|
Sigh, ok I'll try to be reasonable and give my points of view, wich of course are mine, but I think a certain amout agree with.
I'll go point by point
On December 10 2015 00:12 parkufarku wrote:
You can't ask for only mech units simply without a reasoning behind it that will be ok for it to differentiate with other races, and as Nony pointed out, it's completely arbitrary. Why should Terrans get a whole new playstyle when other races don't? Because it's asymmetrical equal? No, it's not, because there is absolutely no reason why that should happen.
Its been given, terran works different to other races, hence the bio vs mech argument, its not something we invented and no its not something we want because BW, seriously you have to either not watch many terrans games or simply be blind to notice that mech HAS been played all over the course of the game (THIS GAME, SC FUCKING 2).
Also its pretty rich saying that terran is asking for things other races haven't, what the fuck was the adept for? and zealots buffs? not to stop protoss from having to turtle until colossus (or into disruptor, wich is again a new style) and can now use gateway heavy styles, and zerg, my god has zerg gotten so much new shit that allows for many new playstyles.
Now was has terran got? Bio 3.0 where you get to switch from vikings to liberators, even TvT and TvZ haven't changed much, TvT is marine/tank/medivac since the dawn of times, and TvP as I said simply swiched from vikings to liberators, with the same mass MMM all game all games.
So no we aren't asking for stuff other races haven't or stuff that is simply "made up", terran is 2 styles, bio and mech, it has been like that always (SC, BW, WoL, HotS) its simply inherent to the race and I think is an interesting design.
On December 10 2015 00:12 parkufarku wrote:
I see a lot of those weak arguments like "having more diverse gameplay is better," but why should that more diverse gameplay only happen for Terrans? See where this is going?
Let's be able to crush opponents with only units that are made from factory hur-dur without giving something to the other 2 races not only breaks balance, but also creates gameplay skew that rewards gameplay to a player for picking one race over another.
I'm going to say this, I don't want to be rude but I have to.
Thats a pretty fucking stupid argument.
You take almost personal, like giving variety to the games would break it, why? Because you have to learn to deal with new stuff? Because you can't play the exact same way every damn time? It almos sound likes SC2 its a strategy game where you have to think and adapt.
As I said other races are getting new styles too, ravagers, lurkers and adepts (among many other things) have opened new styles of play for the races AND if other races ask for variety themselves they are in their own right, you almost sound like a little child with "why terrans deserve variety, NO I don't want that, if I don't get new stuff NOBODY DOES!!"
And of course having variety for one races opens variety for the others, you don't play the same against bio as you do against mech, in HotS mech play opened oportunities for different styles of counter play, units that where never (or almost never) used against terran where used, such as immortals, carriers, tempest, vipers, roach/hydra, etc. Even in TvT bio players would tech to BCs to counter mech play.
Lastly and very important, very very important.
HOW, DOES, HAVING, MECH, MAKES, TERRAN, BROKEN?
Its a different style, why would it skew balance? reward players for picking a race, WTF? Mech wouldn't be broken in itself nobody is asking for that, so how in all hell would it break balance? just because theres 2 styles? that makes no sense.
Also nobody (at least not the majority) is asking to simply spam units from the factory and be unable to defeat them, the ask for tanks and factory based AA is because its a design flaw, air support units will always be needed, the only think that changes is that instead of spamming bio with your air support you get factory units. Not to make them broken, just less shitty.
Altough I agree with the people saying mass air is too damn strong right now, that a different story altogether.
|
Blizzard needs to buff the tank.
|
On December 10 2015 06:47 Lexender wrote:Sigh, ok I'll try to be reasonable and give my points of view, wich of course are mine, but I think a certain amout agree with. I'll go point by point Show nested quote +On December 10 2015 00:12 parkufarku wrote:
You can't ask for only mech units simply without a reasoning behind it that will be ok for it to differentiate with other races, and as Nony pointed out, it's completely arbitrary. Why should Terrans get a whole new playstyle when other races don't? Because it's asymmetrical equal? No, it's not, because there is absolutely no reason why that should happen.
Its been given, terran works different to other races, hence the bio vs mech argument, its not something we invented and no its not something we want because BW, seriously you have to either not watch many terrans games or simply be blind to notice that mech HAS been played all over the course of the game (THIS GAME, SC FUCKING 2). Also its pretty rich saying that terran is asking for things other races haven't, what the fuck was the adept for? and zealots buffs? not to stop protoss from having to turtle until colossus (or into disruptor, wich is again a new style) and can now use gateway heavy styles, and zerg, my god has zerg gotten so much new shit that allows for many new playstyles. Now was has terran got? Bio 3.0 where you get to switch from vikings to liberators, even TvT and TvZ haven't changed much, TvT is marine/tank/medivac since the dawn of times, and TvP as I said simply swiched from vikings to liberators, with the same mass MMM all game all games. So no we aren't asking for stuff other races haven't or stuff that is simply "made up", terran is 2 styles, bio and mech, it has been like that always (SC, BW, WoL, HotS) its simply inherent to the race and I think is an interesting design. Show nested quote +On December 10 2015 00:12 parkufarku wrote:
I see a lot of those weak arguments like "having more diverse gameplay is better," but why should that more diverse gameplay only happen for Terrans? See where this is going?
Let's be able to crush opponents with only units that are made from factory hur-dur without giving something to the other 2 races not only breaks balance, but also creates gameplay skew that rewards gameplay to a player for picking one race over another. I'm going to say this, I don't want to be rude but I have to. Thats a pretty fucking stupid argument. You take almost personal, like giving variety to the games would break it, why? Because you have to learn to deal with new stuff? Because you can't play the exact same way every damn time? It almos sound likes SC2 its a strategy game where you have to think and adapt. As I said other races are getting new styles too, ravagers, lurkers and adepts (among many other things) have opened new styles of play for the races AND if other races ask for variety themselves they are in their own right, you almost sound like a little child with "why terrans deserve variety, NO I don't want that, if I don't get new stuff NOBODY DOES!!" And of course having variety for one races opens variety for the others, you don't play the same against bio as you do against mech, in HotS mech play opened oportunities for different styles of counter play, units that where never (or almost never) used against terran where used, such as immortals, carriers, tempest, vipers, roach/hydra, etc. Even in TvT bio players would tech to BCs to counter mech play. Lastly and very important, very very important. HOW, DOES, HAVING, MECH, MAKES, TERRAN, BROKEN? Its a different style, why would it skew balance? reward players for picking a race, WTF? Mech wouldn't be broken in itself nobody is asking for that, so how in all hell would it break balance? just because theres 2 styles? that makes no sense. Also nobody (at least not the majority) is asking to simply spam units from the factory and be unable to defeat them, the ask for tanks and factory based AA is because its a design flaw, air support units will always be needed, the only think that changes is that instead of spamming bio with your air support you get factory units. Not to make them broken, just less shitty. Altough I agree with the people saying mass air is too damn strong right now, that a different story altogether.
There are many ways for diverse gameplay to be enabled--it does not need to be "mech" what ever that means.
Do all the factory units have various uses throughout different parts of the game? Yes.
Do we need a play style whose only definition is to specifically stop using Tier 1 Units? No.
For the most part--its a stupid argument to want a play style that is only interesting because it ignores 1/3 of the race's tech.
And its obviously an attempt at BW fanboyism because the only way you guys seem to imagine mech is that it HAS to have a tank and it HAS to be immobile and it HAS to be a strong late game comp with a STRONG early game defense. If you really wanted factory play to be a thing you should be letting it evolve naturally instead of forcing it.
|
On December 10 2015 07:07 Naracs_Duc wrote:
There are many ways for diverse gameplay to be enabled--it does not need to be "mech" what ever that means.
Mech is the factory based composition centered around the tank and positional play.
It does need to be mech, because the Terran race is designed around mech and bio play and uniquely so. Starcraft lore is that Terran is more flexible than both Protoss (raw power) and Zerg (swarm and mobility).
SC2 has just created this really stupid situation where bio is the only thing viable in all three Terran matchups.
On December 10 2015 07:07 Naracs_Duc wrote:Do all the factory units have various uses throughout different parts of the game? Yes.
No. Not really. Half of Terran units don't even get used in typical bio matches.
On December 10 2015 07:07 Naracs_Duc wrote:For the most part--its a stupid argument to want a play style that is only interesting because it ignores 1/3 of the race's tech.
Not at all. If you were talking about the current state of the game (where nothing but marine medivac is viable) then you would have a point.
On December 10 2015 07:07 Naracs_Duc wrote:And its obviously an attempt at BW fanboyism because the only way you guys seem to imagine mech is that it HAS to have a tank and it HAS to be immobile and it HAS to be a strong late game comp with a STRONG early game defense. If you really wanted factory play to be a thing you should be letting it evolve naturally instead of forcing it.
You clearly don't understand mech at all. A stronger tank would actually encourage more action and less turtling because mech players would be able to move out on the map and hold important positions with squads of units.
It is precisely because the SC2 tank is so pathetically weak that mech players have to turtle, because tanks are absolutely terrible in small numbers and don't do anything until you get 15 of them. And even then they're easily countered by a switch to air because mech has no anti-air. Terran players cannot tech switch because of the way that Terran infrastructure and upgrades work.
If you turtle into 15 tanks (because tanks suck and you can't actually move out with them because they don't do enough damage) then your opponent just switches to mass air and you only have 0/0 vikings.
|
On December 10 2015 00:12 parkufarku wrote:
Having an asymmetrical equality is fine if there is a reasoning behind why it is. In my example above, Zerg drops aren't as good as Terran drops, and that's fine because Zergs have higher mobility.
Honest question, is it unclear how different bio is from the factory? Factory units do not synergize well with bio and upgrades are completely separate. Design-wise, it seems like Blizzard is intentionally fragmenting the Terran ground army, more so than Zerg, and especially more-so than Protoss. Blizzard did some things, like make the Hellbat bio permitting them to be healed, but they're too slow to keep up with true bio units and take up a large amount of space in medivacs. Now, if Blizzard truly intends to fragment the Terran ground army, surely there must be a benefit for doing so, and that's the core argument: is there a benefit to this, and if not, why?
Regarding Zerg, yes, drops seem to be less effective overall, but Zerg and Protoss have more freedom to be more defensive vs hyper aggressive. MMM is hyper-aggression. Period. It depends on heavy drop play and split micro, and it uses only a handful of Terran units.
On December 10 2015 00:12 parkufarku wrote:I see a lot of those weak arguments like "having more diverse gameplay is better," but why should that more diverse gameplay only happen for Terrans? See where this is going?
Terran players aren't asking for special favors.
Let's cut to the chase: you could remove the Factory and all of its units from the game, and it would hardly have any affect on TvZ and TvP. That's over half of the Terran ground arsenal. Maybe you'd miss the widow mine, maybe not (after all, Liberators are a much better MMM support unit).
Hell, while we're at it, you could also remove the Banshee, Raven, and the Battlecruiser, but I suppose the factory is the focus here.
Of course it's the case that not all units will be viable in all match-ups, but why is such a significant chunk of the Terran army so mediocre or useless in non-mirror matches?
|
this is why TL has a rule against balance / design threads
|
On December 10 2015 06:47 Lexender wrote:
You take almost personal, like giving variety to the games would break it, why? Because you have to learn to deal with new stuff? Because you can't play the exact same way every damn time? It almos sound likes SC2 its a strategy game where you have to think and adapt.
As I said other races are getting new styles too, ravagers, lurkers and adepts (among many other things) have opened new styles of play for the races AND if other races ask for variety themselves they are in their own right, you almost sound like a little child with "why terrans deserve variety, NO I don't want that, if I don't get new stuff NOBODY DOES!!"
And of course having variety for one races opens variety for the others, you don't play the same against bio as you do against mech, in HotS mech play opened oportunities for different styles of counter play, units that where never (or almost never) used against terran where used, such as immortals, carriers, tempest, vipers, roach/hydra, etc. Even in TvT bio players would tech to BCs to counter mech play.
Lastly and very important, very very important.
HOW, DOES, HAVING, MECH, MAKES, TERRAN, BROKEN?
Its a different style, why would it skew balance? reward players for picking a race, WTF? Mech wouldn't be broken in itself nobody is asking for that, so how in all hell would it break balance? just because theres 2 styles? that makes no sense.
Also nobody (at least not the majority) is asking to simply spam units from the factory and be unable to defeat them, the ask for tanks and factory based AA is because its a design flaw, air support units will always be needed, the only think that changes is that instead of spamming bio with your air support you get factory units. Not to make them broken, just less shitty.
Altough I agree with the people saying mass air is too damn strong right now, that a different story altogether.
Yo, I'm going to respond to you if you calm down and stop raging. Think about it. You give race X tools A and B. Then you give race Y tools C, D, E, F, G, H. Having more options / playstyle forces the other races to constantly scout at what you are doing, and prepare for 6 different scenarios with defensive units / reacting playstyle as opposed to race Y that just needs to prepare / scout against 2 different playstyles. It doesn't directly break balance, but the possible tech switches, proactive and dominating playstyle that forces your opponent to react / guess accordingly simply because you have more options definitely makes the balance much much more difficult to work with.
You mentioned lurkers, adepts, ravagers, but those are simply new units that are injected in current playstyles. Terrans got liberators, cyclones, and other nifty upgrades that are implemented too. But what Protoss or Zerg didn't get are sole differentiation on arbitrary tag, like mech. Which is what you guys are constantly demanding.
Gameplay reward is changed, no matter how much you want to argue otherwise. Let's say a beginner plays SC2, and plays race X. Let's assume every game, he has two ways to play the game. Then he suddenly tries playing a race that starts with T, and then BAM, there are 5 other ways to play the game (just making up a random number) with many options to play it (more fun, versatile, flexible). If that's not skew in gameplay, I don't know what is.
On December 10 2015 07:07 Naracs_Duc wrote:
There are many ways for diverse gameplay to be enabled--it does not need to be "mech" what ever that means.
Do all the factory units have various uses throughout different parts of the game? Yes.
Do we need a play style whose only definition is to specifically stop using Tier 1 Units? No.
For the most part--its a stupid argument to want a play style that is only interesting because it ignores 1/3 of the race's tech.
Thank you, exactly my points. Not only are they wanting to not use Bio, but they want to disregard all other units except the ones coming out of a factory. It's like a Protoss player saying, 'not only do we not want to use basic gateway units, but we also want to only use robo facility units in a playstyle and have it completely viable!'
|
On December 10 2015 07:24 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2015 07:07 Naracs_Duc wrote:
There are many ways for diverse gameplay to be enabled--it does not need to be "mech" what ever that means. Mech is the factory based composition centered around the tank and positional play. It does need to be mech, because the Terran race is designed around mech and bio play and uniquely so. Starcraft lore is that Terran is more flexible than both Protoss (raw power) and Zerg (swarm and mobility). SC2 has just created this really stupid situation where bio is the only thing viable in all three Terran matchups. Show nested quote +On December 10 2015 07:07 Naracs_Duc wrote:Do all the factory units have various uses throughout different parts of the game? Yes. No. Not really. Half of Terran units don't even get used in typical bio matches. Show nested quote +On December 10 2015 07:07 Naracs_Duc wrote:For the most part--its a stupid argument to want a play style that is only interesting because it ignores 1/3 of the race's tech. Not at all. If you were talking about the current state of the game (where nothing but marine medivac is viable) then you would have a point. Show nested quote +On December 10 2015 07:07 Naracs_Duc wrote:And its obviously an attempt at BW fanboyism because the only way you guys seem to imagine mech is that it HAS to have a tank and it HAS to be immobile and it HAS to be a strong late game comp with a STRONG early game defense. If you really wanted factory play to be a thing you should be letting it evolve naturally instead of forcing it.
You clearly don't understand mech at all. A stronger tank would actually encourage more action and less turtling because mech players would be able to move out on the map and hold important positions with squads of units. It is precisely because the SC2 tank is so pathetically weak that mech players have to turtle, because tanks are absolutely terrible in small numbers and don't do anything until you get 15 of them. And even then they're easily countered by a switch to air because mech has no anti-air. Terran players cannot tech switch because of the way that Terran infrastructure and upgrades work. If you turtle into 15 tanks (because tanks suck and you can't actually move out with them because they don't do enough damage) then your opponent just switches to mass air and you only have 0/0 vikings.
Do hellions/hellbats see play? Yes.
Do Cylones see play? Yes.
Do tanks see play? Yes.
Do thors see play? Yes.
Do medivacs see play? Yes.
Do vikings see play? Yes.
In fact, all Terran units see regular play except for the Ghost and the Battlecruiser. If anything,
The only thing you are asking for is the ability to spam only units from the factory and not make infantry.
Bio play typically uses Marines, Maruaders, Medivacs, Vikings, Widowmines/Tanks/Thors--literally all 3 tech trees. You guys speak of Bio play as literal marine spam without anything else when the reality is so much more diverse than you would like people to know. The only thing you are upset about is that you don't get to spam tanks like BW used to spam tanks and not that factory units don't see play. That is not asking for more diversity, its literally asking for less.
|
if a unit "sees play" but its role is not as interesting as expected (to give some extreme examples a unit could be totally imba and "see ton of play", or could "see play" but have a very one dimensional role, being placed almost always in the same spot or at the same moment in the game), then people will want them to be changed in some way so you can't brush people who want mech's role to change with all the arguments they give with just a Q/A justification "does that unit see play? yes". Don't think everybody who wants mech to be different don't want bio to work side by side with a more factory units based army so I'm not sure where you're coming from saying they (everybody who wants to change mech?) are "literally asking for less" diversity. A very important point is to give T back its unique identity of being strong at occupying an area (not just your own base) and attacking an adjacent area from that occupied area, and the siege tank is the expression of that, even when used side by side with bio, so long as it is strong enough to really matter, "trade efficiently" as you say, even in low numbers and should be very efficient when already sieged up and attacked, otherwise why even have a siege tank in the game? (while the other races have things that can snipe a spot which you must dodge or things that instarush/teleport towards you as well?) It can't only have range, it must have real power, if it has to siege up cost this much money have this much hp and cant shoot at close range.. It would probably be great for the game overall to bring back an essence of tactical positioning element to it that got consistency and durability to it. More emphasis on strategy. It's not really about being able to "spam tanks like BW". If you just spam tanks in BW you're pretty much dead anyway  But sure, think of trying to make SC2 better than BW not just the same, I'll always say you need to change the pathing for that first, but anyway on the topic of strategic diversity of what you build, adding the possibility of mech to stand more or less by itself by having roles that aren't purely hardcounter or metagamegimmicky like the thor or cyclone are at the moment (possibly the hellion and tank too to a lesser extent?) is a good thing for that, for the strategic diversity of what you build. it's about the types of use that you can make of your units and the strategic identity of T. If T is able to make a lot of facts and use the units there efficiently together as tools that don't merely mean "hunt down an early air aggressor" or "run into base to kill drones" or "counter a muta flock" or "some extra long range damage", but instead something like "mobile engagement starter" and "scout that threatens small units" and "reliable strong slow anti air" and "powerful long range threat" this opens a lot of diversity, possibility to start games with a bunch of factories then have choice to add this many barracks or not etc. If you are worried that other races don't have such good diversity, why not think of making them become as interesting as that (in their own way) instead of trying to pull T down to keep them on the same level? As its been pointed out, if T managed to get this type of interesting diversity to it then it should have a positive impact on Z and P over time since they'll need to adapt in meta at least against T.
|
I don't understand the entitlement/stupidity behind expecting a race to have two completely viable sets of units that work in every matchup.
You don't see Protoss crying that robo only armies don't work, you don't see Zerg crying that roach/hydra don't work in every situation.
So many spoiled brats from WOL and how EZ mode Terran has been since SC2 released. Try playing SC1 Terran where you only make certain units in certain matchups and mix & match based on what you need. jfc
|
Why are people opposed to bio/mech?
Pure bio = hyper aggression. That is ONE STYLE. But why couldn't you theoretically open Bio and then add some Thors/Tanks/Liberators?
Why do people want to ONLY mech? I think a change that could help a lot with Terran diversity is merging bio weapons vehicle weapons (which I discussed I another thread). This addresses the "only 1 style of play" argument and allows you to use all the units in the Terran arsenal while still keeping the core bio.
Can you imagine a Protoss Army of ONLY Robo and Stargate units or a Zerg maing ONLY Ultras and Vipers? Both the other races make a lot of their Tier 1 units no matter what tech path they choose. Why is that so absurd for T?
Once we agree that we're open to that as a way to play the changes required to make it viable are actually not that many.
|
On December 10 2015 16:30 ProMeTheus112 wrote:if a unit "sees play" but its role is not as interesting as expected (to give some extreme examples a unit could be totally imba and "see ton of play", or could "see play" but have a very one dimensional role, being placed almost always in the same spot or at the same moment in the game), then people will want them to be changed in some way so you can't brush people who want mech's role to change with all the arguments they give with just a Q/A justification "does that unit see play? yes". Don't think everybody who wants mech to be different don't want bio to work side by side with a more factory units based army so I'm not sure where you're coming from saying they (everybody who wants to change mech?) are "literally asking for less" diversity. A very important point is to give T back its unique identity of being strong at occupying an area (not just your own base) and attacking an adjacent area from that occupied area, and the siege tank is the expression of that, even when used side by side with bio, so long as it is strong enough to really matter, "trade efficiently" as you say, even in low numbers and should be very efficient when already sieged up and attacked, otherwise why even have a siege tank in the game? (while the other races have things that can snipe a spot which you must dodge or things that instarush/teleport towards you as well?) It can't only have range, it must have real power, if it has to siege up cost this much money have this much hp and cant shoot at close range.. It would probably be great for the game overall to bring back an essence of tactical positioning element to it that got consistency and durability to it. More emphasis on strategy. It's not really about being able to "spam tanks like BW". If you just spam tanks in BW you're pretty much dead anyway But sure, think of trying to make SC2 better than BW not just the same, I'll always say you need to change the pathing for that first, but anyway on the topic of strategic diversity of what you build, adding the possibility of mech to stand more or less by itself by having roles that aren't purely hardcounter or metagamegimmicky like the thor or cyclone are at the moment (possibly the hellion and tank too to a lesser extent?) is a good thing for that, for the strategic diversity of what you build. it's about the types of use that you can make of your units and the strategic identity of T. If T is able to make a lot of facts and use the units there efficiently together as tools that don't merely mean "hunt down an early air aggressor" or "run into base to kill drones" or "counter a muta flock" or "some extra long range damage", but instead something like "mobile engagement starter" and "scout that threatens small units" and "reliable strong slow anti air" and "powerful long range threat" this opens a lot of diversity, possibility to start games with a bunch of factories then have choice to add this many barracks or not etc. If you are worried that other races don't have such good diversity, why not think of making them become as interesting as that (in their own way) instead of trying to pull T down to keep them on the same level? As its been pointed out, if T managed to get this type of interesting diversity to it then it should have a positive impact on Z and P over time since they'll need to adapt in meta at least against T.
None of those are special to mech.
You can have the Battlecruiser, the Marauder, the Ghost, the Raven, etc... occupy those abstract strategic slots. Heck, you can add midgame upgrades to bunkers to give them those strategic slots. But no one is asking for those options to be available to bio, or for those options to be available to air. Why? Because there is this nostalgic need for people to click the siege tank button in order to pretend they're playing BW.
|
I don't know think this has been mentioned but I saw EJK rekt dpiTrue twice in a match (some Basetrade tourney) with a mech build a few days ago. It was pretty cool. The build I think relied heavily on banshees (2port), which I suppose is not real mech.
|
On December 11 2015 04:27 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2015 16:30 ProMeTheus112 wrote:if a unit "sees play" but its role is not as interesting as expected (to give some extreme examples a unit could be totally imba and "see ton of play", or could "see play" but have a very one dimensional role, being placed almost always in the same spot or at the same moment in the game), then people will want them to be changed in some way so you can't brush people who want mech's role to change with all the arguments they give with just a Q/A justification "does that unit see play? yes". Don't think everybody who wants mech to be different don't want bio to work side by side with a more factory units based army so I'm not sure where you're coming from saying they (everybody who wants to change mech?) are "literally asking for less" diversity. A very important point is to give T back its unique identity of being strong at occupying an area (not just your own base) and attacking an adjacent area from that occupied area, and the siege tank is the expression of that, even when used side by side with bio, so long as it is strong enough to really matter, "trade efficiently" as you say, even in low numbers and should be very efficient when already sieged up and attacked, otherwise why even have a siege tank in the game? (while the other races have things that can snipe a spot which you must dodge or things that instarush/teleport towards you as well?) It can't only have range, it must have real power, if it has to siege up cost this much money have this much hp and cant shoot at close range.. It would probably be great for the game overall to bring back an essence of tactical positioning element to it that got consistency and durability to it. More emphasis on strategy. It's not really about being able to "spam tanks like BW". If you just spam tanks in BW you're pretty much dead anyway But sure, think of trying to make SC2 better than BW not just the same, I'll always say you need to change the pathing for that first, but anyway on the topic of strategic diversity of what you build, adding the possibility of mech to stand more or less by itself by having roles that aren't purely hardcounter or metagamegimmicky like the thor or cyclone are at the moment (possibly the hellion and tank too to a lesser extent?) is a good thing for that, for the strategic diversity of what you build. it's about the types of use that you can make of your units and the strategic identity of T. If T is able to make a lot of facts and use the units there efficiently together as tools that don't merely mean "hunt down an early air aggressor" or "run into base to kill drones" or "counter a muta flock" or "some extra long range damage", but instead something like "mobile engagement starter" and "scout that threatens small units" and "reliable strong slow anti air" and "powerful long range threat" this opens a lot of diversity, possibility to start games with a bunch of factories then have choice to add this many barracks or not etc. If you are worried that other races don't have such good diversity, why not think of making them become as interesting as that (in their own way) instead of trying to pull T down to keep them on the same level? As its been pointed out, if T managed to get this type of interesting diversity to it then it should have a positive impact on Z and P over time since they'll need to adapt in meta at least against T. None of those are special to mech. You can have the Battlecruiser, the Marauder, the Ghost, the Raven, etc... occupy those abstract strategic slots. Heck, you can add midgame upgrades to bunkers to give them those strategic slots. But no one is asking for those options to be available to bio, or for those options to be available to air. Why? Because there is this nostalgic need for people to click the siege tank button in order to pretend they're playing BW.
I like being able to build vultures and siege tanks while creating camp sites with missile turrets on maps like destination. That's not wrong at all!
|
On December 11 2015 05:07 Shin_Gouki wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 04:27 Naracs_Duc wrote:On December 10 2015 16:30 ProMeTheus112 wrote:if a unit "sees play" but its role is not as interesting as expected (to give some extreme examples a unit could be totally imba and "see ton of play", or could "see play" but have a very one dimensional role, being placed almost always in the same spot or at the same moment in the game), then people will want them to be changed in some way so you can't brush people who want mech's role to change with all the arguments they give with just a Q/A justification "does that unit see play? yes". Don't think everybody who wants mech to be different don't want bio to work side by side with a more factory units based army so I'm not sure where you're coming from saying they (everybody who wants to change mech?) are "literally asking for less" diversity. A very important point is to give T back its unique identity of being strong at occupying an area (not just your own base) and attacking an adjacent area from that occupied area, and the siege tank is the expression of that, even when used side by side with bio, so long as it is strong enough to really matter, "trade efficiently" as you say, even in low numbers and should be very efficient when already sieged up and attacked, otherwise why even have a siege tank in the game? (while the other races have things that can snipe a spot which you must dodge or things that instarush/teleport towards you as well?) It can't only have range, it must have real power, if it has to siege up cost this much money have this much hp and cant shoot at close range.. It would probably be great for the game overall to bring back an essence of tactical positioning element to it that got consistency and durability to it. More emphasis on strategy. It's not really about being able to "spam tanks like BW". If you just spam tanks in BW you're pretty much dead anyway But sure, think of trying to make SC2 better than BW not just the same, I'll always say you need to change the pathing for that first, but anyway on the topic of strategic diversity of what you build, adding the possibility of mech to stand more or less by itself by having roles that aren't purely hardcounter or metagamegimmicky like the thor or cyclone are at the moment (possibly the hellion and tank too to a lesser extent?) is a good thing for that, for the strategic diversity of what you build. it's about the types of use that you can make of your units and the strategic identity of T. If T is able to make a lot of facts and use the units there efficiently together as tools that don't merely mean "hunt down an early air aggressor" or "run into base to kill drones" or "counter a muta flock" or "some extra long range damage", but instead something like "mobile engagement starter" and "scout that threatens small units" and "reliable strong slow anti air" and "powerful long range threat" this opens a lot of diversity, possibility to start games with a bunch of factories then have choice to add this many barracks or not etc. If you are worried that other races don't have such good diversity, why not think of making them become as interesting as that (in their own way) instead of trying to pull T down to keep them on the same level? As its been pointed out, if T managed to get this type of interesting diversity to it then it should have a positive impact on Z and P over time since they'll need to adapt in meta at least against T. None of those are special to mech. You can have the Battlecruiser, the Marauder, the Ghost, the Raven, etc... occupy those abstract strategic slots. Heck, you can add midgame upgrades to bunkers to give them those strategic slots. But no one is asking for those options to be available to bio, or for those options to be available to air. Why? Because there is this nostalgic need for people to click the siege tank button in order to pretend they're playing BW. I like being able to build vultures and siege tanks while creating camp sites with missile turrets on maps like destination. That's not wrong at all!
And I want to wall off a ramp from zerglings with two medics, a marine and a barracks floating over them so the zerg player can't target fire the medics walling it off.
|
On December 11 2015 04:27 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2015 16:30 ProMeTheus112 wrote:if a unit "sees play" but its role is not as interesting as expected (to give some extreme examples a unit could be totally imba and "see ton of play", or could "see play" but have a very one dimensional role, being placed almost always in the same spot or at the same moment in the game), then people will want them to be changed in some way so you can't brush people who want mech's role to change with all the arguments they give with just a Q/A justification "does that unit see play? yes". Don't think everybody who wants mech to be different don't want bio to work side by side with a more factory units based army so I'm not sure where you're coming from saying they (everybody who wants to change mech?) are "literally asking for less" diversity. A very important point is to give T back its unique identity of being strong at occupying an area (not just your own base) and attacking an adjacent area from that occupied area, and the siege tank is the expression of that, even when used side by side with bio, so long as it is strong enough to really matter, "trade efficiently" as you say, even in low numbers and should be very efficient when already sieged up and attacked, otherwise why even have a siege tank in the game? (while the other races have things that can snipe a spot which you must dodge or things that instarush/teleport towards you as well?) It can't only have range, it must have real power, if it has to siege up cost this much money have this much hp and cant shoot at close range.. It would probably be great for the game overall to bring back an essence of tactical positioning element to it that got consistency and durability to it. More emphasis on strategy. It's not really about being able to "spam tanks like BW". If you just spam tanks in BW you're pretty much dead anyway But sure, think of trying to make SC2 better than BW not just the same, I'll always say you need to change the pathing for that first, but anyway on the topic of strategic diversity of what you build, adding the possibility of mech to stand more or less by itself by having roles that aren't purely hardcounter or metagamegimmicky like the thor or cyclone are at the moment (possibly the hellion and tank too to a lesser extent?) is a good thing for that, for the strategic diversity of what you build. it's about the types of use that you can make of your units and the strategic identity of T. If T is able to make a lot of facts and use the units there efficiently together as tools that don't merely mean "hunt down an early air aggressor" or "run into base to kill drones" or "counter a muta flock" or "some extra long range damage", but instead something like "mobile engagement starter" and "scout that threatens small units" and "reliable strong slow anti air" and "powerful long range threat" this opens a lot of diversity, possibility to start games with a bunch of factories then have choice to add this many barracks or not etc. If you are worried that other races don't have such good diversity, why not think of making them become as interesting as that (in their own way) instead of trying to pull T down to keep them on the same level? As its been pointed out, if T managed to get this type of interesting diversity to it then it should have a positive impact on Z and P over time since they'll need to adapt in meta at least against T. None of those are special to mech. You can have the Battlecruiser, the Marauder, the Ghost, the Raven, etc... occupy those abstract strategic slots. Heck, you can add midgame upgrades to bunkers to give them those strategic slots. But no one is asking for those options to be available to bio, or for those options to be available to air. Why? Because there is this nostalgic need for people to click the siege tank button in order to pretend they're playing BW.
Well I think it's because mech/factory units are lacking a wide strategic role and because the identity of the units call for something along the lines of these roles to be attributed.. the siege tank with the tradebacks it has (weaknesses) is expected to have such strengths, for instance. Bio units are not expected to fill these roles and don't, nor should they as you don't want things to overlap!
But yeah the bunkers upgrade man, much important as we know.
|
On December 11 2015 15:09 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2015 04:27 Naracs_Duc wrote:On December 10 2015 16:30 ProMeTheus112 wrote:if a unit "sees play" but its role is not as interesting as expected (to give some extreme examples a unit could be totally imba and "see ton of play", or could "see play" but have a very one dimensional role, being placed almost always in the same spot or at the same moment in the game), then people will want them to be changed in some way so you can't brush people who want mech's role to change with all the arguments they give with just a Q/A justification "does that unit see play? yes". Don't think everybody who wants mech to be different don't want bio to work side by side with a more factory units based army so I'm not sure where you're coming from saying they (everybody who wants to change mech?) are "literally asking for less" diversity. A very important point is to give T back its unique identity of being strong at occupying an area (not just your own base) and attacking an adjacent area from that occupied area, and the siege tank is the expression of that, even when used side by side with bio, so long as it is strong enough to really matter, "trade efficiently" as you say, even in low numbers and should be very efficient when already sieged up and attacked, otherwise why even have a siege tank in the game? (while the other races have things that can snipe a spot which you must dodge or things that instarush/teleport towards you as well?) It can't only have range, it must have real power, if it has to siege up cost this much money have this much hp and cant shoot at close range.. It would probably be great for the game overall to bring back an essence of tactical positioning element to it that got consistency and durability to it. More emphasis on strategy. It's not really about being able to "spam tanks like BW". If you just spam tanks in BW you're pretty much dead anyway But sure, think of trying to make SC2 better than BW not just the same, I'll always say you need to change the pathing for that first, but anyway on the topic of strategic diversity of what you build, adding the possibility of mech to stand more or less by itself by having roles that aren't purely hardcounter or metagamegimmicky like the thor or cyclone are at the moment (possibly the hellion and tank too to a lesser extent?) is a good thing for that, for the strategic diversity of what you build. it's about the types of use that you can make of your units and the strategic identity of T. If T is able to make a lot of facts and use the units there efficiently together as tools that don't merely mean "hunt down an early air aggressor" or "run into base to kill drones" or "counter a muta flock" or "some extra long range damage", but instead something like "mobile engagement starter" and "scout that threatens small units" and "reliable strong slow anti air" and "powerful long range threat" this opens a lot of diversity, possibility to start games with a bunch of factories then have choice to add this many barracks or not etc. If you are worried that other races don't have such good diversity, why not think of making them become as interesting as that (in their own way) instead of trying to pull T down to keep them on the same level? As its been pointed out, if T managed to get this type of interesting diversity to it then it should have a positive impact on Z and P over time since they'll need to adapt in meta at least against T. None of those are special to mech. You can have the Battlecruiser, the Marauder, the Ghost, the Raven, etc... occupy those abstract strategic slots. Heck, you can add midgame upgrades to bunkers to give them those strategic slots. But no one is asking for those options to be available to bio, or for those options to be available to air. Why? Because there is this nostalgic need for people to click the siege tank button in order to pretend they're playing BW. Well I think it's because mech/factory units are lacking a wide strategic role and because the identity of the units call for something along the lines of these roles to be attributed.. the siege tank with the tradebacks it has (weaknesses) is expected to have such strengths, for instance. Bio units are not expected to fill these roles and don't, nor should they as you don't want things to overlap! But yeah the bunkers upgrade man, much important as we know.
What lack of roles is being talked about?
All four Factory units have extensive uses in different matchups and stages of the game. Tanks in TvT, Widow Mines, Hellion openings, Hellbat timings, and even Thors used to zone out Mutalisks. Is the goal of threads like these to buff a tech tree that is already heavily used in all three matchups?
|
The only Terran unit that you don't see in play is the Battlelcruiser.
Everything else is used...
|
Towards the end of hots there was a lot of BC use in tvz
|
On December 12 2015 02:38 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
Towards the end of hots there was a lot of BC use in tvz
Technically yes, but this may just be a rumor as the people watching were so bored after the Terran meched and turtled for the best part of 45 mins they fell asleep.
We really need photographic evidence to confirm these rumors 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
