Why mech won't work (surprise! Vipers! and econ) - Page 9

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.