EPTPeople are just fed up with sc2 now, its an actual fact, im one of its biggest supporters and i just dont get excited any more.
Avilo SC2 Mech Feedback/Analysis for Blizz+SC2 - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
beheamoth
44 Posts
People are just fed up with sc2 now, its an actual fact, im one of its biggest supporters and i just dont get excited any more. | ||
|
Vanadiel
France961 Posts
On January 17 2016 21:46 [PkF] Wire wrote: and 99% of SC2 games are bio, which is entertaining, highly demanding and awesome. I have no problem with that. I agree with you on that point. People like Avilo asking for their arbitrary composition of units (only factory) to be made viable by Blizzard based of nostalgia of Brood War is pure nonsense. I joked about this thought process in the community update thread not too long ago: Talking about Lurkers, I think they should be buffed as they are too weak for ZvT right now. blade55555 talk about that it might be viable with ling baneling support, but I demand to Blizzard that pure Hydra/Lurker is viable against Terran and thus both units are buffed accordingly, something like 13 range Lurker and a HP buff for Hydra. If you think about it, it fits all the requires arguments : 1/ I liked Lurkers in an other game, so they should be playable in all match up in this one. 2/ It requires good positional and strategical play, instead of mindless click. You could argue that with such a strong defensive composition Zerg player would be incline to never attack and split the map in two, but please don't think like that: if that's the case, then it means that Lurker should be even more buffed so we can move out on the map! And then, even though we would have an even stronger defensive position, trust us, we will not use it! Some other may say that it will be imbalanced and these hydras/Lurker would be too strong in other composition, but meh, who cares? All what is important is that the composition I want to play is made viable by Blizzard. Obviously this was a ridiculous "demand", that was the point to highlight, but to me, such are threads like this about mech should be made viable. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 18 2016 00:01 Bohemond wrote: He might mean that the tank sucks as a unit, which is true. Pretty much all of its strength in LotV comes from the medivac and its BS speed boost ability. Not really, the tank is pretty amazing as a unit. It counters most ground units in the game in bigger numbers and provides massive utility through its range even in low numbers. (i.e. why you build them defensively, or why 1-1-1 was so strong and why Lost Temple had to go and so on and so on = very strong) What people quote as counters to the tank are often only low number/open field counters, or draw their strenght elsewhere. For example the ravager gets completely annihilated by tanks, even without medivacs. But you know, queens make these combats always very unequal in numbers (Zerg brings 4 times the amounts of ravagers to the party that you have tanks and then you whine about the ravager being too strong, not the larva?). You could say most Zerg units suck, but queens make them pretty good, herp-derp. You can't say that about the tank, because the tank is pretty amazing. It draws it weakness from the factory which is expensive and produces very slowly. Also, just because people build a unit doesn't mean it's good. People made tanks in WoL TvZ nearly every game even though it sucked because they had no other option. Tanks were very good in WoL and it was never their fault that Terran had trouble with Broodlords. The unit was never designed to be amazing in a scenario in which the opponent is massing air units. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On January 17 2016 23:46 Clonester wrote: All I said in Tosties thread applies here 2. You are all the way for BW TvP was the mech to go and you want SC 2 to have a similar mech to BW. I tell you again, that this cant work. SC II does not support such mech style, no matter of the buffes you give it. As long as the SC II control allowes you to select all army, turtle style will always be the better choice then attack style. Snowballunits who work massed better then alone, will always get turtles and snowballed. Even when the siege tank does 100 flat damgae, a radius of 2 flat AOE, mech player will turtle to 200/200 and move then out. BW punished you for 200/200 supply in a way, that it was super hard to control such army and move it properly, clumping, moving bugs + the amount of needed control groups was a pain. This does not exist in SC II, select all army, move it to the enemy, watch it moving like a perfect ball. This does apply for all snowballing units, it was the reason behind why Brofestor could exists, or why rushing to T3 units is working like a charm: Instead, that it is hard to use the T3 units, it is super easy. The same still goes for the harass, BW harass was way harder and such either easier to defend or with arbiter recalls a larger commitment. When you say the BW Protoss had to get more bases and use this economy advantage, you dont even understand the SC II economy. Having 6 bases over 4 bases does not give you any advantage other then possible more gas stations. In BW that gave you also a large mineral boost. You cant outbase your enemy, because you cant outmine him without having way to much worker supply and then get crushed by the upturtled 200/200 army. When you want a moving mech, you want actually just BW back. You want another eco model, you want to go back to harder control with 12 units per selection and you want to back to bugged unit movement. When you just buff, revert or change mech in the current SC II, all you get is again a turtle mech meta on 4 bases. If you want to have your "moving mech" or BW mech, you had to change SC II completly in its core. If you dont do that, all your buffed mech will just again be a pure 4 base turtle meta. And dont come with the "lotv bases dont give enough resources for that". 13600 gas and 36000 minerals in 4 bases are enough to turtle to 200/200 ground mech. I disagree with your argument that the 12 unit selection is the reason for BW mech play. Although it might have an impact on the lower level players I doubt that 12 unit selection limit was much of a factor for the highest level korean pros. If the only thing you changed about BW was the selection limit (to make it like SC2) mech players would still push out early. In BW the enemy economy can get out of hand quickly. If you just turtle until you are maxed protoss will get 5 bases and 40 gateways and crush you without much of a problem. Protoss will also get arbiters to stasis your sorry ass into oblivion and recall zealots into your factories. All these things are reasons for mech players to push in BW. You want to push when toss is vulnerable. You want to push before arbiters or carriers are out. My theory is that Blizzard just doesnt want SC2 to become a big strategy game. They want a fast paced action game with shit blowing up. They have a target audience. They have a vision of how gameplay should look like. Read all of their Community Feedback threads. They are always taking about "cool moments". A "cool" moment for blizzard is shit blowing up left and right. Worker harass killing 30 workers. A nydus into your base ending the game immediately. Disruptor that one-shot everything. In BW your incentive to move out and attack was that if you didnt your opponent would get too strong. You wanted to hurt their economy. In SC2 your incentive to attack is that attacks are always way more powerful then defending. You want to attack because it doesnt make any sense to defend. You cant defend. The harassment tools you get are so efficient that you will always be outmaneuvered by your opponent. You attack or you die. BW mech and the SC2 design philosophy do not work together. Its not going to happen. | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
On January 18 2016 00:26 RoomOfMush wrote: My theory is that Blizzard just doesnt want SC2 to become a big strategy game. They want a fast paced action game with shit blowing up. They have a target audience. They have a vision of how gameplay should look like. Read all of their Community Feedback threads. They are always taking about "cool moments". A "cool" moment for blizzard is shit blowing up left and right. Worker harass killing 30 workers. A nydus into your base ending the game immediately. Disruptor that one-shot everything. It's the C&C mindset that crept its way into SC. | ||
|
Bohemond
United States163 Posts
On January 18 2016 00:23 Big J wrote: Not really, the tank is pretty amazing as a unit. It counters most ground units in the game in bigger numbers and provides massive utility through its range even in low numbers. (i.e. why you build them defensively, or why 1-1-1 was so strong and why Lost Temple had to go and so on and so on = very strong) What people quote as counters to the tank are often only low number/open field counters, or draw their strenght elsewhere. For example the ravager gets completely annihilated by tanks, even without medivacs. But you know, queens make these combats always very unequal in numbers (Zerg brings 4 times the amounts of ravagers to the party that you have tanks and then you whine about the ravager being too strong, not the larva?). You could say most Zerg units suck, but queens make them pretty good, herp-derp. You can't say that about the tank, because the tank is pretty amazing. It draws it weakness from the factory which is expensive and produces very slowly. Tanks were very good in WoL and it was never their fault that Terran had trouble with Broodlords. The unit was never designed to be amazing in a scenario in which the opponent is massing air units. The tank without medivac pick up is very weak. Just because it had a few situations in the game where it was very effective (holding blink stalkers, for example), doesn't mean it wasn't weak. The tank is supposed to be a space control unit, but, unless it's behind a wall, any cheap t1 unit can simply walk up to a group of tanks (that hasn't hit the critical mass where the splash stacking on top of splash from other shots wipes out everything) and kill them cost efficiently - from roaches, to marines and marauders, to zealots and adepts and stalkers. Also, tanks sucked in WoL. Seiged up Terran armies would get overrun with relative ease all the time unless the tanks got good hits on the banes or the banes all detonated on the tanks. Once again, they don't deter attackers from running into seiged armies, unless they're behind a wall/up a cliff or something. I was planning to go on a bit here, but I think this'll be a color of the sky type discussion ('it's orange,' 'no, it's blue,' 'no, it's orange,' and on and on). I'm quite surprised, honestly. The fact that tanks aren't very good, without the pickup or their critical mass, is broadly agreed upon by most people. I can't remember a pro saying tanks are strong, or even anyone on TL, except you. | ||
|
Videoboysayscube
51 Posts
| ||
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
On January 18 2016 00:59 Bohemond wrote: The tank without medivac pick up is very weak. Just because it had a few situations in the game where it was very effective (holding blink stalkers, for example), doesn't mean it wasn't weak. The tank is supposed to be a space control unit, but, unless it's behind a wall, any cheap t1 unit can simply walk up to a group of tanks (that hasn't hit the critical mass where the splash stacking on top of splash from other shots wipes out everything) and kill them cost efficiently - from roaches, to marines and marauders, to zealots and adepts and stalkers. Also, tanks sucked in WoL. Seiged up Terran armies would get overrun with relative ease all the time unless the tanks got good hits on the banes or the banes all detonated on the tanks. Once again, they don't deter attackers from running into seiged armies, unless they're behind a wall/up a cliff or something. I was planning to go on a bit here, but I think this'll be a color of the sky type discussion ('it's orange,' 'no, it's blue,' 'no, it's orange,' and on and on). I'm quite surprised, honestly. The fact that tanks aren't very good, without the pickup or their critical mass, is broadly agreed upon by most people. I can't remember a pro saying tanks are strong, or even anyone on TL, except you. Many people have the opinion that tank is good only when 2-3 can kill minimum of 50-60 supply of opponents units. | ||
|
FrkFrJss
Canada1205 Posts
On January 18 2016 00:29 Deathstar wrote: It's the C&C mindset that crept its way into SC. The question is, are they necessarily wrong? If it is true (and I think it is) that SC2 is perhaps gradually losing viewership, then the way to attract new viewers is to present the gameplay in one of two ways. Either make it accessible to all people or make watching it accessible to all people. While those of us who are experienced viewers and players can appreciate the depth of strategy in positional play, it is more boring for those who are newer watchers. As a new viewer who knows nothing about SC2, watching someone drop all over the place is certainly more exciting than watching a slow positional chokehold. It is unfortunate, but everything that Blizz has gone towards in LotV is to quicken the pace of the game. | ||
|
EatingBomber
1017 Posts
On January 18 2016 01:08 RaFox17 wrote: Many people have the opinion that tank is good only when 2-3 can kill minimum of 50-60 supply of opponents units. This is shitposting of a very low level. Please try again. | ||
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
On January 18 2016 01:18 EatingBomber wrote: This is shitposting of a very low level. Please try again. Many people seem to think that the tank is never good enough until 2-3 are enough to stop any kind of aggression from the opponent. That would only lead to high level turtling in GSL and PL. | ||
|
pmp10
3346 Posts
I want mech back but tanks are a minor issue and as long as marine/tank counters ravagers buffing them will chiefly benefit bio. The key to salvaging mech is improving terrans ability to take and hold 3rd and 4th bases. But that would likely mean macro changes and I doubt Blizzard is willing to even consider them. Also it would bring turtle mech back and a lot of shouting would soon get it removed. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 18 2016 00:59 Bohemond wrote: The tank without medivac pick up is very weak. Just because it had a few situations in the game where it was very effective (holding blink stalkers, for example), doesn't mean it wasn't weak. The tank is supposed to be a space control unit, but, unless it's behind a wall, any cheap t1 unit can simply walk up to a group of tanks (that hasn't hit the critical mass where the splash stacking on top of splash from other shots wipes out everything) and kill them cost efficiently - from roaches, to marines and marauders, to zealots and adepts and stalkers. Also, tanks sucked in WoL. Seiged up Terran armies would get overrun with relative ease all the time unless the tanks got good hits on the banes or the banes all detonated on the tanks. Once again, they don't deter attackers from running into seiged armies, unless they're behind a wall/up a cliff or something. I was planning to go on a bit here, but I think this'll be a color of the sky type discussion ('it's orange,' 'no, it's blue,' 'no, it's orange,' and on and on). I'm quite surprised, honestly. The fact that tanks aren't very good, without the pickup or their critical mass, is broadly agreed upon by most people. I can't remember a pro saying tanks are strong, or even anyone on TL, except you. It's funny, you keep on jumping back and forth between two types of arguments. In the one you say the tank is bad as a unit itself in a purist approach, In the other you say the tank might be good in certain gamespecific situations (your stalkerexample) and because of certain dynamics/synergies (like the medivac) which is a completely different approach to look at the tank. You gotta pick what you want to argue. My original point was that the tank sees a lot of use due to its medivac synergy. That's were you came in and told me to look at the tank without the medivac synergy to see its bad. So I did, I looked at the tank without the medivac synergy and without all the other thousands of factors like the costs of factories and the power of queens and came to the conclusion it was a very good unit in itself if I go by your purist approach. Which is were you just skip my whole argument and come in with some ludicrous examples like putting too few tanks in the open and then crying that they were too few against T1 units. I mean you answered your own question, just make a few more if you haven't hit what you call the critical number. Jesus, if you can do it with a lower critical number are you going to cry that you still can't do it if you don't have the critical number? That's point of a critical number... You can't remember anyone saying the tank was strong. Maybe you are familiar with this type of argument: "buff the tank. but of course you have to remove the medivac pick up, or it's going to be too strong". Evidently everyone who argues like that thinks that you can't "just" buff the tank or it would be too strong. | ||
|
bigbadgreen
United States142 Posts
The simple reason for this is all of the mech threads open with buffs to all kinds of terran units and no real mention of buffs to other races to compensate. I give props to Avilo for mentioning a buff to hydras in the op. So far in the recent mech threads i have seen buff tank, cyclone, hellion/hellbat, thor, combine upgrades, reduce costs, reduce build times and give an upgrade to speed up transformations. There is very little thought being into how the other races will need to be changed to compensate, aside from nerfs like changing ravager to armored. It's mostly an afterthought. We'll buff terran then wait and see and just adjust some numbers for the other races... If people want these posts to be taken seriously you can't just glance over adjustments to the other races. The second issue is that making mech stronger you open up the possibility for bio/mech builds and pushes to develop and be much stronger than the individual strategies of bio or mech. With an upgraded hellbat or hellion with mines what is stopping a very strong marine, hellion, tank push. If they change ravager to armored and buff hellion nothing zerg has could touch this. Players are always going to use the best strategy/build to win. Edit for format and spelling | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On January 18 2016 01:15 FrkFrJss wrote: The question is, are they necessarily wrong? If it is true (and I think it is) that SC2 is perhaps gradually losing viewership, then the way to attract new viewers is to present the gameplay in one of two ways. Either make it accessible to all people or make watching it accessible to all people. While those of us who are experienced viewers and players can appreciate the depth of strategy in positional play, it is more boring for those who are newer watchers. As a new viewer who knows nothing about SC2, watching someone drop all over the place is certainly more exciting than watching a slow positional chokehold. It is unfortunate, but everything that Blizz has gone towards in LotV is to quicken the pace of the game. And is it helping? SC2 is losing popularity fast. SC:BW was very popular for a long time. It is still popular in korea to this day, many years after it came out. We know BW was well perceived by viewers and players alike. Why change something that has proven to work? | ||
|
UberNuB
United States365 Posts
I truly don't understand the logic behind the OP. There has to be some downsides to mech, and currently they are: immobility, and vulnerability to massive air units (Battlecruiser, Carrier, Tempest and Broodlord). As others have stated, there's no building that you can (exclusively) mass units from and be able to win throughout all stages of the game. Enabling one building to have that type of flexibility would kill diversity, not promote it... Edit: Also, in the OP, it's said: Some people think blizzard shouldn't bother with mech, and to those people i'd say you are hurting the longevity of SC2 by only wanting there to be 100% bio play viable for SC2. Other games like LoL are completely shitting on SC2 because those games get constant patch changes, champion updates, balance updates, ability updates, etc etc. First, I enjoy playing against and watching bio play more than mech play. Mech play either turtles (which is you complaint) or just gets to a-move across the map. Neither are fun to play against or watch (though I guess your viewership says otherwise). Second, there's plenty of reasons LoL/Dota are more popular. Having frequent patches might help keep the scene fresh, but there's simply far more content in those games to balance. Also, their freemium model requires content to be well balanced, otherwise you'd buy one hero and never spend any more money. There is plenty of reasons freemium games with strong social aspects are more popular than a game which has a ~$50 entry cost and little to no social aspects. The skill levels required also hurts the SC2 scene, but it's the main reason a lot of us are here. Clash of Clans (a casual mobile game) makes more money than the top few eSports combined. They very rarely make any updates, and their interaction with the community is terrible. Based on OP logic, that's why they are so successful. Ignoring the fact that freemium + social + casual = success (or complete miss, it's all about getting viral) in today's market. | ||
|
Penev
28483 Posts
On January 18 2016 01:15 FrkFrJss wrote: The question is, are they necessarily wrong? If it is true (and I think it is) that SC2 is perhaps gradually losing viewership, then the way to attract new viewers is to present the gameplay in one of two ways. Either make it accessible to all people or make watching it accessible to all people. While those of us who are experienced viewers and players can appreciate the depth of strategy in positional play, it is more boring for those who are newer watchers. As a new viewer who knows nothing about SC2, watching someone drop all over the place is certainly more exciting than watching a slow positional chokehold. It is unfortunate, but everything that Blizz has gone towards in LotV is to quicken the pace of the game. I think they are, indeed, wrong. You already have those fastpaced games, free to play and a lot easier to master. It's not unthinkable that the design philosophy you describe actually lessened the viewership. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15973 Posts
On January 18 2016 01:33 bigbadgreen wrote: I think the reason all of these mech posts get hate is because of how they are composed. Because it's a terran-centric discussion you get mostly terrans weighing in. There is nothing wrong with that. But it naturally creates a skewed conversation that can put other races off. The simple reason for this is all of the mech threads open with buffs to all kinds of terran units and no real mention of buffs to other races to compensate. I give props to Avilo for mentioning a buff to hydras in the op. So far in the recent mech threads i have seen buff tank, cyclone, hellion/hellbat, thor, combine upgrades, reduce costs, reduce build times and give an upgrade to speed up transformations. There is very little thought being into how the other races will need to be changed to compensate, aside from nerfs like changing ravager to armored. It's mostly an afterthought. We'll buff terran then wait and see and just adjust some numbers for the other races... If people want these posts to be taken seriously you can't just glance over adjustments to the other races. The second issue is that making mech stronger you open up the possibility for bio/mech builds and pushes to develop and be much stronger than the individual strategies of bio or mech. With an upgraded hellbat or hellion with mines what is stopping a very strong marine, hellion, tank push. If they change ravager to armored and buff hellion nothing zerg has could touch this. Players are always going to use the best strategy/build to win. Edit for format and spelling mech and bio are mostly (mostly) independent from each other. right now mech is very underpowered so if you buff it to a point where it is balanced zerg and protoss don't need anything to compensate. The only exception atm is the siege tank because it's played in bio and mech compositions but if the medivac pickup gets removed a tank buff wouldn't make bio op. | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
Today I had a 1 and half hour of TvZ mech. It was a shitty game. I could never hope to attack as siege tanks would get yanked or blinded by viper. So I just sat there waiting for him to attack. He never did. So the game ended in a draw after 90 minutes of bullshit. Yay... | ||
Clonester
Germany2808 Posts
On January 18 2016 02:19 Psychobabas wrote: Well said. Today I had a 1 and half hour of TvZ mech. It was a shitty game. I could never hope to attack as siege tanks would get yanked or blinded by viper. So I just sat there waiting for him to attack. He never did. So the game ended in a draw after 90 minutes of bullshit. Yay... I know what helps in that case... play Bio. | ||
| ||
