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

On December 08 2015 01:11 johax wrote:
i wonder how well the viper would do if terran had some kind of anti caster unit, or perhaps some long ranged anti air to prevent it from getting close

On December 08 2015 01:35 DeadByDawn wrote:
TvZ. Basically the problem is the Viper's PB. It was bad enough with blinding cloud affecting tanks and thors but at least you could build Vikings to counter them and often the interaction was quite interesting. Now Vipers counter their counter - Blizz stupidity at its finest.

Siege tank pick up for retreat I like and would be OK if the tank unsieged (obviously then you can pick up two). Any nerfs to Liberator would return us to ZParcraft - not sure what can be done here that does not affect TvP&Z.

TvP. Protoss have incredibly strong harassment options and incredibly strong get-out-of-jail defensive options. As you say, you can defend with zero units (I have). I would like to retract my earlier statement - this is Blizz stupidity at its finest. A PO nerf (without a compensating buff FFS) might keep the Protoss more honest.

On December 08 2015 01:46 Suchbalancemuchwow wrote:
Can't blizzard simply remove the tank medivac mechanic in tvt only? The whole premisse of *global balance* is like shooting yourself in the foot to begin with.


If they would simply balance things for a specific matchup they could make the game a lot more diverse, and interesting, with a lot less effort. In fact, they could even make mech play viable instead of bio, for a period of time so people are forced to play mech for a couple of weeks/months just to test whether it's the fun way to go. without fucking with any other matchup

As for pvt: you could just remove the pylon overcharge stuff in pvt and voila, medivac drops are viable again, just put the overcharge back to the hots nexus variant if you feel it's needed.

Pylon overcharge can remain as it is in zvp because zerg's early aggresion is very strong atm

Honestly, I'm sorry i'm ranting like this on your post here, but honestly, why people aren't balancing this way is beyond me.

On December 08 2015 01:37 Strelok wrote:
After playing a bunch of games, i have to say that mech kinda works in TvZ and TvT. You just have to make other combinations of units, rather then hots. For example, if zerg goes vipers, it doesn't mean you need to have many vikings/liberators, e.t.c. But i absolutely can't understand how it can work in TvP. I feel so far behind in every aspect of game. Doesn't matter what protoss does - it works superb.

On December 08 2015 02:06 Suchbalancemuchwow wrote:
Aimed at dinomight's previous post(i'm too much of a digital dummy to reply properly)

Teamgames would just remain the same inbalanced mess that they are right now, and have always been(4 protoss vs 4 zerg has always been hilariously onsided). with rush fests dominating at the high master meta, I reckon even more so in Lotv than In earlier installments. And they could in fact, make things less messed up, by implementing all kinds of specific fixes for teamgames without being hindered by the 1v1 field with my solution as well.

But if you still dislike it, I don't see an issue with a global balance method for teamgames. Because in my opinion it has never had much balance to begin with.

As for consistency, well, how consistent is this game really? the meta is everchanging and all matchups usually have their own timings and units that are used. That wouldn't change if you remove or add specific units to a matchup. It's bascially the same as making a unit viable again through a balance patch because it wasn't used previously.

To rest my case: The matchup specific spore crawler vs bio damage practically killed muta's usage in zvz back then. That's kind of how I envision my *balancing* method to work, it was straight to the point, it got rid of the *so called problem* and didn't do any harm to any other matchup. How was this not the best/easiest way to deal with muta wars being a problem in zvz?

On December 08 2015 02:32 WrathSCII wrote:
Mech won't be viable even in TvT. Mech has been successfully removed from the game as Blizzard wished. All is that left for us mech players either learn bio or move on to something else.

GG, it was a nice run.

On December 08 2015 00:43 DinoMight wrote:
Possible solution: move some of the Viper’s abilities to the Infestor or simply just remove parasitic bomb altogether. Fungal growth was used to handle clumped up air units in HotS. Maybe give Fungal a slight buff and remove PB.

On December 08 2015 02:53 Lexender wrote:
To be honest I think your propositions are OK-ish but the conclusion its pretty awful.

NO MORE TUTRLE. No maps where you sit in 4 bases, not to make enemies unable to break you, not to depend on ultimate end game armies to win.

The reason we say buff the tank and add AA to the factory is so that we don't need to turtle on 4 bases, if you had a tank that could actually stop roach/ravager pushes, that could fight protoss (pretty much anything protoss at this point) and a unit that doesn't forces you to turtle to mass air.

Maps then can be used to balance other stuff, I think open maps and the fast LotV economy are ok for mech, because that way you can buff factory based mech without it being a completely unbreakable turtle for 40 min composition.

That being said, BUFF THE DAMN TANK AND ADD OVERKILL.

On December 08 2015 02:59 DinoMight wrote:


Buffing the tank and adding overkill is one thing but why does your anti air need to come from the factory???

People keep saying this but nobody will explain. Why can't you build a Starport for anti air?

If your answer is parasitic bomb, well I've already said that ability is clearly OP.

On December 08 2015 02:48 DinoMight wrote:


Why do you even bother with this post. Seriously it adds nothing to this chat.

On December 08 2015 03:06 Big J wrote:


Well, two obvious answers to that are:
1 - it is much easier to get the production going when you don't need two different facilities
2 - the upgrades would be shared

But you are correct when you say that this is just a matter of balance, so yeah, I'm 100% with you no that.

On December 08 2015 03:12 WrathSCII wrote:


I got little tired of seeing these threads with the same idea keep popping . In general, mech issues has been discussed over and over. But the problem is Blizzard willing to listen and make it viable? 2 expansions and over 5 years and they did not care about it.

LOTV focuses on everything that mech is not. All they want to have is units dancing everywhere, to hell with position play, to hell with slow pushing, they just want explosions everywhere.

It is too late, we have to make do with what we have. Discussing why it is not viable is time waste because WE ALL KNOW why it is not.

On December 08 2015 03:12 DinoMight wrote:


I think if air is a threat at a time where you CAN'T have a Starport then maybe yeah you need better AA from the factory. But as it is, there's no really scary air threat that arrives before Starport.

Cyclone I think is really good at helping out Terran in the early game and holding them over until proper AA can be out.

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

On December 08 2015 03:53 BeStFAN wrote:
OP is a Protoss player who does not play Terran, telling us how mech should be played...

On December 08 2015 04:03 DinoMight wrote:


OP is a Protoss player who plays a lot of Terran (I said that I off race Terran IN THE OP) and nowhere in this post did I tell you how to play. OP also happens to play and watch a ton of SC2.

Your post adds nothing to this discussion.

On December 08 2015 02:59 DinoMight wrote:


Buffing the tank and adding overkill is one thing but why does your anti air need to come from the factory???

People keep saying this but nobody will explain. Why can't you build a Starport for anti air?

If your answer is parasitic bomb, well I've already said that ability is clearly OP.

On December 08 2015 04:12 BeStFAN wrote:


This is the problem with this thread. It mainly revolves around you and other players opinions and "feelings" instead of citing anything tangible like actual games played or people who can be recognized as knowledgable such as Strelok.

On December 08 2015 03:28 Big J wrote:


Yes and you can always produce marines early as Terran if that was the real deal. Reactored barracks with marines is always viable, even if you intent to go Mech later on. Then you have widow mines from the factory and now the cyclone and yeah, then there is the Viking. If that doesn't work an armory-requirment Goliath wouldn't solve the problem either early.

I don't think the problem is the very early game anti-air at all for mech. I think the problem with Mech antiair are as follows:
Carriers in large numbers counter Vikings
Parasitic Bomb counters large numbers of Vikings
Tempests can pick from your mech army and there is not really a good way to engage that or prevent that. (I know PDD and stuff, but all of that hits too late)

I think the basic air problem is that Mech just can't deal properly with capital ships because either they counter both the Thor and the Viking alike on their own (like the Carrier or pick away from them from a safe cover like the tempest) or a combo of air units counter both of them (Broodlord+Viper+Corruptor). The other antiair options are all sort of bridging options for Mech imo, though widow mines can be a pretty sick get-out-of-jail card if one isn't careful (e.g. against interceptors). Also I left out liberators for now, because to be honest I still don't quite understand their antiair dynamics sufficiently. They are pretty insane in high numbers, but can they compete with Protoss capital ships+storm or PB? Probably not. (ghosts are a solution I guess, but you see, we are walking away from Mech techs to cover your anti air and more and more into, why not play bio to begin with if your tanks cannot cover against spellcasters or you need to walk out of tank support to attack into Tempests and you need mass liberators anyways and they deal with ground decently to begin with?)

So yeah, it is not so much that Mech has no antiair options, it's really that the antiair options of Mech all become insufficient eventually or need too much support from all techpaths in my opinion.
And I think buffing the antiground Mech would be kind of a solution, because then the Meching player could choose to either play for a push but expose himself to airtechs, or mix in airtechs more freely because he doesn't need as much units on the ground. The main problem of this probably being, but what if the Terran still just reaches the same ultimate lategame army with tanks, thors, liberators, vikings, ravens and ghosts and it is just buffed?

On December 08 2015 03:54 HeroMystic wrote:


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.

On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:

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.

On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:

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.

On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:

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.

On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:

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.

On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:

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.

On December 08 2015 04:48 Big J wrote:


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 04:59 DinoMight wrote:


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.

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.

On December 08 2015 04:43 DinoMight wrote:


<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.

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.

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.

On December 08 2015 05:47 Sapphire.lux wrote:

But you've just said that:

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 04:43 DinoMight wrote:


<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.

On December 08 2015 06:02 DinoMight wrote:


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 06:27 Sapphire.lux wrote:

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 06:29 Lexender wrote:


That is the one thing WE DONT WANT.

On December 08 2015 06:59 DinoMight wrote:


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.





Maybe YOU don't want it. I want it. As I've just said.

On December 08 2015 07:22 Lexender wrote:


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)

On December 08 2015 06:59 Sissors wrote:
It would be really nice if those whining that mech should not be viable can just propose the entire factory is removed.

On December 08 2015 08:24 JackONeill wrote:
5) maps. Maps need to change. Not to encourage turtle, but to be bigger for a siege tank nerf not to be a turtle fest activator. Protoss as a race already gained mobility in great amount. Do not make the maps more open, just bigger, with bases a little more further from each other. And then we can have a tank that's decent, and not the piece of garbage it is now.

I think that's what would be needed for mech to work. And not a turtle/camping mech, a harass intensive and positionnal mech.

On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:

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.

Also why do Terrans, think its their god given right to win a game based on units from solely one building the Factory? The other 2 races must use Lower Tier units in order to win, or at least survive until later tech in fact Protoss is completely dependent on the Stalker\Zealot at all stages until extreme late game

I know Zerg used to have the ability to win with the the Muta at lair tech in HotS, but Mutas in this expansion don't look no where near as powerful, unless its a fast tech switch against Protoss. Winfestors got nerfed to the ground and so did swarm hosts after the Pros showed massing them could could win games building these units only.

Blizzard dont want mid tier units dominating the games, they want fast paced action, hence the new economy model and super fast units. Tanks simply arent what this game is about, they are a support unit for Bio

Stop dreaming about a game that is effectively retired by Blizzard, if you want Mech style play go play Broodwar or play Forged Alliance.

LoTV is the best version of SC2 so far i don't want it ruined by people who want to sit in their bases and Turtle to Victory with 40 min + games.

Warp-in itself is a major thing in PvT. In BW, you specifically set up a siege in a space you could hold, cut off reinforcements, etc.

On December 08 2015 19:01 B-royal wrote:
Sorry for the discouraging post but how many years does it take for you to realize mech is not coming to sc2? It's been 5 years and it's the third and final installment. The pack has been shuffled, cards have been dealt, now play your hand as it is.

On December 08 2015 19:13 HellHound wrote:
show me 160 supply of a moveed roaches killings 80 supply of tanks.

On December 08 2015 16:58 Topdoller wrote:
"I've been reading a lot about Mech viability in LotV and what people think Terran needs to make it work."

Not flaming, but at what level \ rank does "Mech not work". Gold, Plat,Master or Pro i really would like to know?

Also why do Terrans, think its their god given right to win a game based on units from solely one building the Factory? The other 2 races must use Lower Tier units in order to win, or at least survive until later tech in fact Protoss is completely dependent on the Stalker\Zealot at all stages until extreme late game

Why cant Protoss players demand the right to win a game based on Robo units only?

I know Zerg used to have the ability to win with the the Muta at lair tech in HotS, but Mutas in this expansion don't look no where near as powerful, unless its a fast tech switch against Protoss. Winfestors got nerfed to the ground and so did swarm hosts after the Pros showed massing them could could win games building these units only.

At extreme late game, all 3 races go sky

Blizzard dont want mid tier units dominating the games, they want fast paced action, hence the new economy model and super fast units. Tanks simply arent what this game is about, they are a support unit for Bio

Stop dreaming about a game that is effectively retired by Blizzard, if you want Mech style play go play Broodwar or play Forged Alliance.

LoTV is the best version of SC2 so far i don't want it ruined by people who want to sit in their bases and Turtle to Victory with 40 min + games.

On December 08 2015 19:10 HellHound wrote:

I think we should also make tanks fly and shoot air. And spawn thors when they die that fall on the ground and do splash damage.

On December 08 2015 22:44 jinjin5000 wrote:
I dont know about higher rank terrans here in GM like EJK and likes, but here are major flaws in my opinion on why mech doesn't work

Fundamental flaws
1) the need to respond to air force with air
2) speed of expansions

Now, the second one is not really a problem- the first one is a big fundamental problem that has been carried over into lotv- and is more apparant.

Now, when I am talking about mech, I am talking more about siege tanks pushing as core with support units.

-TvZ-

1) Viper
Now, viper was a unit that had good interactions in past, with binding cloud vs spreading tanks and zoning out with air. Now, it has solution to both problems, with parasitic bomb nullifying air with way too fast damage and having binding cloud to prevent ground from attacking on top of it. Add with it abducts and you have high utility caster that can recharge and deal with everything mech can throw at it.

2) Broodlords
Same as above- Broodlords REQUIRE A2A engagements as broodlings in high amoutns at 10.5 range zone out ground 2 air units completely- but vipers deny this very thing.

3) Ravagers
Not a big problem in my eyes, but it does its fair share in punishing tanks heavily in lower numbers and keeping in low while not taking in as much damage as it should in return. I am fine with it but it does make it harder for mech player.

As result of the combination of above 3 factors, mech TvZ is largely a large rush to kill off zerg as fast as possible and denying bases past 3/4. As result, a more mobile skyterran liberator+banshee/ hellion cyclone is favored as it is only real composition that can reasonably keep zerg from out expanding.

-TvP-
I think theres a lot of things that carried over on HotS as problems on top of LotV changes. In my eyes, Mech TvP in LotV is in even worse state than before.

The real killer here is economy
1) Economy
Protoss in LotV has lot more freedom to expand and is often seen getting 3rd earlier than terran player- which is a fairly big problem for Terran as the protoss army is inherently beefy-meaning they can get to needed number faster. This I think is #1 cause that is actually killing mech play in lotv as there is no real way to prevent protoss 3rd while myriad of options from protoss can keep terran contained

2) adepts
Adepts come in hand to hand with increased protoss harassment options in warp prism and likes. Combine this with economy change means protoss gets 3rd out lot earlier and roll over your army.

Shade is a big problem as well- Siege tanks do not do well against units that come up close and personal- and was weak to zealots. Adept is everything this and more- as it is just as tanky if not tankier, and can close the distance with 0 risk to itself. It blinking on top of siege tank line means lost tank and often times, durign defensive stage of game, this spells end for siege tanks if thi were to happen.

3) skytoss interactions
With split mech upgrades and nerf to raven, it is lot harder to counter the skytoss compositions, lot harder than it was in hots. As skytoss that troubles mech so much is primarily composed of capital ships liek tempest and carrier which combines extremely well, one with range and 1 with close dps, it completely zones out the mech compositions. Vikings needing upgrade on top of it does not help, as well as general lack of ground to air unit that can combat skytoss would it appear.

add to general warp gate reinfrocement after trades according to how much terran commited in one area leads to iffy for terran.
-----------------------------

Anyway, overall, I thought early LotV beta where cyclone was pretty broken was one of best time for sc2 mech to thrive in. Mech could actually move out with assault all-rounder unit that served as great AA and combined with tank/liberator/mine to zone out and allow helllion/cyclone to engage freely while allowign tanks to inch forward was really exciting to play, and mech was able to move out sub 150-160 supply. Its such a shame blizzard nerfed this so heavily as it did good job of bridging gap and allowed mech to deal with air units well.

On December 08 2015 01:11 johax wrote:
i wonder how well the viper would do if terran had some kind of anti caster unit, or perhaps some long ranged anti air to prevent it from getting close

On December 09 2015 01:25 DinoMight wrote:
What if they did something like:

Terran upgrades changed to ground upgrades and air upgrades (no more bio/mech distinction).

Ground Attack, Ground Armor, Air attack, Air Armor researched at the Engineering bay

Ground attack, Ground Armor Level 1 available at engineering bay, everything else requires armory.


This way you can start the game with bio, which is flexible enough to defend and take bases etc and work your way into mech without falling behind on upgrades. And you allow flexibility on bio/mech comps, which I think are sexy.

On December 09 2015 02:57 TheBumbleBee wrote:
What if Tank, Hellbats and Thors´s movement speed would be increased?! same as stalker f.e.

For me it makes sense - at least a tank drives faster than a soldier, in real :D

And it would make mech viable i think. It´s just to slow.
And Ghost snipe should shoot instant!!!

The anti-mech crowd can never seem to remember that Terran ground upgrades are completely separate. This deters you from combining ground forces from factory and barracks, especially in the mid-to-late game, not that factory units synergize too well with bio play anyway (besides the widow mine, I guess).

On December 09 2015 07:20 avilo wrote:
Parasitic bomb makes the viper counter every unit in the game. Previously vikings were the counter to vipers. Now, vipers actually counter their counter.

It's not that hard to understand for anyone with any balance or game design acuity. Don't know why it was even added into the game.

On December 09 2015 07:09 ZombieFrog wrote:


This is a problem? Zerg ground range and melee upgrades are also separate in case you forgot. Not like a zerg player can freely mix whatever units he wants and have them all be upgraded either

On December 09 2015 07:20 avilo wrote:
Parasitic bomb makes the viper counter every unit in the game. Previously vikings were the counter to vipers. Now, vipers actually counter their counter.

It's not that hard to understand for anyone with any balance or game design acuity. Don't know why it was even added into the game.

On December 09 2015 03:09 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Whoo, lets make mech as fast and mobile as warhounds. Good idea. No problems can be found there.

On December 09 2015 09:09 pure.Wasted wrote:


Everyone knows why PB was added, Zerg's shitty air anti air for the last 5 years isn't a secret.

But it is possible to do a very bad thing for very good reasons, and PB is such a thing. It's not just OP, it's a poorly designed ability placed on a unit that didn't need any more versatility.

On December 09 2015 07:34 p68 wrote:


This is a false equivalency. There are four upgrades for Terran ground, two of which are from the expensive armory. If a zerg player was so inclined, they could spend 375/0 for three drones and three evolution chambers. And then, there's the discount for three upgrades instead of four (although Terran may get some value from the mech shared armor upgrade). For a Terran player to get two engineering bays and two armories, it's 550/200. And that's not even taking into account the fact that Zerg also benefit from having unit production tied to one building!

But with the state of factory units and Terran air, you'll upgrade air over factory units anyway. Bio + air support is simply stronger than bio + upgraded factory units.

On December 09 2015 10:47 parkufarku wrote:


The Terran whine never stops. Have you ever considered, for just a second, that not everything in the three races have to be symmetrically equal? Armory might be more expensive but its way offset by how cost efficient Terran army is, especially with micro and splits. Giving upgrades to that efficient war machine is way more impactful than measly cost upgrades in a building.

For example, should Zerg players start complaining that their drops / transport isn't as effective as Terrans? It should be equal exactly right?, even though Z has higher mobility in general. Using your logic, Zerg players should start complaining Medivac boost is unfair because Z drops don't have that kind of amazing mobility

On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:

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.

On December 09 2015 14:20 iamCHOMP wrote:
I feel Terran is missing in AOE and casting abilities. I would like to see the Ghost buffed. The way I want to see the Ghost Buff is by reworking the design of some abilities and giving them a movement speed buff while in cloak mode and give them the lock down ability back from BW. I think Lock Down would be a great Tool against Protoss Air/Robo build players and could see some new Meta game builds with Terran Ghost Play more of a factor.

Also buff the siege Tank. and Make Ravens more desirable for mainline casting units with Bio play,.,,,
Thanks!

On December 09 2015 22:05 Seeker wrote:

What does WoT stand for?

On December 09 2015 22:26 Big J wrote:

Wall of Truth

On December 09 2015 23:46 i_am_Nite wrote:

World of Tanks? Lol

On December 09 2015 12:39 Lexender wrote:


Some times (actually all the time, but I'll try to be a bit fair) I think you are just a poorly worded troll, you always complain about "terran whiners" when you whine a lot yourself (I don't even want to remember your post during the blink era, they were cringe worthy at best) and now you come complaining about the same fucking argument you've made yourself.

You complain that terrans what a viable mech saying that protoss don't ask for robo only units to be viable (cuz all races have to be the same right? terran gets no mech because protoss has no robo only) and then you make THIS argument about races being different, when the bio/mech dichotomy is an inherent trait of terran.

I'm not complaining about your opinions, they are yours to make, but a little consistency would be nice.

On December 10 2015 00:26 DinoMight wrote:
I don't think it's the same tired arguments that are being made blah blah blah..

People are so pessimistic. I think:

1) Vipers need a nerf (doable)

2) Tank drops have to go TvT (doable with a Ravager tweak)

3) Terran needs more ways to keep Protoss honest (doable with a PO nerf, but P will need a buff somewhere else against Z...)

Mech could be playable in all matchups with very few tweaks even without changing the tank.

On December 10 2015 00:37 Everlong wrote:

Do yourself a favor, open your eyes and accept the facts.

On December 10 2015 05:49 Mjolnir wrote:

Yeah, that being the fact that the devs have made it clear time and time again that their idea of Terran is bio spam. It's too bad, really. They lost a lot of their BW flavour with the current focus on (marine Raynor as the main human protagonist instead of vulture Raynor) to carry the race through the entire (Franchise).

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




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.



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.

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.

On December 10 2015 07:07 Naracs_Duc wrote:Do all the factory units have various uses throughout different parts of the game? Yes.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

On December 10 2015 07:24 DemigodcelpH wrote:

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.


No. Not really. Half of Terran units don't even get used in typical bio matches.


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.


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 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.

On December 11 2015 04:27 Naracs_Duc wrote:


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.

On December 11 2015 05:07 Shin_Gouki wrote:


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 04:27 Naracs_Duc wrote:


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.

On December 11 2015 15:09 ProMeTheus112 wrote:

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 12 2015 02:38 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
Towards the end of hots there was a lot of BC use in tvz

On December 09 2015 14:46 pure.Wasted wrote:


Your argument presupposes that the game is balanced right now. The game is very far from balanced right now. It isn't figured out yet, either. Not every buff has to be offset with a nerf, and vice versa, this early into LotV.

On December 09 2015 13:38 bigbadgreen wrote:
but doesn't that negate the whole reason for the buffs, to give tanks the ability to control space better, to allow for terran to stop ground armies in a defensive way.

On December 11 2015 16:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:


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?

On December 08 2015 02:57 sd_andeh wrote:
I think you can mech, but you can't turtle. And that's a good thing. Turtling shouldn't be in this game.

On December 12 2015 05:03 Garmer wrote:


a-move terran mech it's not mech to me, positional play it's needed which mean also pushing the "turtling" to the enemies base, this is how it was played in BW and it worked perfectly

if you want a-move mech play bio

On December 12 2015 06:09 emc wrote:
i hate nerfs, i thought everyone did? don't we all want a OP game where every race has some BS that makes them super good?

removing PB means you need to give us the old fungal, I'm talking like 9 range insta cast, but that won't happen. If you give me a middle ground I'd be happy but that's still not enough. You may have to give me back pre-patched HotS swarm hosts and that won't happen either. So give me faster lurkers and better fungal and we have a deal.

also siege tanks can be picked up by medivacs, that automatically makes blinding cloud less effective. Shouldn't every mech terran have 2-3 medivacs just for that reason alone? with the speed boost upgrade (which you can afford in the late game) you can spam speed boost and pick up tanks to make the strategy even more effective, it's way too good not to use.