EPTI'm all for making a non turtle mech viable, but have honestly no idea how blizzard could make that happen in current sc2.
And while we're at it, how about making LBM viable?
Avilo SC2 Mech Feedback/Analysis for Blizz+SC2 - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
mCon.Hephaistas
Netherlands891 Posts
I'm all for making a non turtle mech viable, but have honestly no idea how blizzard could make that happen in current sc2. And while we're at it, how about making LBM viable? | ||
|
FoxDog
170 Posts
On January 18 2016 17:42 mCon.Hephaistas wrote: Lol at the people in this thread just asking for a straight up tank damage buff, because that obviously isn't gonna make turtle mech more viable. I'm all for making a non turtle mech viable, but have honestly no idea how blizzard could make that happen in current sc2. And while we're at it, how about making LBM viable? You cant attack so you have to turtle = current tank state You can either attack or turtle = the suggested tank change Do you see how the change is better? nobody wants to sit and wait for your blinding cloud when they could be out on the map killing you via positioning and micro. The reason we want the tank change is for TvP in perticular because the tank is allready too weak in this matchup. | ||
|
Vanadiel
France961 Posts
On January 18 2016 19:47 FoxDog wrote: You cant attack so you have to turtle = current tank state You can either attack or turtle = the suggested tank change Do you see how the change is better? nobody wants to sit and wait for your blinding cloud when they could be out on the map killing you via positioning and micro. The reason we want the tank change is for TvP in perticular because the tank is allready too weak in this matchup. That's incorrect. option 2 gives you a stronger turtle game, and thus, if it is the most efficient way to play the game, then that's what mech player will do: in any case, it would be the easier way to play it, so even if it's not the most efficient way to play, a lot would embrace this playstyle. | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2660 Posts
On January 18 2016 19:58 Vanadiel wrote: That's incorrect. option 2 gives you a stronger turtle game, and thus, if it is the most efficient way to play the game, then that's what mech player will do: in any case, it would be the easier way to play it, so even if it's not the most efficient way to play, a lot would embrace this playstyle. Exept it is not. Economy alone makes turtle the worst choice of the 2. Not mentioning new lategame techo like PB and nerfs to the raven making lategame compositions more weaker. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17682 Posts
On January 18 2016 16:56 Vanadiel wrote: The guy insult David Kim on weekly basis and plays the worst possible games from their perspective, there is not a single chance that his ideas will be brought into the game. And please, yes he plays only mech, but at very low level for pro standard. to add to your point, he shit-talked about Greg Black for a year when RA3 was in beta, being released and then being balanced. i always thought Greg Black was a great game designer.. surprise, surprise ... who ends up as a game designer on SC2 after EALA goes tits up. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3512 Posts
I think you would really need to reduce the amount of expanding needed for Mech to be viable, something like 75 Mineral Turrets and/or 90 Mineral Hellions, maybe nerf/redesign Hell Bat. For me at the moment Hell Bats aren't really cool, if speed was nerfed, or even made them siege so they became Bunkers it would make them a lot cooler. Could make the same change where Medivacs can pick up a stationary Hell Bat, but it becomes a Hellion in the Medivac. Remove the Bio tag and maybe give it an innate Guardian Shield ability or just + Armour so it can stand it's ground on it's own. So that Siege Tanks can finally get the damage done, before the front line is removed. If through these changes Bio gets out of control, then you could just give Medivac a 12-25 energy cost on Boost, since with Mech Hell Bats you don't build Medivacs for the healing anymore and this would primarily be a nerf to Bio, while giving the option to the Terran players to spend energy so that Feedbacks don't land as hard on them. | ||
|
Elentos
55586 Posts
On January 19 2016 00:19 ejozl wrote: I think if you remove the +vs shields from Widow Mines it would be possible to reduce their supply to 1. I don't think that's going too far. An 8 mine drop with drilling claws from one medivac sounds completely ridiculous tbh. I don't think just taking away the +shield would be enough if you make it 1 supply, widow mines are pretty good even without that. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3512 Posts
On January 19 2016 00:22 Elentos wrote: An 8 mine drop with drilling claws sounds completely ridiculous tbh. ahaha.. well I guess you don't HAVE to also reduce cargo size  | ||
|
todespolka
221 Posts
1. Engine is different, that is already enough. 2. Pro scene was different. We did not know at that time what we know today. 3. Gaming scene is different. Even when sc2 is the best rts we have today, people dont recognize it as such because of other popular games. At the time of bw the only game more popular was counterstrike. Please stop making useless comparisions. If you want to compare something, you have to list every difference (i mean every or its worthless! and not just the things which work in favor of your argument) and every similarity. The comparision is flawed if differences have a bigger weight than the similarity which is the case here. | ||
|
FoxDog
170 Posts
On January 18 2016 00:11 Strelok wrote: Avilo you are right in 90% things, but there is 1 small problem. David Kim listens only to David Kim. And this guy wasn't fired after terrans were 14/16 in GSL, he wasn't fired after infestor-broodlord period not being fixed on entired 6 months. Do you really think your words will change ANYTHING? Avilo has now got a fanbase, and so does mario, ruff and goody... if you would start streaming again you would see that a lot of people support mech and want to be able to play mech in tvp! | ||
|
EatingBomber
1017 Posts
99% of SC1 games were mech. But why did no one complain about this? Because games had constant action, harrassment, lots of bases taken, etc. I don't understand. Then why are you complaining about SC2 TvP, which can be just as action-packed with lots of harassment and aggression, only that Terran is the aggressor with bio? | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12131 Posts
On January 19 2016 01:03 EatingBomber wrote: I don't understand. Then why are you complaining about SC2 TvP, which can be just as action-packed with lots of harassment and aggression, only that Terran is the aggressor with bio? I don't understand it either. 99 % of games then is OK, 99 % of games now is bad and "we" need mech to fix it. Mech with constant action, harassment and lots of bases is cool, but bio with the same sucks and "we" need mech to fix it. During BW era, how many threads about "we need bio viable" was there? Was it this bad and annoying? | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On January 19 2016 00:35 todespolka wrote: Why do people compare sc1 to sc2 is something i will never understand. Both games are too different. 1. Engine is different, that is already enough. 2. Pro scene was different. We did not know at that time what we know today. 3. Gaming scene is different. Even when sc2 is the best rts we have today, people dont recognize it as such because of other popular games. At the time of bw the only game more popular was counterstrike. Please stop making useless comparisions. If you want to compare something, you have to list every difference (i mean every or its worthless! and not just the things which work in favor of your argument) and every similarity. The comparision is flawed if differences have a bigger weight than the similarity which is the case here. They have far more similarities then differences. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On January 19 2016 01:22 deacon.frost wrote: I don't understand it either. 99 % of games then is OK, 99 % of games now is bad and "we" need mech to fix it. Mech with constant action, harassment and lots of bases is cool, but bio with the same sucks and "we" need mech to fix it. During BW era, how many threads about "we need bio viable" was there? Was it this bad and annoying? I totally understand the request to have mech be more viable. I'm all for it, too! I'd never argue against diversity. The only reason I compared it to BW is to show that the situation right now is actually really good, because SC2 now is way more diverse than BW was and still is. Now that is not an actual reason not to change anything. On the other hand change is also very risky. To me the changes offered in the OP seem too risky to me. They are quite likely to mess the game balance up. This is something I'd hate to see happen. It's not just a matter of what we want and what is possible. It's also a question of priorities. How many people think balance is more important than diversity? How many people think it's worth trading in some balance for more diversity, and then balance things out later? And also, I see that many people who demand change often have their own agenda. We need to be in the know who benefits from which change. | ||
|
Skyhook
United States23 Posts
| ||
|
A_needle_jog
Korea (South)699 Posts
 | ||
|
PureMetal
United States83 Posts
However, I am going to play devils advocate and ask, "How many times since WoL has Blizzard and David Kim actually listened to the player base and made changes because of popular demand?" I'm not trying to shut down any discussion at all (I'd love to see mech changes), this is an honest question. The Blizzard formula seems to be ignore the problem until it's a festering sore of front page naggings and then they will inevitably change the wrong thing. | ||
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
On January 19 2016 03:35 PureMetal wrote: I think this community always comes up with some well thought out balance ideas and I love seeing the discussion on how they would be implemented. However, I am going to play devils advocate and ask, "How many times since WoL has Blizzard and David Kim actually listened to the player base and made changes because of popular demand?" I'm not trying to shut down any discussion at all (I'd love to see mech changes), this is an honest question. The Blizzard formula seems to be ignore the problem until it's a festering sore of front page naggings and then they will inevitably change the wrong thing. SH and raven were nerfed by popular demand quite recently. | ||
|
KrOeastbound
England59 Posts
On January 19 2016 00:35 todespolka wrote: Why do people compare sc1 to sc2 is something i will never understand. Both games are too different. 1. Engine is different, that is already enough. 2. Pro scene was different. We did not know at that time what we know today. 3. Gaming scene is different. Even when sc2 is the best rts we have today, people dont recognize it as such because of other popular games. At the time of bw the only game more popular was counterstrike. Please stop making useless comparisions. If you want to compare something, you have to list every difference (i mean every or its worthless! and not just the things which work in favor of your argument) and every similarity. The comparision is flawed if differences have a bigger weight than the similarity which is the case here. I don't understand your logic. There is an immense amount of similarities between the games that I really could not be bothered to list out. It is also very natural for people to compare/critique a game based on its predecessor/s, especially when the predecessor is probably the best example of its genre. | ||
| ||
