaling in the mid-game that dooms almost all factory-heavy compositions.
To fix it Blizzard could drop factory unit gas cost and build times.
Or maybe just buff the range on thors as they are the least mobile unit right now.
|
On December 08 2015 04:59 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 04:48 Big J wrote:On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:On December 08 2015 03:54 HeroMystic wrote:On December 08 2015 03:35 parkufarku wrote:
Mech doesn't need to work. You don't see Protoss players complaining they can't go non-gateway toss Words cannot describe just how tired this stupid argument is. Therefore, I'll just say "the races are not the same" and leave it at that. If you try to press on this argument you'll only confirm how little thought you put into this. Can you explain how wanting mech to be competitive isn't "stupid" (irrational) at its core? You've just picked some production buildings and units that follow a non-combat theme (they're mechanical) and ask Blizzard to change the rules of the game so this theme of units you like building is viable to play on every map and against every race. There's no other group of SC2 players like the mech players. I think it's totally cool to have a composition that you like to play but it goes too far when discussing possibly changing of the rules of the game to make your little pet composition better. It all started with mech being viable in a different game and wanting an equivalent in SC2, which is not at all unlike comparing terran mech to protoss mech. The races aren't supposed to be the same and neither are the games. The completely arbitrary picking of certain terran units, the "mechanical" ones built from factories and starports, is so absurd as a basis for this whole movement that you don't even think about it anymore. Every time the mech petitioners go too far with how much they want the whole game to change to suit them, people have to come remind you how ridiculous it all is. There are two things to keep separate in your argument. 1) "Mech", as in the desired composition being viable 2) the general viability of units and having various approaches/playstyles to win the game 1) is just the historically grown alternative in the Terran arsenal, and it's not half as made-up of a composition as you describe it here. Like the composition itself has been working in 2 matchups of SC2 for 5years, so you are going far overboard if you pretend there is no basic-shared theme here aside from the mechanical-tag. (production, upgrades, the share of mineral and gas units on the factory... I really don't need to tell you this though) 2) The whole idea behind it is that lots of Terran units just don't have a lot of uses and Mech is a rather natural approach to solve that problem for factory units. Sure we can have a "whatever works" approach to the game, always play bio, maybe even see the one or other tank or thors somewhere and never talk about it again. But why would we stop here when blizzard has been talking about improving the game and giving options for a long time? Not every unit has to be viable in every matchup for it to be a good unit. When you ask for Blizzard to do that you're basically holding the rest of the game hostage to your demand for "factory units only" to be viable in all 3 MUs... Also, maps change and the meta changes.. what's not in fashion now could work at another point in time. TY made mech happen vs Protoss a couple of times in Pro League. Tanks have been used on certain maps *with a bio follow-up.* SoS opened Tempests PvZ in a grand finals. ForGG opened mech and transitioned back into bio.... You can still build all those units if you want when the situation calls for them. It's good to have that diversity.
This I disagree with. If I play an AvsB matchup there is no C in the game. So the unit either has a use or it doesn't when I play. There is no Schrödingers matchup in the game where a unit is 33% good with my opponent being race ABC until I measure his existance. (ok... in random vs random you could make that case... yeah... who cares about them...)
The game is basically 6 different games, that's just how it is.
And with those 6 different games you can now either say:
a) fuck it, we don't need no balance and nothing because if something is weak just don't play it... well, that's not what's happening because that would be pretty stupid for any kind of game
b) We balanced it somehow, but it doesn't matter how... that's also not what's happening... we didn't stop at BL/Infestor/Daybreak vs Sentry/Immortal/Ohana balance for example. People are rightfully in arms about such gameplay as it is hilariously bad to play or watch.
c) We actually try to balance it in a way that various strategies are possible and that you get a variety of scenarios, not just one or two per matchup.
And Mech is just one of the things that would help the game achieve c) in a rather fundamental way. A set of viable and/or semi-viable strategies for Terran.
You are absolutely right about what you are saying with metagame/maps etc, but really, the difference between what you say - Tanks may be viable on this or that map - and what I say - tanks should be somewhat viable in general - is just that I want to play a version of the game that is definitely going to feature that variety and rather sooner than later, because I don't have anything from it when the maps and balance and metagame have moved there in 10years, but I don't play anymore.
|
On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 03:54 HeroMystic wrote:On December 08 2015 03:35 parkufarku wrote:
Mech doesn't need to work. You don't see Protoss players complaining they can't go non-gateway toss Words cannot describe just how tired this stupid argument is. Therefore, I'll just say "the races are not the same" and leave it at that. If you try to press on this argument you'll only confirm how little thought you put into this. Can you explain how wanting mech to be competitive isn't "stupid" (irrational) at its core? You've just picked some production buildings and units that follow a non-combat theme (they're mechanical) and ask Blizzard to change the rules of the game so this theme of units you like building is viable to play on every map and against every race. There's no other group of SC2 players like the mech players. I think it's totally cool to have a composition that you like to play but it goes too far when discussing possibly changing of the rules of the game to make your little pet composition better. It all started with mech being viable in a different game and wanting an equivalent in SC2, which is not at all unlike comparing terran mech to protoss mech. The races aren't supposed to be the same and neither are the games. The completely arbitrary picking of certain terran units, the "mechanical" ones built from factories and starports, is so absurd as a basis for this whole movement that you don't even think about it anymore. Every time the mech petitioners go too far with how much they want the whole game to change to suit them, people have to come remind you how ridiculous it all is.
Adding to what everybody is saying, not only mech has been viable to different degrees in at least 2 MU throught the history of the game (THIS GAME BTW) but also Blizzard promised us.
BLIZZARD. FUCKING. PROMISED. US.
So no, its not stupid (irrational) to ask Blizzard something they themselves promised the would give us.
I like to play mech, other people like to play mech, Blizzard should either step up and start tacking action, or simple aknowleadge that they were lying and say they don't really want to give us mech.
|
Well, Blizzard is tasked with the impossible of making everyone happy.
The game can't be faster and require more micro but also be slower and positional at the same time. Give them a break.
|
On December 08 2015 05:32 DinoMight wrote:
Well, Blizzard is tasked with the impossible of making everyone happy.
The game can't be faster and require more micro but also be slower and positional at the same time. Give them a break.
I don't quite believe this. It's simply a matter of utilizing and balancing different playstyles.
That said, all I want is different unit compositions from Bio. How it is done doesn't really matter to me anymore, but it would be really helpful if it wasn't just Bio 2.0.
|
On December 08 2015 04:43 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:On December 08 2015 03:54 HeroMystic wrote:On December 08 2015 03:35 parkufarku wrote:
Mech doesn't need to work. You don't see Protoss players complaining they can't go non-gateway toss Words cannot describe just how tired this stupid argument is. Therefore, I'll just say "the races are not the same" and leave it at that. If you try to press on this argument you'll only confirm how little thought you put into this. Can you explain how wanting mech to be competitive isn't "stupid" (irrational) at its core? You've just picked some production buildings and units that follow a non-combat theme (they're mechanical) and ask Blizzard to change the rules of the game so this theme of units you like building is viable to play on every map and against every race. There's no other group of SC2 players like the mech players. I think it's totally cool to have a composition that you like to play but it goes too far when discussing possibly changing of the rules of the game to make your little pet composition better. It all started with mech being viable in a different game and wanting an equivalent in SC2, which is not at all unlike comparing terran mech to protoss mech. The races aren't supposed to be the same and neither are the games. The completely arbitrary picking of certain terran units, the "mechanical" ones built from factories and starports, is so absurd as a basis for this whole movement that you don't even think about it anymore. Every time the mech petitioners go too far with how much they want the whole game to change to suit them, people have to come remind you how ridiculous it all is. <3 <3 <3 <3 Thank you for this incredible post. Seriously, I don't think I've ever seen it better. It's like saying I want to win only with female Terran units or Zerg units that don't end in "isk." People played mech in Brood War because it won games. Not because of some arbitrary stylistic choice. Bio was not viable vs Protoss because it got annihilated by Reavers.
I know, right? It's completely ridiculous you see these idiotic threads post up time after time just because they can't have a certain niche group be used as standard. People often forget Bio in broodwar TvP was not really possible unless it was a surprise cheese play.
|
On December 08 2015 05:32 DinoMight wrote:
Well, Blizzard is tasked with the impossible of making everyone happy.
The game can't be faster and require more micro but also be slower and positional at the same time. Give them a break.
But you've just said that:
TL,DR; Terran doesn’t need anti air from the factory to make mech work. Terran needs (1) A viper nerf (2) Siege tank pickup to not exist (3) more “mech friendly” maps and economy.
So which one is it? 2 or 3 changes and some favorable maps or it's impossible? Or it shouldn't be viable anyway since it's irrational anyway?
|
On December 08 2015 05:47 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 05:32 DinoMight wrote:
Well, Blizzard is tasked with the impossible of making everyone happy.
The game can't be faster and require more micro but also be slower and positional at the same time. Give them a break. But you've just said that: Show nested quote +TL,DR; Terran doesn’t need anti air from the factory to make mech work. Terran needs (1) A viper nerf (2) Siege tank pickup to not exist (3) more “mech friendly” maps and economy. So which one is it? 2 or 3 changes and some favorable maps or it's impossible? Or it shouldn't be viable anyway since it's irrational anyway?
Well I was mostly responding to Blizzard bashing. They have a very difficult job of making everyone happy and also producing a good game.
I don't think full mech needs to be viable. But I do think making a few changes to LotV can make mech MORE viable. l wouldn't mind seeing more bio play that incorporates some mech elements such as Siege Tanks or Liberators.
Ravagers and Parasitic bomb are priorities 1 and 2 IMO.
Make Cyclones 25 gas less.
Increase the amount of gas in each base a bit and make the maps less... for lack of a better word.. fucking idiotic. Enough of these incredibly large hard to defend natural ramps.
|
On December 08 2015 04:43 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:On December 08 2015 03:54 HeroMystic wrote:On December 08 2015 03:35 parkufarku wrote:
Mech doesn't need to work. You don't see Protoss players complaining they can't go non-gateway toss Words cannot describe just how tired this stupid argument is. Therefore, I'll just say "the races are not the same" and leave it at that. If you try to press on this argument you'll only confirm how little thought you put into this. Can you explain how wanting mech to be competitive isn't "stupid" (irrational) at its core? You've just picked some production buildings and units that follow a non-combat theme (they're mechanical) and ask Blizzard to change the rules of the game so this theme of units you like building is viable to play on every map and against every race. There's no other group of SC2 players like the mech players. I think it's totally cool to have a composition that you like to play but it goes too far when discussing possibly changing of the rules of the game to make your little pet composition better. It all started with mech being viable in a different game and wanting an equivalent in SC2, which is not at all unlike comparing terran mech to protoss mech. The races aren't supposed to be the same and neither are the games. The completely arbitrary picking of certain terran units, the "mechanical" ones built from factories and starports, is so absurd as a basis for this whole movement that you don't even think about it anymore. Every time the mech petitioners go too far with how much they want the whole game to change to suit them, people have to come remind you how ridiculous it all is. <3 <3 <3 <3 Thank you for this incredible post. Seriously, I don't think I've ever seen it better. It's like saying I want to win only with female Terran units or Zerg units that don't end in "isk." People played mech in Brood War because it won games. Not because of some arbitrary stylistic choice. Bio was not viable vs Protoss because it got annihilated by Reavers.
Frankly it's a bit sad this needs to be said, but there's absolutely nothing arbitrary about upgrade synchronization. There's a reason bio compositions tend to be pure bio, and mech compositions tend to be pure mech. That reason is not because people are making an "arbitrary stylistic choice" to only use units with a "mechanized" tag.
|
It's even more annoying that people constantly forget that Upgrades, Research, and Production buildings doesn't allow for Terran to make full tech switches and therefore forces unit compositions to be viable all game long.
And BW Bio not being viable in TvP is actually a bad example, because that is a problem there as well. There's a reason why Starbow tried to make it viable.
|
On December 08 2015 06:02 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 05:47 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 08 2015 05:32 DinoMight wrote:
Well, Blizzard is tasked with the impossible of making everyone happy.
The game can't be faster and require more micro but also be slower and positional at the same time. Give them a break. But you've just said that: TL,DR; Terran doesn’t need anti air from the factory to make mech work. Terran needs (1) A viper nerf (2) Siege tank pickup to not exist (3) more “mech friendly” maps and economy. So which one is it? 2 or 3 changes and some favorable maps or it's impossible? Or it shouldn't be viable anyway since it's irrational anyway? Well I was mostly responding to Blizzard bashing. They have a very difficult job of making everyone happy and also producing a good game. I don't think full mech needs to be viable. But I do think making a few changes to LotV can make mech MORE viable. l wouldn't mind seeing more bio play that incorporates some mech elements such as Siege Tanks or Liberators. Ravagers and Parasitic bomb are priorities 1 and 2 IMO. Make Cyclones 25 gas less. Increase the amount of gas in each base a bit and make the maps less... for lack of a better word.. fucking idiotic. Enough of these incredibly large hard to defend natural ramps.
OK, it seemed to me like you were taking opposite positions. first make a thread about how to make mech viable and then enthusiastically agree with posts that said it shouldn't be viable in the first place.
The interesting point for me is the eco. You say you played a lot of Terran, assuming a fair bit of mech, so how do you feel, based on your experience, that the new eco has impacted the style? Early game? Mid game? etc. It would be nice to have a discussion on this in a bit more detail.
|
On December 08 2015 06:02 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 05:47 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 08 2015 05:32 DinoMight wrote:
Well, Blizzard is tasked with the impossible of making everyone happy.
The game can't be faster and require more micro but also be slower and positional at the same time. Give them a break. But you've just said that: TL,DR; Terran doesn’t need anti air from the factory to make mech work. Terran needs (1) A viper nerf (2) Siege tank pickup to not exist (3) more “mech friendly” maps and economy. So which one is it? 2 or 3 changes and some favorable maps or it's impossible? Or it shouldn't be viable anyway since it's irrational anyway? Well I was mostly responding to Blizzard bashing. They have a very difficult job of making everyone happy and also producing a good game. I don't think full mech needs to be viable. But I do think making a few changes to LotV can make mech MORE viable. l wouldn't mind seeing more bio play that incorporates some mech elements such as Siege Tanks or Liberators.Ravagers and Parasitic bomb are priorities 1 and 2 IMO. Make Cyclones 25 gas less. Increase the amount of gas in each base a bit and make the maps less... for lack of a better word.. fucking idiotic. Enough of these incredibly large hard to defend natural ramps.
That is the one thing WE DONT WANT.
|
I suppose Dinomight talking about mech makes a nice change from his Protoss is underpowered, all other races EZ rhetoric. That said, all of this mech business is getting tiresome. You might as well ask why other races don't get the "mech" playstyle, whatever your definition of that may be.
|
It would be really nice if those whining that mech should not be viable can just propose the entire factory is removed. And then also remove the robotics facitity for protoss completely. And some random units for zerg (how about no air units for zerg, except ovis of course). Either make them viable, or remove them. But hey, apparantly having to do MMM every game is great!
Anyway to stay actually ontopic: I agree with the OP that factory anti air isn't really a major issue. Although re-adding the thor anti-armored air mode would be nice, maybe slightly boosted. (Why was it removed in the first place?). The main air problem for mech from zerg is the broodlord. There is no way you are going to make a ground mech unit deal with the broodlord without being OP against other air (such as voidrays). However right now vikings are just really bad due to parasitic bombs. And then add that with the range boost of broodlords no ground mech will even come into range of them. Was there an actual reason for that boost? If we cannot revert it, give the same range boost to thor anti-armored mode. (Yes I said no significantly better factory anti air was needed, but then it isn't better than it was in HOTS. I don't want thor to counter broodlords, but at the same time 10 broodlords shouldn't counter 30 thors because of a wall of broodlings).
And carriers, well. With the same reinstituting the thor anti armored attack they will do bit better vs them also. Problem is that it simply is a unit which is hard to mass, but when you get it is incredibly strong. And sure thats also true for other capital ships, but I feel that despite the need to build interceptors, carrier has fewest weaknesses.
|
On December 08 2015 06:27 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 06:02 DinoMight wrote:On December 08 2015 05:47 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 08 2015 05:32 DinoMight wrote:
Well, Blizzard is tasked with the impossible of making everyone happy.
The game can't be faster and require more micro but also be slower and positional at the same time. Give them a break. But you've just said that: TL,DR; Terran doesn’t need anti air from the factory to make mech work. Terran needs (1) A viper nerf (2) Siege tank pickup to not exist (3) more “mech friendly” maps and economy. So which one is it? 2 or 3 changes and some favorable maps or it's impossible? Or it shouldn't be viable anyway since it's irrational anyway? Well I was mostly responding to Blizzard bashing. They have a very difficult job of making everyone happy and also producing a good game. I don't think full mech needs to be viable. But I do think making a few changes to LotV can make mech MORE viable. l wouldn't mind seeing more bio play that incorporates some mech elements such as Siege Tanks or Liberators. Ravagers and Parasitic bomb are priorities 1 and 2 IMO. Make Cyclones 25 gas less. Increase the amount of gas in each base a bit and make the maps less... for lack of a better word.. fucking idiotic. Enough of these incredibly large hard to defend natural ramps. OK, it seemed to me like you were taking opposite positions. first make a thread about how to make mech viable and then enthusiastically agree with posts that said it shouldn't be viable in the first place. The interesting point for me is the eco. You say you played a lot of Terran, assuming a fair bit of mech, so how do you feel, based on your experience, that the new eco has impacted the style? Early game? Mid game? etc. It would be nice to have a discussion on this in a bit more detail.
I think the infrastructure requirement for mech is quite high and because of that it has trouble dealing with the new econ style that requires taking a lot of bases very quickly. If you spend all your money on infrastructure you have nothing to take bases with or you have to delay taking your base too long.
For example, what does a meching Terran do against... say... 20 roaches denying his 3rd? There's really nothing he can do that doesn't require a Starport OR a whole bunch of mech units that physically can't be out at that time.
Meching Terran is a bit like Protoss where you have to invest a lot up front and defend with as few units as possible but Terran units right now can't quite do that because of how the units are designed and when they hit the field. Also, the new economy delays gas and promotes mineral units. Both Zerg and Protoss have decent Mineral harassment tools but Terran doesn't really if they want to mech. Hellions are good but you need that Factory time to build siege tanks so you can take your 3rd against a bunch of Roaches/Stalkers.
On December 08 2015 06:29 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 06:02 DinoMight wrote:On December 08 2015 05:47 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 08 2015 05:32 DinoMight wrote:
Well, Blizzard is tasked with the impossible of making everyone happy.
The game can't be faster and require more micro but also be slower and positional at the same time. Give them a break. But you've just said that: TL,DR; Terran doesn’t need anti air from the factory to make mech work. Terran needs (1) A viper nerf (2) Siege tank pickup to not exist (3) more “mech friendly” maps and economy. So which one is it? 2 or 3 changes and some favorable maps or it's impossible? Or it shouldn't be viable anyway since it's irrational anyway? Well I was mostly responding to Blizzard bashing. They have a very difficult job of making everyone happy and also producing a good game. I don't think full mech needs to be viable. But I do think making a few changes to LotV can make mech MORE viable. l wouldn't mind seeing more bio play that incorporates some mech elements such as Siege Tanks or Liberators.Ravagers and Parasitic bomb are priorities 1 and 2 IMO. Make Cyclones 25 gas less. Increase the amount of gas in each base a bit and make the maps less... for lack of a better word.. fucking idiotic. Enough of these incredibly large hard to defend natural ramps. That is the one thing WE DONT WANT.
Maybe YOU don't want it. I want it. As I've just said.
|
On December 08 2015 06:59 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 06:29 Lexender wrote:On December 08 2015 06:02 DinoMight wrote:On December 08 2015 05:47 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 08 2015 05:32 DinoMight wrote:
Well, Blizzard is tasked with the impossible of making everyone happy.
The game can't be faster and require more micro but also be slower and positional at the same time. Give them a break. But you've just said that: TL,DR; Terran doesn’t need anti air from the factory to make mech work. Terran needs (1) A viper nerf (2) Siege tank pickup to not exist (3) more “mech friendly” maps and economy. So which one is it? 2 or 3 changes and some favorable maps or it's impossible? Or it shouldn't be viable anyway since it's irrational anyway? Well I was mostly responding to Blizzard bashing. They have a very difficult job of making everyone happy and also producing a good game. I don't think full mech needs to be viable. But I do think making a few changes to LotV can make mech MORE viable. l wouldn't mind seeing more bio play that incorporates some mech elements such as Siege Tanks or Liberators.Ravagers and Parasitic bomb are priorities 1 and 2 IMO. Make Cyclones 25 gas less. Increase the amount of gas in each base a bit and make the maps less... for lack of a better word.. fucking idiotic. Enough of these incredibly large hard to defend natural ramps. That is the one thing WE DONT WANT. Maybe YOU don't want it. I want it. As I've just said.
Thats not even mech! This thread really makes no sense, you say what should be done to make mech viable, then you say you DONT want mech to be viable, and then you say you want only bio to be viable (no matter what units are used as support as long as the core is MMM, as it always is, thats not mech)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
