|
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, Zerg have Corrosive Bile now, it's not too strong in TvT as Cyclones are the new anti Banshee unit, it seems. PvT we have Disruptors so just a lot of stuff that takes care of Mines, but they're still strongest in TvP so think you have to remove the +vs shields for this change.
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.
I think a lot of people are thinking of WMs in the wrong way. They're not really for broad map control in the same way that Spider Mines were. They're really more for tactical space control. If you're a good player (and I'm in no way implying that you're not), you probably already think of them intuitively well-suited to the role that WMs play. But a lot of players will consciously speak of WMs as if they're really a mine, rather than what they can more accurately be described as - an artillery piece. They're essentially a mortar. It's a highly mobile artillery piece that is intended for close infantry support.
Contrast this with Spider Mines, which cost 0 supply (just 25 minerals), cannot be controlled after placing, and affect only ground units. Spider Mines could be used flexibly, but were most often seen in large number to to slow down advances through strategic locations of the map.
This might not have been what you were implying by the need to reduce the supply cost of Widow Mines, but I often see this change suggested, coupled with the argument that this should be done in order to make WMs more suited for map control.
|
On January 19 2016 03:52 Pontius Pirate wrote:Show nested quote +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, Zerg have Corrosive Bile now, it's not too strong in TvT as Cyclones are the new anti Banshee unit, it seems. PvT we have Disruptors so just a lot of stuff that takes care of Mines, but they're still strongest in TvP so think you have to remove the +vs shields for this change.
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. I think a lot of people are thinking of WMs in the wrong way. They're not really for broad map control in the same way that Spider Mines were. They're really more for tactical space control. If you're a good player (and I'm in no way implying that you're not), you probably already think of them intuitively well-suited to the role that WMs play. But a lot of players will consciously speak of WMs as if they're really a mine, rather than what they can more accurately be described as - an artillery piece. They're essentially a mortar. It's a highly mobile artillery piece that is intended for close infantry support. Contrast this with Spider Mines, which cost 0 supply (just 25 minerals), cannot be controlled after placing, and affect only ground units. Spider Mines could be used flexibly, but were most often seen in large number to to slow down advances through strategic locations of the map. This might not have been what you were implying by the need to reduce the supply cost of Widow Mines, but I often see this change suggested, coupled with the argument that this should be done in order to make WMs more suited for map control.
It would be pretty sick if there were an upgrade or ability on the widow mine for a 25/25 cost to have the mine permanently burrow into the ground and stay immobile in that position but it deletes the 2 supply from your army.
It would behave exactly as your normal widow mines, can still be killed as normal.
|
On January 19 2016 07:15 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 03:52 Pontius Pirate wrote: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, Zerg have Corrosive Bile now, it's not too strong in TvT as Cyclones are the new anti Banshee unit, it seems. PvT we have Disruptors so just a lot of stuff that takes care of Mines, but they're still strongest in TvP so think you have to remove the +vs shields for this change.
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. I think a lot of people are thinking of WMs in the wrong way. They're not really for broad map control in the same way that Spider Mines were. They're really more for tactical space control. If you're a good player (and I'm in no way implying that you're not), you probably already think of them intuitively well-suited to the role that WMs play. But a lot of players will consciously speak of WMs as if they're really a mine, rather than what they can more accurately be described as - an artillery piece. They're essentially a mortar. It's a highly mobile artillery piece that is intended for close infantry support. Contrast this with Spider Mines, which cost 0 supply (just 25 minerals), cannot be controlled after placing, and affect only ground units. Spider Mines could be used flexibly, but were most often seen in large number to to slow down advances through strategic locations of the map. This might not have been what you were implying by the need to reduce the supply cost of Widow Mines, but I often see this change suggested, coupled with the argument that this should be done in order to make WMs more suited for map control. It would be pretty sick if there were an upgrade or ability on the widow mine for a 25/25 cost to have the mine permanently burrow into the ground and stay immobile in that position but it deletes the 2 supply from your army. It would behave exactly as your normal widow mines, can still be killed as normal.
Not sure if serious
|
On January 19 2016 07:15 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 03:52 Pontius Pirate wrote: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, Zerg have Corrosive Bile now, it's not too strong in TvT as Cyclones are the new anti Banshee unit, it seems. PvT we have Disruptors so just a lot of stuff that takes care of Mines, but they're still strongest in TvP so think you have to remove the +vs shields for this change.
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. I think a lot of people are thinking of WMs in the wrong way. They're not really for broad map control in the same way that Spider Mines were. They're really more for tactical space control. If you're a good player (and I'm in no way implying that you're not), you probably already think of them intuitively well-suited to the role that WMs play. But a lot of players will consciously speak of WMs as if they're really a mine, rather than what they can more accurately be described as - an artillery piece. They're essentially a mortar. It's a highly mobile artillery piece that is intended for close infantry support. Contrast this with Spider Mines, which cost 0 supply (just 25 minerals), cannot be controlled after placing, and affect only ground units. Spider Mines could be used flexibly, but were most often seen in large number to to slow down advances through strategic locations of the map. This might not have been what you were implying by the need to reduce the supply cost of Widow Mines, but I often see this change suggested, coupled with the argument that this should be done in order to make WMs more suited for map control. It would be pretty sick if there were an upgrade or ability on the widow mine for a 25/25 cost to have the mine permanently burrow into the ground and stay immobile in that position but it deletes the 2 supply from your army. It would behave exactly as your normal widow mines, can still be killed as normal.
Thats overly complicated. I think the easiest solution would simply be to give spider mines to hellions via an upgrade.
|
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?
When even Strelok is abandoning the ship :c
|
On January 19 2016 07:36 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 07:15 avilo wrote:On January 19 2016 03:52 Pontius Pirate wrote: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, Zerg have Corrosive Bile now, it's not too strong in TvT as Cyclones are the new anti Banshee unit, it seems. PvT we have Disruptors so just a lot of stuff that takes care of Mines, but they're still strongest in TvP so think you have to remove the +vs shields for this change.
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. I think a lot of people are thinking of WMs in the wrong way. They're not really for broad map control in the same way that Spider Mines were. They're really more for tactical space control. If you're a good player (and I'm in no way implying that you're not), you probably already think of them intuitively well-suited to the role that WMs play. But a lot of players will consciously speak of WMs as if they're really a mine, rather than what they can more accurately be described as - an artillery piece. They're essentially a mortar. It's a highly mobile artillery piece that is intended for close infantry support. Contrast this with Spider Mines, which cost 0 supply (just 25 minerals), cannot be controlled after placing, and affect only ground units. Spider Mines could be used flexibly, but were most often seen in large number to to slow down advances through strategic locations of the map. This might not have been what you were implying by the need to reduce the supply cost of Widow Mines, but I often see this change suggested, coupled with the argument that this should be done in order to make WMs more suited for map control. It would be pretty sick if there were an upgrade or ability on the widow mine for a 25/25 cost to have the mine permanently burrow into the ground and stay immobile in that position but it deletes the 2 supply from your army. It would behave exactly as your normal widow mines, can still be killed as normal. Not sure if serious
You would hope not.
|
On January 18 2016 16:56 Vanadiel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 09:35 terrantosaur wrote:
I really hope the powers-that-be at Blizzard at least take the time to read and consider Avilo's post. I doubt very much whether anyone on the planet (certainly outside Korea) has a much experience of playing mech with Terran. He regularly streams for 5 hours+ a day and has done for ever. So, whether you love him or hate him, it is at least reasonable to conclude that on this topic there are very few people who really understand the nuances of the high-level Mech play as well as he does. 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.
So who plays mech consistently at a high level then. I would like to watch.
|
On January 19 2016 08:02 Phredxor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 07:36 InfCereal wrote:On January 19 2016 07:15 avilo wrote:On January 19 2016 03:52 Pontius Pirate wrote: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, Zerg have Corrosive Bile now, it's not too strong in TvT as Cyclones are the new anti Banshee unit, it seems. PvT we have Disruptors so just a lot of stuff that takes care of Mines, but they're still strongest in TvP so think you have to remove the +vs shields for this change.
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. I think a lot of people are thinking of WMs in the wrong way. They're not really for broad map control in the same way that Spider Mines were. They're really more for tactical space control. If you're a good player (and I'm in no way implying that you're not), you probably already think of them intuitively well-suited to the role that WMs play. But a lot of players will consciously speak of WMs as if they're really a mine, rather than what they can more accurately be described as - an artillery piece. They're essentially a mortar. It's a highly mobile artillery piece that is intended for close infantry support. Contrast this with Spider Mines, which cost 0 supply (just 25 minerals), cannot be controlled after placing, and affect only ground units. Spider Mines could be used flexibly, but were most often seen in large number to to slow down advances through strategic locations of the map. This might not have been what you were implying by the need to reduce the supply cost of Widow Mines, but I often see this change suggested, coupled with the argument that this should be done in order to make WMs more suited for map control. It would be pretty sick if there were an upgrade or ability on the widow mine for a 25/25 cost to have the mine permanently burrow into the ground and stay immobile in that position but it deletes the 2 supply from your army. It would behave exactly as your normal widow mines, can still be killed as normal. Not sure if serious You would hope not.
It's easy to ridicule ideas other people put forward. Even easier when you don't back yourself with any sort of argument at all. "The absurdity of what he proposes speaks for itself" do I hear you thinking? Does it? In a universe where Adepts exist in their present state for months, after being publicly tested, you think undercosting an untested mechanic by 25 gas is worthy of going full Battle.net on avilo?
Here's an actual criticism of his proposal: mech needs help in the early and midgame before we can even begin to identify what issues it has at 200/200, and this buff is directly aimed at the lategame. It seems like a distraction from the real issues, solving which is a pipe dream in itself.
P.s. happy birthday
|
On January 19 2016 08:51 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 08:02 Phredxor wrote:On January 19 2016 07:36 InfCereal wrote:On January 19 2016 07:15 avilo wrote:On January 19 2016 03:52 Pontius Pirate wrote: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, Zerg have Corrosive Bile now, it's not too strong in TvT as Cyclones are the new anti Banshee unit, it seems. PvT we have Disruptors so just a lot of stuff that takes care of Mines, but they're still strongest in TvP so think you have to remove the +vs shields for this change.
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. I think a lot of people are thinking of WMs in the wrong way. They're not really for broad map control in the same way that Spider Mines were. They're really more for tactical space control. If you're a good player (and I'm in no way implying that you're not), you probably already think of them intuitively well-suited to the role that WMs play. But a lot of players will consciously speak of WMs as if they're really a mine, rather than what they can more accurately be described as - an artillery piece. They're essentially a mortar. It's a highly mobile artillery piece that is intended for close infantry support. Contrast this with Spider Mines, which cost 0 supply (just 25 minerals), cannot be controlled after placing, and affect only ground units. Spider Mines could be used flexibly, but were most often seen in large number to to slow down advances through strategic locations of the map. This might not have been what you were implying by the need to reduce the supply cost of Widow Mines, but I often see this change suggested, coupled with the argument that this should be done in order to make WMs more suited for map control. It would be pretty sick if there were an upgrade or ability on the widow mine for a 25/25 cost to have the mine permanently burrow into the ground and stay immobile in that position but it deletes the 2 supply from your army. It would behave exactly as your normal widow mines, can still be killed as normal. Not sure if serious You would hope not. It's easy to ridicule ideas other people put forward. Even easier when you don't back yourself with any sort of argument at all. "The absurdity of what he proposes speaks for itself" do I hear you thinking? Does it? In a universe where Adepts exist in their present state for months, after being publicly tested, you think undercosting an untested mechanic by 25 gas is worthy of going full Battle.net on avilo? Here's an actual criticism of his proposal: mech needs help in the early and midgame before we can even begin to identify what issues it has at 200/200, and this buff is directly aimed at the lategame. It seems like a distraction from the real issues, solving which is a pipe dream in itself. P.s. happy birthday
I think it does speak for itself. Late game would just become and entire map littered with 0 supply widow mines, even a bronze league player could see that.
I'm not getting into any of the other stuff about adepts or anything, just the fact that this widow mine idea is awful. And I have no idea what going full Battle.net on avilo means.
|
On January 19 2016 09:15 Phredxor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 08:51 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 19 2016 08:02 Phredxor wrote:On January 19 2016 07:36 InfCereal wrote:On January 19 2016 07:15 avilo wrote:On January 19 2016 03:52 Pontius Pirate wrote: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, Zerg have Corrosive Bile now, it's not too strong in TvT as Cyclones are the new anti Banshee unit, it seems. PvT we have Disruptors so just a lot of stuff that takes care of Mines, but they're still strongest in TvP so think you have to remove the +vs shields for this change.
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. I think a lot of people are thinking of WMs in the wrong way. They're not really for broad map control in the same way that Spider Mines were. They're really more for tactical space control. If you're a good player (and I'm in no way implying that you're not), you probably already think of them intuitively well-suited to the role that WMs play. But a lot of players will consciously speak of WMs as if they're really a mine, rather than what they can more accurately be described as - an artillery piece. They're essentially a mortar. It's a highly mobile artillery piece that is intended for close infantry support. Contrast this with Spider Mines, which cost 0 supply (just 25 minerals), cannot be controlled after placing, and affect only ground units. Spider Mines could be used flexibly, but were most often seen in large number to to slow down advances through strategic locations of the map. This might not have been what you were implying by the need to reduce the supply cost of Widow Mines, but I often see this change suggested, coupled with the argument that this should be done in order to make WMs more suited for map control. It would be pretty sick if there were an upgrade or ability on the widow mine for a 25/25 cost to have the mine permanently burrow into the ground and stay immobile in that position but it deletes the 2 supply from your army. It would behave exactly as your normal widow mines, can still be killed as normal. Not sure if serious You would hope not. It's easy to ridicule ideas other people put forward. Even easier when you don't back yourself with any sort of argument at all. "The absurdity of what he proposes speaks for itself" do I hear you thinking? Does it? In a universe where Adepts exist in their present state for months, after being publicly tested, you think undercosting an untested mechanic by 25 gas is worthy of going full Battle.net on avilo? Here's an actual criticism of his proposal: mech needs help in the early and midgame before we can even begin to identify what issues it has at 200/200, and this buff is directly aimed at the lategame. It seems like a distraction from the real issues, solving which is a pipe dream in itself. P.s. happy birthday I think it does speak for itself. Late game would just become and entire map littered with 0 supply widow mines, even a bronze league player could see that.
And I'm telling you for a fact that this is entirely a question of numbers, which means it is balanceable, which means the only real question is whether it is worth taking the time to balance. This upgrade turns the WM into static D, which already exists as a concept and is not OP as a concept.
Make this proposed upgrade cost 75/75 per mine instead of 25/25 and you will never see it used at all. So again, we're back to you dismissing this idea out of hand because Avilo didn't make it cost the perfect amount. Which is the worst reason I can think of to dismiss an untested concept. If Blizzard can't make things cost the right amount after months of public testing, how can you hold an individual poster accountable on that basis? And why would you even want to, when that distracts from the real conversation of what this change is meant to accomplish, is that a thing we want, does the change accomplish it, how does it do it, etc.
As far as I can tell this change is pointless because it doesn't attempt to solve any immediate concerns.
I'm not getting into any of the other stuff about adepts or anything, just the fact that this widow mine idea is awful. And I have no idea what going full Battle.net on avilo means.
Going full battle.net means not bothering to have an actual conversation and make your points the old fashioned way (by making them). Some people in the community think that Avilo making a thread is all the excuse they need to shitpost. It gets old.
|
In what way is it suitable to buff the tank? Damage per shot sieged and/or unsieged? Attack rate? Transformation time? Range? How do these different attributes affect other matchups? Should the transformation mode be an upgrade again if it's buffed? Is 3 supply the correct amount if fewer tanks can hold a position? Build time? Cost? All of these things will change how powerful tanks are perceived.
I'm beginning to think that weakening mechs a-move by a significant amount is a worthwhile trade-off to buffing its entrenched power - so a nerf to tanks transformation time (double it) and unsieged dps, and then buff sieged damage (possibly flat 50 - 60 damage to all unit types?). If you attack the mech player while he's unsieged you get a few more seconds of free damage on it, probably long enough to crush the push which I think is fair if tanks are supposed to be godly powerful if setup correctly. Make the mech player draw your main army away so that it can gain position on the map. That'll require the mech player to harass and multitask and have to make decisions with where to siege, and also importantly when to unsiege.
As always though, there has to be ways to punish the turtle terran who only wants to sit behind static D and make you leave through sheer boredom. As I said long range air siege units currently do this and I don't really know if that's actually a problem, as there obviously has to be counter play available to the opponent and the whole goal is to get mech out on the map and actually performing actions per minute. I don't think there's anything wrong with mech having a timer on it, just as long as it goes both ways and the non-meching player has a timer on it to survive if it's teching to a high tier counter instead of trying to abuse mobility and greater economy with lower tier units.
|
On January 19 2016 09:44 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 09:15 Phredxor wrote:On January 19 2016 08:51 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 19 2016 08:02 Phredxor wrote:On January 19 2016 07:36 InfCereal wrote:On January 19 2016 07:15 avilo wrote:On January 19 2016 03:52 Pontius Pirate wrote: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, Zerg have Corrosive Bile now, it's not too strong in TvT as Cyclones are the new anti Banshee unit, it seems. PvT we have Disruptors so just a lot of stuff that takes care of Mines, but they're still strongest in TvP so think you have to remove the +vs shields for this change.
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. I think a lot of people are thinking of WMs in the wrong way. They're not really for broad map control in the same way that Spider Mines were. They're really more for tactical space control. If you're a good player (and I'm in no way implying that you're not), you probably already think of them intuitively well-suited to the role that WMs play. But a lot of players will consciously speak of WMs as if they're really a mine, rather than what they can more accurately be described as - an artillery piece. They're essentially a mortar. It's a highly mobile artillery piece that is intended for close infantry support. Contrast this with Spider Mines, which cost 0 supply (just 25 minerals), cannot be controlled after placing, and affect only ground units. Spider Mines could be used flexibly, but were most often seen in large number to to slow down advances through strategic locations of the map. This might not have been what you were implying by the need to reduce the supply cost of Widow Mines, but I often see this change suggested, coupled with the argument that this should be done in order to make WMs more suited for map control. It would be pretty sick if there were an upgrade or ability on the widow mine for a 25/25 cost to have the mine permanently burrow into the ground and stay immobile in that position but it deletes the 2 supply from your army. It would behave exactly as your normal widow mines, can still be killed as normal. Not sure if serious You would hope not. It's easy to ridicule ideas other people put forward. Even easier when you don't back yourself with any sort of argument at all. "The absurdity of what he proposes speaks for itself" do I hear you thinking? Does it? In a universe where Adepts exist in their present state for months, after being publicly tested, you think undercosting an untested mechanic by 25 gas is worthy of going full Battle.net on avilo? Here's an actual criticism of his proposal: mech needs help in the early and midgame before we can even begin to identify what issues it has at 200/200, and this buff is directly aimed at the lategame. It seems like a distraction from the real issues, solving which is a pipe dream in itself. P.s. happy birthday I think it does speak for itself. Late game would just become and entire map littered with 0 supply widow mines, even a bronze league player could see that. And I'm telling you for a fact that this is entirely a question of numbers, which means it is balanceable, which means the only real question is whether it is worth taking the time to balance. This upgrade turns the WM into static D, which already exists as a concept and is not OP as a concept. Make this proposed upgrade cost 75/75 per mine instead of 25/25 and you will never see it used at all. So again, we're back to you dismissing this idea out of hand because Avilo didn't make it cost the perfect amount. Which is the worst reason I can think of to dismiss an untested concept. If Blizzard can't make things cost the right amount after months of public testing, how can you hold an individual poster accountable on that basis? And why would you even want to, when that distracts from the real conversation of what this change is meant to accomplish, is that a thing we want, does the change accomplish it, how does it do it, etc. As far as I can tell this change is pointless because it doesn't attempt to solve any immediate concerns. Show nested quote +
I'm not getting into any of the other stuff about adepts or anything, just the fact that this widow mine idea is awful. And I have no idea what going full Battle.net on avilo means.
Going full battle.net means not bothering to have an actual conversation and make your points the old fashioned way (by making them). Some people in the community think that Avilo making a thread is all the excuse they need to shitpost. It gets old.
Ah i see. I can assure you I'm not saying it's a shit idea because it comes from avilo, but because i think it's actually a shit idea.
I have nothing against avilo, while i don't like his stream cause he complains too much, some of his posts here have had some good ideas.
|
On January 19 2016 03:04 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 01:22 deacon.frost wrote:On January 19 2016 01:03 EatingBomber wrote: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? 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.
Keep fooling yourself honestly. Brood war has just as many strategies.
|
On January 19 2016 14:52 B-royal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 03:04 Magic Powers wrote:On January 19 2016 01:22 deacon.frost wrote:On January 19 2016 01:03 EatingBomber wrote: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? 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. Keep fooling yourself honestly. Brood war has just as many strategies.
I have no opinion on the matter but please can you elaborate?
|
On January 19 2016 09:15 Phredxor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 08:51 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 19 2016 08:02 Phredxor wrote:On January 19 2016 07:36 InfCereal wrote:On January 19 2016 07:15 avilo wrote:On January 19 2016 03:52 Pontius Pirate wrote: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, Zerg have Corrosive Bile now, it's not too strong in TvT as Cyclones are the new anti Banshee unit, it seems. PvT we have Disruptors so just a lot of stuff that takes care of Mines, but they're still strongest in TvP so think you have to remove the +vs shields for this change.
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. I think a lot of people are thinking of WMs in the wrong way. They're not really for broad map control in the same way that Spider Mines were. They're really more for tactical space control. If you're a good player (and I'm in no way implying that you're not), you probably already think of them intuitively well-suited to the role that WMs play. But a lot of players will consciously speak of WMs as if they're really a mine, rather than what they can more accurately be described as - an artillery piece. They're essentially a mortar. It's a highly mobile artillery piece that is intended for close infantry support. Contrast this with Spider Mines, which cost 0 supply (just 25 minerals), cannot be controlled after placing, and affect only ground units. Spider Mines could be used flexibly, but were most often seen in large number to to slow down advances through strategic locations of the map. This might not have been what you were implying by the need to reduce the supply cost of Widow Mines, but I often see this change suggested, coupled with the argument that this should be done in order to make WMs more suited for map control. It would be pretty sick if there were an upgrade or ability on the widow mine for a 25/25 cost to have the mine permanently burrow into the ground and stay immobile in that position but it deletes the 2 supply from your army. It would behave exactly as your normal widow mines, can still be killed as normal. Not sure if serious You would hope not. It's easy to ridicule ideas other people put forward. Even easier when you don't back yourself with any sort of argument at all. "The absurdity of what he proposes speaks for itself" do I hear you thinking? Does it? In a universe where Adepts exist in their present state for months, after being publicly tested, you think undercosting an untested mechanic by 25 gas is worthy of going full Battle.net on avilo? Here's an actual criticism of his proposal: mech needs help in the early and midgame before we can even begin to identify what issues it has at 200/200, and this buff is directly aimed at the lategame. It seems like a distraction from the real issues, solving which is a pipe dream in itself. P.s. happy birthday I think it does speak for itself. Late game would just become and entire map littered with 0 supply widow mines, even a bronze league player could see that. I'm not getting into any of the other stuff about adepts or anything, just the fact that this widow mine idea is awful. And I have no idea what going full Battle.net on avilo means.
and this is different from zerg massing spines and spores now? or protoss massing photon cannons at their expansions? terran needs something equivalent to spidermines.
I think widowmine paradepushing ruins the concept of a planned "mine" that defends an area, atleast if it was supplyless it wouldnt matter so much how terrible it is against broodlords, ravagers or lurkers.
|
On January 19 2016 09:15 Phredxor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 08:51 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 19 2016 08:02 Phredxor wrote:On January 19 2016 07:36 InfCereal wrote:On January 19 2016 07:15 avilo wrote:On January 19 2016 03:52 Pontius Pirate wrote: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, Zerg have Corrosive Bile now, it's not too strong in TvT as Cyclones are the new anti Banshee unit, it seems. PvT we have Disruptors so just a lot of stuff that takes care of Mines, but they're still strongest in TvP so think you have to remove the +vs shields for this change.
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. I think a lot of people are thinking of WMs in the wrong way. They're not really for broad map control in the same way that Spider Mines were. They're really more for tactical space control. If you're a good player (and I'm in no way implying that you're not), you probably already think of them intuitively well-suited to the role that WMs play. But a lot of players will consciously speak of WMs as if they're really a mine, rather than what they can more accurately be described as - an artillery piece. They're essentially a mortar. It's a highly mobile artillery piece that is intended for close infantry support. Contrast this with Spider Mines, which cost 0 supply (just 25 minerals), cannot be controlled after placing, and affect only ground units. Spider Mines could be used flexibly, but were most often seen in large number to to slow down advances through strategic locations of the map. This might not have been what you were implying by the need to reduce the supply cost of Widow Mines, but I often see this change suggested, coupled with the argument that this should be done in order to make WMs more suited for map control. It would be pretty sick if there were an upgrade or ability on the widow mine for a 25/25 cost to have the mine permanently burrow into the ground and stay immobile in that position but it deletes the 2 supply from your army. It would behave exactly as your normal widow mines, can still be killed as normal. Not sure if serious You would hope not. It's easy to ridicule ideas other people put forward. Even easier when you don't back yourself with any sort of argument at all. "The absurdity of what he proposes speaks for itself" do I hear you thinking? Does it? In a universe where Adepts exist in their present state for months, after being publicly tested, you think undercosting an untested mechanic by 25 gas is worthy of going full Battle.net on avilo? Here's an actual criticism of his proposal: mech needs help in the early and midgame before we can even begin to identify what issues it has at 200/200, and this buff is directly aimed at the lategame. It seems like a distraction from the real issues, solving which is a pipe dream in itself. P.s. happy birthday I think it does speak for itself. Late game would just become and entire map littered with 0 supply widow mines, even a bronze league player could see that. I'm not getting into any of the other stuff about adepts or anything, just the fact that this widow mine idea is awful. And I have no idea what going full Battle.net on avilo means.
Not to derail this topic more, prob should make a diff thread about this...but you are acting like widow mines are spider mines. Spider mines were free. And came in groups of 3 from a 75 mineral unit.
Widow mines cost 75/25/2, that 2 supply being in your army, and are quite easy to kill in later stages of the game. Gas is limited later on in the game, and obviously something like this would require the drilling claws upgrade.
Anyways, back to topic - I hope the two core mech issues i highlighted in the OP are talked about a lot and get through to blizzard.
|
On January 19 2016 16:52 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 14:52 B-royal wrote:On January 19 2016 03:04 Magic Powers wrote:On January 19 2016 01:22 deacon.frost wrote:On January 19 2016 01:03 EatingBomber wrote: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? 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. Keep fooling yourself honestly. Brood war has just as many strategies. I have no opinion on the matter but please can you elaborate?
Elaborate on there being strategic diversity? You'll have to watch the game for that honestly or just take my word for it. I'm a zerg player in brood war and there's a ton of strategies to employ in all of my match ups (ZvZ being the least diverse if I want to play competitively). And this holds for the top level players as well.
+ Show Spoiler +ZvT: I can open 12 hatch or early pool, the latter being a lot more aggressive. I can follow it up with 2 hatch for earlier tech or go for a more economical 3 hatch instead. When playing two hatch I can do a mutalisk all-in on two bases or I can expand behind it and go for guardians. I could also open with lurkers instead and try to outright kill the terran or contain him while I expand. When playing 3 hatch I can go for crazy zerg style (mass lings and mutalisks) straight into ultras or I can play standard mutalisks into lurkers into defilers. I can also play a completely different style relying on hydralisks and lurkers instead. If the game keeps going, the terran will most likely switch from bio to mech.
This doesn't even consider all the possibilities that terran has in dictating the flow of the game (2 port wraith, valkyries, SK terran, marine/tank, mech switch,..)
There's so much strategic diversity in these match ups and so many small details that it blows my mind.
|
Ugh, hating on David Kim is so small minded and idiotic. You guys realize that there is an entire team of people working on balance, right? Also, crucially, the balance team does not get everything they want. They don't get to decide how big a unit is, that's why we have that abomination the Thor.
Also I havent read most of this thread but I do want to address one point of view that people seem to express when people complain about mech's lack of anti air.
Sooooooo if you are unable to make your entire uncounterable army out of one type of building then you need a buff?
The factory produces 4 core combat units, but no spellcasters/utility units. Factory units do not benefit from upgrades to the units purchased from other production facilities. Terran is the only race with this weakness. It's just sad that not even one of these units is a decent counter to air. Nobody is suggesting that pure factory compositions should be able to fulfill all roles.
Also protoss can mass only gateway units in TvP and do basically fine all the way through the mid-game, so your complaint is dumb anyways.
|
holy christ i havent read TL forums in like 2 years and the first thread i see when i log on is you whining just like you did 6 fucking years ago
|
On January 20 2016 10:51 Shebuha wrote:
holy christ i havent read TL forums in like 2 years and the first thread i see when i log on is you whining just like you did 6 fucking years ago
I wonder how old is Avilo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
