|
Hi guys, i have been cynical for good reason about the state of strategic diversity with SC2 for the longest time. So, for the millionth time i want to attempt to make a constructive feedback thread about Mech in SC2, strategic diversity, and hopefully give feedback that blizzard will read and take into consideration and that the community will listen to so that SC2 can improve as a game, and so will the viewer experience.
Some background necessary:
I played SC since around 1998/1999. I played all three races in Brood War at a decent level, getting to around B- or so on iccup at one point as random (in SC1 playing random was about 10x more difficult than SC2).
Just a bit of meta game background that i can fondly remember from when i was a noobie first starting to play SC1 online in BGH pub games:
I remember a game of BGH i was top left playing Terran and it was a 4v4. Back then, RTS was so new and concepts of playing optimally were non-existent. People didn't even understand basic concepts as walling off our bases with buildings lol.
Vultures in those n00b games were considered a trash tier unit (i know this sounds fucking hilarious). Eventually...like most players that wanted to get good i moved onto "low money maps" with a USEast clan.
As it turned out, vultures were one of the most necessary units in the game to play versus Protoss, and by our communities standards today, if we could go back in time, all of us would be yelling and screaming "OP OP NERF VULTURES MINES IMBA" instead of just "getting better."
Vulture/tank/goliath was the go-to strategy versus Protoss, and in fact bio was literally not viable ever besides a 6 rax marine medic build that would be considered quite all-in. Reavers and psi storm, which were very strong in SC1, completely shredded bio.
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. The funny thing is, the definition of playing Terran was you were playing the turtle race - a lot of Terrans even took pride in being the defensive race. You kids today think the marine is the iconic Terran unit? Well, guess what - the most memorable and iconic unit of SC's history for Terran was the siege tank.
Siege tanks killed units - and they killed them hard. If there were 3-4 tanks up a ramp behind a wall, you could not simply "a-move immortals" into the wall take 20 tank shots, and somehow defeat defender's advantage. Instead what players had to do was MACRO. Take more bases, get money, make 20-25 gateways while Terran attempted to turtle with their badass tanks. And there wasn't anything wrong with that. Of course there were also spider mines and such in all of that, etc.
But most games were action packed ground versus ground affairs. Terran would amass an army of tank vulture and eventually goliaths and push out, while Protoss desperately took expansions, cleared out mine fields with dragoons and observers. Terran could push across the map with cheap 75 mineral missile turrets, mines, and tanks, and Protoss eventually started massing arbiters for mass recalls and mobility to do the equivalent of what would be a doom drop into the Terran's main, who would then try to counter that by patrolling science vessels along the perimeter of their bases to EMP incoming arbiters.
Mech was amazing to play, amazing to watch. But something very important was - you could attack with mech, you had that option, you had that capability. Siege tanks were strong to the point you could MOVE onto the map and trade effectively with your opponent's ground units.
And in the situation that Protoss decided to tech up into carriers...Terran could switch all 8-10 of their factories to goliath production which could compete equally against carriers through attack move micro or shooting down the carriers. This meant even if Protoss went air, Terran could still force action, MOVEMENT could happen. You didn't need to turtle for 30 minutes to deal with air units.
Mech eventually became the go-to vs Zerg late game as well...but all of the above that i have related is important to note because it highlights the main two issues that have plagued SC2 mech since this game has been released that i have highlighted for years, and tried to articulate to blizzard:
ISSUES WITH MECH PROBLEM 1:
-Siege tanks were gutted/nerfed in damage to the point it is sub-optimal to ever move out on the map with siege tanks because they will never trade EVER with the majority of units in SC2
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Patch_1.1.0
The above patch utterly ruined an entire strategy for the majority of SC2 professional and casual play. And that patch was made to the game in a very short sighted way due to the old map pool having ridiculous maps like Steppes of War.
In addition to siege tanks being gutted in the above patch, throughout the course of SC2 patching other units/abilities/changes have been done to the game that make tanks worse and worse:
-adept shade
-warp prism buffs
-void rays
-tempest addition
-any mass air strat from any race forcing you to turtle to air
-LOTV economy
-list goes on
ISSUE WITH MECH PROBLEM 2:
-Mech has zero auto-attacking anti-air units from the factory that can be produced to deal with opponent's who make air.
As i related in my story about SC1 mech, a Terran could always switch all of his 8-10 factories to produce goliaths which not only were good, but competed so well with enemy carriers that in some games Protoss was even DISSUADED from massing more carriers.
What that meant is just the mere existence of the goliath swayed most SC1 games to be ground to ground ACTION PACKED affairs for both players.
In SC2, problem 1 of tanks sucking badly is made even worse when the opponent decides to be a smartass and start making any of the OP air units in SC2 - carriers, tempest, liberators, ravens, broodlords.
There is no unit from the factory that can compete with an opponent that masses air units. If the Protoss starts building tempests, he can simply begin to accumulate them from 0 -> as many as he wants and there is no factory unit to dissuade this from happening.
This then forces the "meching Terran" to sit in his base doing nothing for the next 10-20 minutes while he masses air units of his own, because only vikings/liberators/BCS can compete equally with enemy air units.
I made a thread about the issues of air units being too superior to ground units in SC2 a few weeks ago...i feel it has always been this way for mech, and now it is an issue in all match-ups in LOTV.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the above are the two core issues of Mech that have persisted throughout the entire lifespan of SC2 as a game.
They can easily be addressed, and could have been since years ago, and this is where my cynicism comes in - i do not believe blizzard will ever listen to the community, myself, or anyone about this - UNLESS you, me, the community will force blizzard to bring these issues up and address them.
They haven't listened for years, i am not hopeful they will now, but i suppose this thread is a last ditch effort to rally some of the SC2 community to get them to listen.
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.
If you want SC2 to really compete and go on for many more years to come, you need to FUCKING DEMAND that blizzard pay attention to you as an SC2 player/customer/fan. You need to FUCKING DEMAND it. Not later, not a year from now, but NOW.
There should have been a fuck ton more patches and balance passes to SC2 throughout this games history, for balance, for strategic diversity, and just to even freshen up the game metagame-wise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for OPTIMISTIC AVILO:
In a world where blizzard listens and agrees that it's not OK for bio to be the only viable Terran strategy in every match-up. There are two things that need to happen:
ADDRESS ISSUE 1: SIEGE TANK STRENGTH
-Revert this patch in some manner
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Patch_1.1.0
That patch is what screwed over mech from the very beginning, and made it so you basically can never attack with mech until you have 15 siege tanks...by then of course your opponent has 10 carriers/tempest and you now have to turtle another half an hour into mass raven/liberator/viking.
If tanks are made to be able to kill units and trade well again...to be a fearsome unit then a meching player can finally ATTACK the opponent, and even if the enemy catches you on the map - TANKS WILL TRADE. ACTION CAN HAPPEN. GAMES WILL BE FUN.
People's argument against changing the tank to not suck are: "But avilo...turtle mech will be fucking ridiculous!" And to that i'd say it's a faulty argument because turtle mech will remain exactly the same as it is now - the only way to play the game. Making tanks stronger doesn't suddenly make turtle mech stronger - people will still stylistically turtle regardless, and in combination with the LOTV economy that's already intrinsically addressed.
Buffing tanks to not suck will make it so mech games are ACTION PACKED instead of forcing you to sit in base and do nothing.
There are other directions blizzard can go, such as reducing tank to 2 supply and adjusting stats so that you could have more tanks on the field to make mech armies more fiercesome, although admittedly a tank change to 2 supply would require a lot more testing.
I firmly believe just putting the siege tank damage back to how it originally was would make SC2's metagame a lot healthier, would bring mech back in quite a good way. Test it blizzard.
Nothing crazy needs to be done such as overkill, or other BS changes. Just simply give the tank back it's power.
ADDRESS ISSUE 2: MECH HAS NO ANTI-AIR UNITS
-This has been the second issue forcing mech games to only be "turtle mech" games and blizzard and the community still refuse to listen for the longest time.
Mech needs a unit that can be easily and cheaply mass produced from the factory that can FIGHT VS AIR UNITS. If my opponent begins to amass an army of tempests/carriers cyclones/thors need to be a reliable way to dissuade my opponent from just simply "massing more air."
Buff mech anti-air so that a meching Terran can reliably build 5+ factories instead of having to turtle 30 min and sit in base massing air himself to counter air. This alone will make mech games action packed, and games will trend back to ground to ground instead of "oh im protoss he's going mech ill just mass infinity tempest/carrier now."
Obviously, i am suggesting that blizzard buff up the cyclone and thor to be much stronger versus air units, perhaps mines as well. However they do it, it needs to happen or mech will always suck and be "turtle into mass air" games.
ISSUE FOR ENTIRE LOTV: AIR UNITS ALL TOO STRONG FOR 3 RACES
Along these same lines...to re-iterate this thread i made a few weeks ago:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/496744-discussion-air-units-too-powerful-in-lotv
I truly believe air units need to be toned down for all 3 races so that games will trend towards action and trading of units rather than sitting back and massing an air deathball. Also ground anti-air should be toned up.
Tempest need a supply increase to 6 to dissuade simply massing them late game with high templar vs all races.
Ravens were already gutted.
Carriers need the release interceptor ability gone, they are already too strong when massed.
Liberators too strong when massed - though Terran being viable at all in LOTV currently resides on the liberator's back.
BCS suffer the same issue as carriers - useless in low number, too strong when you have 10+.
Vipers need a hard nerf - para bomb needs to go. Other abilities toned down in some way, energy costs maybe don't know.
Hydralisks need to be stronger versus air units. They suck when air is amassed.
INterestingly enough, Protoss ground anti-air is already pretty good with archon splash, stalker blink, and of course the ground AOE parasitic bomb known as psi storm 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is my feedback about Mech in LOTV. There are a ton of other things i could have gone into, such as immortals/8 armor ultras/viper etc hard countering mech....but...
I feel the two core issues with mech are the one's i've highlighted:
1) Tanks sucking needing power back
2) Mech having zero anti-air that dissuades the other player from massing air, which then forces mech to sit and turtle for 30 more min into his own air
If tanks are given more damage it will promote action packed games of trading ground armies.
And if mech is given a strong anti-air unit, the same thing is promoted - both players trading ground armies since the opposing player won't just be able to simply accumulate their OP air unit as it will have a massable counter from cyclones/thors from mass factories.
---------------------------------------------
Thanks for reading, i have played Mech style since SC2 has come out - even during the WOL era where the marauder was considered a god unit and mech was considered a fringe strategy.
It still is, as most pro games in all match-ups are 99% bio play. I think blizzard should open up the mech option for Terran to create more play styles than just only bio.
Regardless, my last comment i will leave in this post for the entire SC2 community and what i urge everyone to do - please, please wake blizzard up to patching SC2 more often.
We all love this game. IT is the best game ever created, and SC literally is responsible for spawning e-sports itself in many ways. Blizzard should be patching this game constantly - not once every 9 months when people get rowdy. Gone are the development days of "patch it once and leave it alone for a year."
All game developers have moved on from this - SC2 needs patches when there are blatant issues such as adepts being OP but also should receive patches to liven up the game and keep the metagame fresh.
Final final words - please bring back Mech and strategic diversity to SC2.
|
|
|
Clicked quote instead of edit -_- forgot to add...blizzard should also recombine armory upgrades. Was quite arbitrary to change those when LOTV came out and impacted mech games quite a bit tbh.
|
|
|
Avilo is always right, #1 Terran NA everyone should listen to him.
|
tfw you'll never play kulas ravine mech ever again ;;
|
Dominican Republic614 Posts
i agree with all of this... if blizzard doenst do anything about Mass air units and units in general sc2 will die in 2-3years.
|
On January 17 2016 12:53 SC2BF3Love wrote:
i agree with all of this... if blizzard doenst do anything about Mass air units and units in general sc2 will die in 2-3years.
Mass air is definitely an issue, but the problem is more mass EVERYTHING rather than just mass air. Mass air only seems more problematic because it requires more specific compositions to hard-counter mass air, but the problem the game is having in every scenario atm is too many late tech units too early in the game.
Mass T2.5/T3 tech not even 10 mins in to the game. Mass gateway warp ins, in even less time. Mass ravs very early. Mass Ultras, the list goes on.
Micro doesn't even matter as much when you are working with large armies rather than small squads. Turns in to more A-move and terrible damage.
T3 tech is INTENDED to be overpowered in some sort of way. Late game units NEED to be stronger in an area than early game units or there would be no reason to switch to them. And they require more specific counters to defeat them.
Problem is these units come out very early , and you see them MASSED rather than just a couple of them. There is absolutely no way for that balance to feel "good" when the units are so strong and require strict counters. It does nothing but make the game too volatile to feel fair.
I can completely agree with Blizzard trying to bring the action faster. Actions is good. But mass huge armies != action. The game felt so , so , SO much better when the battles were early game but with fewer units. Skill mattered more. Positioning mattered more. Hard counters mattered less. Build orders mattered less and build order wins were less common.
Even the problems mech has with tanks, would be far less of an issue early game. Take early game battles if the tech is only as far as barracks units and a couple tanks. The tanks fair pretty well in comparison to how they are now. By the time tanks come out and make it to the enemy base, the counters are already prepared. So t hey have to do silly things like make medivacs pick them up. Becuase early T2 units in this game (in most cases) just get overshadowed by the T2.5-T3 tech that comes a minute later. Tanks, hydras, etc.
|
Sooooooo if you are unable to make your entire uncounterable army out of one type of building then you need a buff? What I'm hearing is like saying protoss should be able to just go straight up robo and make an army that has an answer for everything. Speaking to your asinine rant about siege tanks, they are still used all the time in TvZ and ofc TvT so their exclusion from a singular matchup is not really that unusual. This sounds more like the typical balance whine vs protoss. In case you didn't know, protoss is the least represented race in America GM, and terran is at almost 33%. And how the hell do you come to the conclusion that Blizzard should make mech viable? SC1 and SC2 are very different games. You have NO idea what goes into balancing mech, you have NO idea whether or not they are actually looking into it already. Its fine if you want to play mech, an admittedly unviable strategy atm, but this "last ditch effort," "LoL [is] completely shitting on SC2 because those games get constant patch changes," "You need to FUCKING DEMAND it," type of shit is just awkward and self destructive. I would suggest editing the more brazen elements of this post and maybe you will get some sympathy. but certainly not like this.
|
If all races get something similar to Parasitic Bomb, wouldn't that also nerf too strong air units? Why do you want Parasitic Bomb removed?
|
i actually completely agree with you avilo, well written article hope blizz listens. Only way to play mech in tvp tvt is to turtle. There is 0 capability to be offensive and you are forced to tech to sky terran if you want to win
|
Another major problem with a lot of terran units is the delay between moving and shooting or transforming. For example a thor takes a long time before it shoots, but if it does one step there is another delay before the action happens. This is almost non excisting for the other races and therefor easier to engange or move away from battle.
Mech units got too many counters from the other races. Mech is slow, but strong when "sieged" , this is irrelevant in LOTV. Roach ravenger simply dive in and kills everything for a low cost. Lurkers have 1! less range than a siege tank but does damage in a straight line. A "turtle" zerg who spots mech simply makes lurkers to stall the game, takes air controll and techs up, and Voila! : gg.
Also, lings counter everything, besides the hellbat, but the random buff they recieved without any proper reason (even liquidRET said he has no idea why blizzard did it) makes the lings insane powerful for a cheap unit.
Static defence for terran could use some rework.
|
On January 17 2016 13:27 ejozl wrote:
If all races get something similar to Parasitic Bomb, wouldn't that also nerf too strong air units? Why do you want Parasitic Bomb removed?
As PB is now, it can wipe out most of an air army in a couple of seconds. Huge numbers of units dying in a handful of seconds isn't something most people want more of in SC2.
|
Thank you for this avilo. Increase tank damage (and reduce supply imo).
|
I would actually love to see you play BW on your stream when your fed up with SC2 instead of LoL
|
great contribution avilo, this so much better from what we usually hear from you
|
Avilo, the greatest terran in the universe, has spoken.
Srsly though I play protoss and I agree with you. Variety is really fun and interesting when well done and with viable mech there will be more variety.
|
On January 17 2016 12:16 avilo wrote:
You kids today think the marine is the iconic Terran unit? Well, guess what - the most memorable and iconic unit of SC's history for Terran was the siege tank.
Lol, but you are absolutely right about this )))
Anw, I just still don't get it. You want to get its damage back. Ok, done. Now you have 2 choices: either turtle to 200/200 army or somehow be able to moving out on the map to attack with small force??? The latter is ok, but the problem is the first choice. Since people were getting used to play safe, turtle mech; then why do they need to try to move out before 200/200??? I understand that the turtle play style will come eventually as the match last longer, so i think to force people out of turtle play is very hard if there is only a change to tank damage. I mean there must be a clear advantage/disadvantage between the turtle and the active play of Mech. Therefor, i believe introducing overkill and bring back the old siegetank damage is a solid way to go (2 supply siegetank sounds interesting, but it will even cause the game to redesign about clumping, maps, units'stats,...)
|
I 100% agree that ground based Anti-Air needs to be stronger. Going air to counter air should be a choice not a necessity.
|
While both of your main points are more true than untrue, I think the lack of ground control from the lack of Spider Mines makes a much bigger difference. I'd say to give Hellions the upgrade to give them 3 Spider Mines, and then take further adjustments from there. Even with costing 33% more than Vultures and being worse against Zerglings and Zealots in small numbers, the ability to transform them into Hellbats and then toss them at the foe when you near 200/200 and have used up their mines would be easily enough to make them a worthwhile mineral sink for the meching player.
|
-Mech has zero auto-attacking anti-air units from the factory that can be produced to deal with opponent's who make air.
Haven't Thors been mech since release, and don't they auto target air since mid hots......due to Terrans complaining about mutalisks?
|
On January 17 2016 15:54 Nethune wrote:Show nested quote +-Mech has zero auto-attacking anti-air units from the factory that can be produced to deal with opponent's who make air.
Haven't Thors been mech since release, and don't they auto target air since mid hots......due to Terrans complaining about mutalisks?
Mostly, it is because of Tempest. IMO Tempest`s range must be adjusted or AG removed.
|
Avilo, you get a lot of shit on this site for having an opinion. I agree with you, as usual. I find it funny that one of the first responses on here is sarcasm from someone that doesn't contribute to trying to get anything done in the community.
|
totally agreed. please hire avilo blizzard.
|
I agree with this completely. Siege Tank need a buff. 50 FLAT DMG! GO GO BLIZZARD. pls listen to us meching terran for fucking once.
|
How about a viking can shoot air in assault mode and can build from factory ?
-it has 2 missle pods in assault mode but can't shot air ... this make no sense
- no need to build starport to answer enemy 's air but not truly prevent an mass air vs air battle ...lol
- 2 walker viking from reactor factory can handle warp prism very good (even better than cyclone from my theory )
- good vs adept too (maybe give viking back 1 armor to handle better)
- you need siege tank for armor unit like stalker cause viking good vs light unit only
-act like meat shield for siege tank along with hellbat (like goliath from good old brood war )
- basically a upgraded goliath so no one will complain about bring back goliath anymore
- has an upgrade boost speed fast as goliath so it won't die to disruptor and storm
- thor AG vs armor, viking AG vs light, thor AA vs light , viking AA vs armor
- the fighter mode will use for chasing easier , passing terrain, escape
I can't denide the fact that viking will heavily overlap thor but to be honest thor is one of the worst design ever so i won't mind if blizzard let it die along with colussus, swarm host... still in the game but useless because design flaw
// fun: terran dominion enginner created viking because ground-based anti-air support from goliath assault walkers was too limited in its mobility ..... so they must be retarded because no one solve weakness by bring another weakness....
|
Actually, this is one of the few times that I am okay with avilo's suggestions. Man, what has the world come to?
|
People want mech so they can play ultimately passive, do absolutely nothing but sit back and macro then A-move a 3-3 maxed mech army. We've seen it way too many times, thank god it is uncommon now.
|
On January 17 2016 17:48 GGzerG wrote:
People want mech so they can play ultimately passive, do absolutely nothing but sit back and macro then A-move a 3-3 maxed mech army. We've seen it way too many times, thank god it is uncommon now.
Telecom, did you read any of the writeup at all?
|
Overall, good suggestions and I agree with them. Siege Tank needs a damage buff, and Cyclone has to be cheaper/deal less dmg vs ground/lock on redesigned.
inb4
What is exactly wrong with having mech as a different playstyle? Aren't you guys bored after 5 years of Marine Medivac + support?
You want Gateway only composittion? Blame it on Warp Gate, Smartcast and Chronoboost, which necessitates Gateway units and Storms being weaker, so you can't have Zeal/Stalker/HT/Archon from mid to end game like Zeal/Goon/HT/Archon in BW.
You want Stargate only? It was quite popular during the beta, but Carrier got nerfed. I heard Stargate play is pretty OP in the lower leagues (Void Ray). Anyway, I'm against anything "skyxxx" anyway - air battles are lame as shit.
You want Robo only? It's a design decision not to have ground to air in Robo.
Protoss is designed as a Gateway based compositions with Stargate or Robo support.
Terran is designed around a split production and upgrades (!), creating a split between Barracks/Bio+support, or Factory+support.
Zerg is designed as a tech switching race, to adapt to other races compositions and counter them.
Making mech viable and to be strong enough to push out before 200/200 is not the end of the world.
|
Buffing Siege Tank's dmg is not going to break the game in anyway because there are so many units that counter siege tank right now in the game such as Blink Stalker,Chargelot,Adept,Ravager,air units,etc.
|
Even with all those changes, I doubt mech will still work. The game been so heavily designed around it not working. There are too many units that just completely shit on mech. Even if making mech unit stronger, mech still lacks way to be semi aggressive and force engagements.
I personally think it better to give up on the idea and the fact that blizzard brought it up in the last balance update was a waste of time but that just me. I think it more viable to make sky terran viable but that style doesnt seems as fun or interesting but it looks some what more viable if parasitic bomb was adjusted since sky terran feels more viable then tank base mech.
|
I truly hope that blizz doesn't make mech viable. It bores me to tears whenever I have the unfortunate luck to play against a meching Terran. The playstyle is just absolutely cancerous and should be eliminated from sc2.
|
There is a very INNOVATIVE idea to make Terran more diverse. It is also drastic in a way, but think of giving Terran the option to turn all their production struktures into others.
The issue I see is that once you have decided on building 8-9 Buidlings Barracks or Factories and you macro out of them, there is no way for a tech switch that competes well with the counter strategy of the enemy.
Think of a tier 2,5-3 upgrade to buildings that allows you to build certain (or any) untis in any tech-labed Building you have.
It could be a tech something like if you have all three types of building with tech labs an ebay and an armory, you can research in the armory for relative high cost (250/250 or the like) the upgrade that enables you to build other units from oder buildings as well.
I don't want to raise any balance discussions on that idea. I want ot raise the issue of limited flexibility on the terran tech path. Once you decided to go macro on bio, tank, medivac with the corresponding tech you HAVE to stay on that tech because you can't afford to change resource wise, time wise and upgrade wise.
|
Shouldnt there be one big Avilo Advertisement Thread? Instead of a new one every week?
|
On January 17 2016 12:16 avilo wrote:
It still is, as most pro games in all match-ups are 99% bio play. I think blizzard should open up the mech option for Terran to create more play styles than just only bio.
Final final words - please bring back Mech and strategic diversity to SC2.
So exactly the same sentiments as the previous thread that was just created.
Sad threads like this keep getting created...
On January 17 2016 09:31 -Kyo- wrote:
... theconclusion that what you proposed/deduced as better gameplay has 1) already been posted millions of times and/or 2) has no reasonable explanation for why it better.
....I have stated in numerous other threads - the game doesn't care how 'fun' you want it to be. It doesn't care about what you 'think' is a better alternative to mech. There are currently quite a few good pushes vs all races in LotV that you can do with mech, some even include early timings. So, when I see threads like this I sigh, because most people don't even play on the KR server and they never see half of these builds. It was the same in HotS.
So in short, if you want a high level discussion you ought to include reasons why it should be X way for X balance reasons and not because you don't like how the game is played. Balance is not based around what you want. As I just mentioned, mech does have pushes and thus, does fit into the balance currently. Soooo.... @_@;
Honestly, the people who want mech to be "viable" aka I wanna do this every game should just go back to BW. The game revolved around that just like SC2 revolves around Bio. If you don't like it... well.. tough.
|
On January 17 2016 09:31 -Kyo- wrote:
... theconclusion that what you proposed/deduced as better gameplay has 1) already been posted millions of times and/or 2) has no reasonable explanation for why it better.
....I have stated in numerous other threads - the game doesn't care how 'fun' you want it to be. It doesn't care about what you 'think' is a better alternative to mech. There are currently quite a few good pushes vs all races in LotV that you can do with mech, some even include early timings. So, when I see threads like this I sigh, because most people don't even play on the KR server and they never see half of these builds. It was the same in HotS.
So in short, if you want a high level discussion you ought to include reasons why it should be X way for X balance reasons and not because you don't like how the game is played. Balance is not based around what you want. As I just mentioned, mech does have pushes and thus, does fit into the balance currently. Soooo.... @_@;
Honestly, the people who want mech to be "viable" aka I wanna do this every game should just go back to BW. The game revolved around that just like SC2 revolves around Bio. If you don't like it... well.. tough.
Or both should be viable for the game to be even better.
|
On January 17 2016 18:55 Wildmoon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2016 09:31 -Kyo- wrote:
... theconclusion that what you proposed/deduced as better gameplay has 1) already been posted millions of times and/or 2) has no reasonable explanation for why it better.
....I have stated in numerous other threads - the game doesn't care how 'fun' you want it to be. It doesn't care about what you 'think' is a better alternative to mech. There are currently quite a few good pushes vs all races in LotV that you can do with mech, some even include early timings. So, when I see threads like this I sigh, because most people don't even play on the KR server and they never see half of these builds. It was the same in HotS.
So in short, if you want a high level discussion you ought to include reasons why it should be X way for X balance reasons and not because you don't like how the game is played. Balance is not based around what you want. As I just mentioned, mech does have pushes and thus, does fit into the balance currently. Soooo.... @_@;
Honestly, the people who want mech to be "viable" aka I wanna do this every game should just go back to BW. The game revolved around that just like SC2 revolves around Bio. If you don't like it... well.. tough. Or both should be viable for the game to be even better. This. Nobody will force you to play Mech if you don't want to.
If you argue that we don't need mech, all you do is argue against diversity. Would you be also fine if in the same spirit we removed 5-7 units per race, and left, for example, just Marine Medivac Tank Liberator Ghost in the game and remove Vikings, Banshees, Marauders etc.?
|
BW bio was unplayable vs P.
SC2 factory is unplayable vs P.
Maybe it's also because of how different Protoss is? Or that the games themselves are just completely different...
Terran got the worst production buff from BW (reactors vs chrono+warp vs inject).
The pace/speed of units has changed.
I do think that factory units in general lack synergy to really be used well in either pure factory or bio/mech. At this point I think it's pretty unrealistic to be asking for pure mech.
|
On January 17 2016 19:27 y0su wrote:
At this point I think it's pretty unrealistic to be asking for pure mech.
I think it is very realistic to be asking for it, they have done it for several years already. Expecting something to change on the other hand is not
|
Well terran has the best ground to air unit in the game: the marine. Mech might not have a unit as good (and it won't), but at least it has the liberator which is pretty good in both modes. And then it also has the thor, the mine and the new cyclone.
Compare those with the gateway/robo units protoss has that attack air: Stalker and Archon (not a single one from robo).
|
Stuff does too much damage, well, except for the Tank I suppose.. :p
I really hoped Blizz would try and make Terran more about the tank in the beta but instead the introduced an AIR UNIT that overlaps with it. Oh, and the tankivac ofc.
|
I think the points raised in the OP are all fair and nice points but I'm not sure I'd want the playstyle to be viable.
If making it viable could be achieved by nerfing the air of all races however, I wouldn't be massively opposed to it since it's an issue that is annoying even without playing mech style. In PvT, if you pretend you don't have adept\prism and let terran get his lategame comp, libs are ridicolous. In PvP, if someone goes carriers, I still haven't figured out a better response than 'make carriers' other than hitting a timing window where your ground can contest his air.
With voidrays storm works great so you can make an expensive army that contests it. I haven't found the same ground reply vs carriers if they reach critical mass. This is boring. (Someone please let me know if there's a great ground answer to carriers if you miss the window)
|
People's argument against changing the tank to not suck are: "But avilo...turtle mech will be fucking ridiculous!" And to that i'd say it's a faulty argument because turtle mech will remain exactly the same as it is now - the only way to play the game. Making tanks stronger doesn't suddenly make turtle mech stronger - people will still stylistically turtle regardless, and in combination with the LOTV economy that's already intrinsically addressed.
1) Reality check: The tank doesn't suck. It's currently being played in all matchups. I wouldn't mind it working differently (without the medivac synergy), but saying it sucks is blatent lying.
2) "Turtle Mech will remain exactly the same as it is now - the only way to play the game." First lol that you think it's the only way to play. Then that you are contradicting yourself, saying buffing tanks will make the game more action packed, yet somehow everyone will still only turtle... And then that I don't see any reason to buff anything when the result is no change at all.
3) Ever heard of the swarm host patch? People don't intristically turtle. after the patch noone turtled on swarm hosts. People turtle when it's viable, they don't if it's not. Bio players don't turtle. Roach/ravager players don't turtle. Those strategies are only good if you don't turtle. You just have issues with such playstyles being good. In avilo's little wonderland it should always be better to defend and strategies that can kill a defending player are "broken", "too easy to play", both and in general you consider it bullshit if you don't get a freewin after you defended an attack. That's why you don't understand the argument, despite blatant evidence everywhere that people won't turtle if you just take away the tools to turtle. (swarm host patch, WoL ghost patch, LotV beta carrier build time nerf, general bio play, general roachbased play)
If you buff all Mech strategies equally, then people will still play the strongest one which is turtlemech. What you have to do is take something away specifically from turtlemech while doing such a buff. It doesnt matter what you do, as long as turtlemech outshines other mech strategies it will be prefered. Not because players want to turtle, but because it is strongest.
|
Blizzard will never make these changes. Blizzard decided to go a different direction, they will never do a 180° turn and change their mind completely. Maybe, just maybe, they will try to add bandaid after bandaid until the crying stops, but they will never go back on their changes to mech.
|
Good points, especially the 2nd one. We need a ground counter to air units. Thanks for the post.
|
99% of SC1 games were mech
and 99% of SC2 games are bio, which is entertaining, highly demanding and awesome. I have no problem with that.
|
this is currently more of a petition than an actual cause for change. maybe you should invest your time and effort into a better and brighter game if you really feel taxed about having to do these threads.
the problem i have in sc2 is that the more able multitasking player will always win if there is some defensive unit to rely on.
since tanks can be used both offensively and defensively at rapid speed (to the point of kiting against bio with the help of a boosted medivac) there is almost no risk to use it if your opponent is playing a neutral and entirely normal build.
defend harass>come out ahead if you were doing more multitasking and lost less than can be accepted by your opponent.
players like bomber can practically win against lesser opponents making anything he wants as long as it's reasonable.
the apm requirement is just so much higher if you want to play a clean seamless game with a mixture of pressure and macro.
if everyone is playing defensively, behind buff tanks, the laddering scene is in my opinion a real drag.
how are you supposed to know if it's some crazy mech attack as opposed to a 4m widow mine drop on large 4 player maps? it really throws things off kilter. the upside is that your slower players can plan out an elaborate game plan to ensure their factory style gameplay plays out, at some point attacking behind turret pushes, widow mines, hellbats, and buff marines.
you are limiting the play of other races because you can play such a diverse style on practically any map and hope to attack at regular bio timings as well. is that exactly fair? perhaps you should start trying to hit rankings as random in this newer game as well. i find it mindblowing that you could play a game of zerg on stream and start complaining about aspects of terran as if it's bullshit or unfair. you main the race.
|
France12762 Posts
I just read the beginning about BW and such and guess what: SC2 isn't SC1 and there is no point trying to copy it because if you want a copy of BW just play BW ffs.
Mech is the most horrible thing terran had in WoL (didn't play enough HotS to know if it was as horrible) because it was boring as fuck to watch, to play and to play against and slow players could force stale and boring games...
Except when playing or watching a video game you don't want it to be boring (even SSBM jiggly optimal style is less boring than mech yet everyone is mad with HungryBox games) and TvT will be utter boring if the tank becomes too strong again...
|
"They haven't listened for years, i am not hopeful they will now, but i suppose this thread is a last ditch effort to rally some of the SC2 community to get them to listen."
Is this rally a last ditched effort? I hope so, as we have had numerous threads of the same ilk in TL Forums recently and its getting rather tedious to the point of embarrassing.
At least its on the Blizzard forums where it belongs so David Kim can see it and give it his full consideration , but i suspect it will wither and die because i think the sum total of Mech lovers can be counted on 2 hands, maybe even less as i am starting to suspect its the same two people with multiple accounts are doing all posting
|
totally agreed. Pls make mech viable and tone down air units from all 3 races. this is what the game needs.
|
This is one of the best posts Avilo ever wrote. Well done, from a Protoss player.
|
You are basically just saying "everything was much better for meching terrans in Brood War TvP, how can you not see this?" We can see it, but we don't all agree it would be a desirable thing for SC2.
Blizzard could try it I suppose, but they would need to nerf mech in other ways or Terran would be far too strong.
I do agree though that air units in general are too strong in SC2 and always have been. Except corruptors.
|
and by our communities standards today, if we could go back in time, all of us would be yelling and screaming "OP OP NERF VULTURES MINES IMBA" instead of just "getting better."
There should have been a fuck ton more patches and balance passes to SC2 throughout this games history, for balance, for strategic diversity, and just to even freshen up the game metagame-wise.
Aren't you saying one thing and its opposite? For SC1 it was fine to not get patches but for SC2 you need them?
Also what do you think about drilling claws mines + cyclones to deal with air? Doesn't it allow to be aggressive earlier since it can be produced easily from factories?
|
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.
|
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.
Right now there are less mech games in SC2 that where bio games in BW
|
It's really shocking how many people are posting in here with an attitude that seems best summarized as: 'I just don't want to have to play against mech.' Well, I just don't want to have to play against DTs, Oracles, Mutalisk harass, any proxy play ever, Reaper all-ins, Cloaked Banshees, all-ins in general the disrupt the build I planned to do while the game loaded up, or people with red hair. So goddamn it, none of those things should be viable!
As has been mentioned and linked many times in other threads: there are lots of great mech games in SC2 despite the fact that it's rarely played. Mech being viable would add diversity, which most people agree is desirable. Would Zerg players be happier if they could only go LingBlingMuta in TvZ and never build Roaches or Hydras? Perhaps my memory is poor, but I seem to recall there being a push during the early days of HotS to make Roach/Hydra more viable. Wasn't there a speed upgrade added? Does anyone doubt that the people asking for Hydras to see more play would have felt somewhat bemused if a ton of people started posting about how they hate Hydras, they're sick of hearing about Hydras, sure Hydras are an iconic unit in BW, but this is SC2, that Hydras shouldn't be viable because they just don't feel like playing against them?
And there is an extremely negative, borderline abusive tone to some posts in here, talking about how sick they are of this topic even being mentioned on these forums. No one is forcing anyone to click on this thread or post in it, so why does it matter if it's brought up? Is it a general practice of these people to go around the internet and tell other people not to talk about things? Do they do this in real life? Why would anyone care what people who they don't know are talking about?
On January 17 2016 21:04 Big J wrote:
1) Reality check: The tank doesn't suck. It's currently being played in all matchups. I wouldn't mind it working differently (without the medivac synergy), but saying it sucks is blatent lying.
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. 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.
|
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?
|
About mech - i really liked how it was in SC:BW. You needed to play TvZ bio and TvP mech. However you could still surprize TvP with Bio and TvZ with mech
|
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?
Yeah this is the elephant in the room. And let's not forget the period where swarm hosts were seriously a thing. The designers don't know what they're doing and so they're scared to take action.
|
i doubt he started playing in 1998, i think im a good gap older than avilo, sc came out when i was 17 and believe me getting a home computer back then would have been on noones get list pre 15 yrs old. just sayin. Oh an on topic. i agree avilo, i guess all these problems are happening but only because you force the game to be the fest it is. A whole gsl bracket can be played in the time you take to play games, ur a chore to watch and you take the game to an area noones sure how to play, doesnt make you good . . . you just have experience in it. noone else wants it. as for the balance, well, give it another month and all of this will be flipped without changes, You speak about BW in ur post, well new ideas and plays are still being created in that and that game has been left well along for upwards of 10 yrs or so.
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.
|
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.
|
On January 18 2016 00:01 Bohemond wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2016 21:04 Big J wrote:
1) Reality check: The tank doesn't suck. It's currently being played in all matchups. I wouldn't mind it working differently (without the medivac synergy), but saying it sucks is blatent lying.
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.
|
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.
|
On January 18 2016 00:26 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
On January 18 2016 00:23 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 00:01 Bohemond wrote:On January 17 2016 21:04 Big J wrote:
1) Reality check: The tank doesn't suck. It's currently being played in all matchups. I wouldn't mind it working differently (without the medivac synergy), but saying it sucks is blatent lying.
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. Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
In addition to what Avilo said, the other big issue is that there are too many hard counters in the game. For example, if the Protoss just builds a few Immortals, you WILL lose all your tanks, no matter how many you have. If Zerg goes BLs, your whole ground army becomes useless. It's interactions like this that make the game so frustrating. Oh, and Ultras. Zerg goes ling/bane/muta the whole game, forcing you to go mass marines, and then all of a sudden, 10 ultras pop out on the field and you just automatically lose because marines can't even damage them. It's very aggravating to play such a long game just to face defeat because your opponent started building a single type of unit.
|
On January 18 2016 00:59 Bohemond wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 00:23 Big J wrote:On January 18 2016 00:01 Bohemond wrote:On January 17 2016 21:04 Big J wrote:
1) Reality check: The tank doesn't suck. It's currently being played in all matchups. I wouldn't mind it working differently (without the medivac synergy), but saying it sucks is blatent lying.
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. 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.
|
On January 18 2016 00:29 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 00:26 RoomOfMush wrote: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. 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.
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.
|
On January 18 2016 01:08 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 00:59 Bohemond wrote:On January 18 2016 00:23 Big J wrote:On January 18 2016 00:01 Bohemond wrote:On January 17 2016 21:04 Big J wrote:
1) Reality check: The tank doesn't suck. It's currently being played in all matchups. I wouldn't mind it working differently (without the medivac synergy), but saying it sucks is blatent lying.
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. 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.
This is shitposting of a very low level. Please try again.
|
On January 18 2016 01:18 EatingBomber wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 01:08 RaFox17 wrote:On January 18 2016 00:59 Bohemond wrote:On January 18 2016 00:23 Big J wrote:On January 18 2016 00:01 Bohemond wrote:On January 17 2016 21:04 Big J wrote:
1) Reality check: The tank doesn't suck. It's currently being played in all matchups. I wouldn't mind it working differently (without the medivac synergy), but saying it sucks is blatent lying.
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. 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. 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.
|
Can't say I agree with pretty much anything avilo said.
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.
|
On January 18 2016 00:59 Bohemond wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 00:23 Big J wrote:On January 18 2016 00:01 Bohemond wrote:On January 17 2016 21:04 Big J wrote:
1) Reality check: The tank doesn't suck. It's currently being played in all matchups. I wouldn't mind it working differently (without the medivac synergy), but saying it sucks is blatent lying.
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. 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.
|
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
|
On January 18 2016 01:15 FrkFrJss wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 00:29 Deathstar wrote:On January 18 2016 00:26 RoomOfMush wrote: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. 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. 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?
|
Avilo... diversity in playstyle... right, ok...
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.
|
On January 18 2016 01:15 FrkFrJss wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 00:29 Deathstar wrote:On January 18 2016 00:26 RoomOfMush wrote: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. 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. 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.
|
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.
|
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...
|
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.
|
I agree 100% with avilo and strelok and i think the problem is that david kim doesnt seem to take feedback.
it seems blizzard has two departments that are mutually exclusive, the publicity section brags "we desire feedback" while the balancing department have decided that the game is perfectly balanced allready and will thus change nothing or even acknowledge feedback.
Thor 250mm cannon should be brought back, the anti air priority should be reverted so they dont shoot random overlords or floating buildings, the thor is a joke as an anti air unit currently.
|
On January 18 2016 01:31 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 00:59 Bohemond wrote:On January 18 2016 00:23 Big J wrote:On January 18 2016 00:01 Bohemond wrote:On January 17 2016 21:04 Big J wrote:
1) Reality check: The tank doesn't suck. It's currently being played in all matchups. I wouldn't mind it working differently (without the medivac synergy), but saying it sucks is blatent lying.
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. 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.
You are arguing in poor faith here. If an adult discussion is to take place, one party cannot intentionally misrepresent or pretend to not understand the other's statements. I am not jumping back and forth between anything.
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".
It is clear from what I wrote before that I was referring to tanks without the pickup, i.e. pre-LotV tanks. I do not think that the tank should be buffed while tankivac is in the game. All I said was that without sieged pickups the tank is a weak unit.
My original point was that the tank sees a lot of use due to its medivac synergy.
As for my original point: My original point was that it is not a blatant lie to say that the tank is a weak unit and many people hold that view. That is all. Nothing else. Zip. Nada. Zlich. Clearly I know that the tank is used a lot at the moment, and clearly Avilo know this as well.
|
I think something a lot of people need to think into consideration, is that is significantly much harder and punishing to turtle now.
In HotS you needed at least 4 bases to have enough to max out the ultimate army (wich was ravens/vikings/BCs btw not tanks) in LotV you would need at least 3 more bases to achieve the same effect, already forcing turtle play out of the meta.
|
I was watching some old Fantasy BW games last night. One thing I noticed that seems to be a little different in SC2 is the amount of expansions and open spaces per map.
Right now, if these buffs would go through, it would be impossibly hard to play against mech on maps like Prion Terraces and Dusk Towers. I completely agree that BW mech was really fun to watch, but if Blizzard does buff the tank, I hope to God they also get some inspiration from BW maps.
|
On January 18 2016 02:41 Bohemond wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 01:31 Big J wrote:On January 18 2016 00:59 Bohemond wrote:On January 18 2016 00:23 Big J wrote:On January 18 2016 00:01 Bohemond wrote:On January 17 2016 21:04 Big J wrote:
1) Reality check: The tank doesn't suck. It's currently being played in all matchups. I wouldn't mind it working differently (without the medivac synergy), but saying it sucks is blatent lying.
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. 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. You are arguing in poor faith here. If an adult discussion is to take place, one party cannot intentionally misrepresent or pretend to not understand the other's statements. I am not jumping back and forth between anything. Show nested quote +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". It is clear from what I wrote before that I was referring to tanks without the pickup, i.e. pre-LotV tanks. I do not think that the tank should be buffed while tankivac is in the game. All I said was that without sieged pickups the tank is a weak unit. Show nested quote +My original point was that the tank sees a lot of use due to its medivac synergy. As for my original point: My original point was that it is not a blatant lie to say that the tank is a weak unit and many people hold that view. That is all. Nothing else. Zip. Nada. Zlich. Clearly I know that the tank is used a lot at the moment, and clearly Avilo know this as well.
There is no pre-LotV tank in LotV! For fucks sake, I say the tank is quite strong right now and you say no it's not because you refer to the tank that can't be picked up by the medivac, a unit that does not exist.
On January 17 2016 21:04 Big J wrote:
Reality check
Either the tank as it is right now is strong, or it isn't. And it is strong right now. It is not working the way many players want it to work, but that doesn't mean it's weak.
And I said you are jumping between arguments because you either have to argue the tank alone in a unit tester-esque way, or you have to argue the tank in a real game scenario. Anything in between is bullshit, aka, a tank without medivac pickup in a real game, wtf. (for determining its strenght)
|
By the way I feel a little sad about DinoMight. He makes a thread about Mech and it gets closed because such content should go to the feedback thread. And right now there are 3 open Mechthreads in the General section. Don't wanna backseat mod, but to be honest Dino's thread at least brought something fresh to the table that might actually have a chance to be realized, with his Cyclone suggestion, while threads like this just aim towards remodelling the whole game which are nice philosphical discussions, but have been held a thousand times.
|
Big J,
The statement that the tank is a weak unit is not a blatant lie. The tank, as an individual unit, is weak according to many people, are they all blatant liars? It is possible for a unit to be weak individually, but effective with synergy. It is possible for a unit to be weak in general, but strong in certain circumstances.
You are trying argue against something I have not said and purposely misinterpreting me.
|
On January 18 2016 04:19 Bohemond wrote:
Big J,
The statement that the tank is a weak unit is not a blatant lie. The tank, as an individual unit, is weak according to many people, are they all blatant liars? It is possible for a unit to be weak individually, but effective with synergy. It is possible for a unit to be weak in general, but strong in certain circumstances.
You are trying argue against something I have not said and purposely misinterpreting me.
But the unit is not weak individually. You can go to any unit tester and check for yourself, tanks are quite strong and with a tiny bit of buffer/support can wipe any ground composition that Terran and Zerg can field in cost- and supplyequal scenarios.
I'm not purposely missinterpreting you. I'm just sick of hearing that the tank is bad despite it being played in all matchups right now and despite turtlemech heavily reliant on tanks being the dominant style at the end of HotS (even without medivacpick-up) in TvZ and TvT.
|
nice post. but are you suggesting we remove tankvacs? keep tankvacs for fuck sakes.
|
On January 18 2016 04:36 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 04:19 Bohemond wrote:
Big J,
The statement that the tank is a weak unit is not a blatant lie. The tank, as an individual unit, is weak according to many people, are they all blatant liars? It is possible for a unit to be weak individually, but effective with synergy. It is possible for a unit to be weak in general, but strong in certain circumstances.
You are trying argue against something I have not said and purposely misinterpreting me. But the unit is not weak individually. You can go to any unit tester and check for yourself, tanks are quite strong and with a tiny bit of buffer/support can wipe any ground composition that Terran and Zerg can field in cost- and supplyequal scenarios. I'm not purposely missinterpreting you. I'm just sick of hearing that the tank is bad despite it being played in all matchups right now and despite turtlemech heavily reliant on tanks being the dominant style at the end of HotS (even without medivacpick-up) in TvZ and TvT.
If you go by the unit tester marines are not viable in TvZ due to Blings. There's more to unit strength then just doing an artificial test. Mobility, micro, production capability, etc. When all things are considered, Tanks are very poor vs P and mediocre vs Z. This is reflected then in real games.
|
On January 18 2016 02:23 FoxDog wrote:
I agree 100% with avilo and strelok and i think the problem is that david kim doesnt seem to take feedback.
it seems blizzard has two departments that are mutually exclusive, the publicity section brags "we desire feedback" while the balancing department have decided that the game is perfectly balanced allready and will thus change nothing or even acknowledge feedback.
Thor 250mm cannon should be brought back, the anti air priority should be reverted so they dont shoot random overlords or floating buildings, the thor is a joke as an anti air unit currently.
I'm pretty sure David Kim has received all of this feedback. My impression on everything though is that I question their ability to really do anything about it. Everything is weighed in a cost/benefit risk analysis & as a team, do they make risky changes in the hopes to make the game more diverse & potentially better? Or do they tweak little things here & there to take more of a conservative path?
I wouldn't be surprised if the Blizz Execs reviewed the sales numbers & concluded the numbers were good enough for them & that this game is pretty much done. If we're gonna get any movement on this issue at all, imo we need to stoke the passions of Mike Morhaime to get the wheels turning for any real changes to mech / game mechanics / economy. Otherwise the game we have now will be what we have in the future.
|
On January 18 2016 04:36 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 04:19 Bohemond wrote:
Big J,
The statement that the tank is a weak unit is not a blatant lie. The tank, as an individual unit, is weak according to many people, are they all blatant liars? It is possible for a unit to be weak individually, but effective with synergy. It is possible for a unit to be weak in general, but strong in certain circumstances.
You are trying argue against something I have not said and purposely misinterpreting me. But the unit is not weak individually. You can go to any unit tester and check for yourself, tanks are quite strong and with a tiny bit of buffer/support can wipe any ground composition that Terran and Zerg can field in cost- and supplyequal scenarios. I'm not purposely missinterpreting you. I'm just sick of hearing that the tank is bad despite it being played in all matchups right now and despite turtlemech heavily reliant on tanks being the dominant style at the end of HotS (even without medivacpick-up) in TvZ and TvT.
Are you actually unaware of that fact that a person(s) can be incorrect without blatantly lying? Do you not realize that is all I said when I responded to you originally?
You seem intelligent and articulate, so I assumed you understood those two things.
For example: In my experience, it takes more than 'a tiny bit of buffer' for a handful of deployed tanks to trade cost effectively vs. Terran ground. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm insane and imagining this whole conversation, but I am not lying when I say it. The veracity of the claim is not important.
|
On January 18 2016 04:44 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 04:36 Big J wrote:On January 18 2016 04:19 Bohemond wrote:
Big J,
The statement that the tank is a weak unit is not a blatant lie. The tank, as an individual unit, is weak according to many people, are they all blatant liars? It is possible for a unit to be weak individually, but effective with synergy. It is possible for a unit to be weak in general, but strong in certain circumstances.
You are trying argue against something I have not said and purposely misinterpreting me. But the unit is not weak individually. You can go to any unit tester and check for yourself, tanks are quite strong and with a tiny bit of buffer/support can wipe any ground composition that Terran and Zerg can field in cost- and supplyequal scenarios. I'm not purposely missinterpreting you. I'm just sick of hearing that the tank is bad despite it being played in all matchups right now and despite turtlemech heavily reliant on tanks being the dominant style at the end of HotS (even without medivacpick-up) in TvZ and TvT. If you go by the unit tester marines are not viable in TvZ due to Blings. There's more to unit strength then just doing an artificial test. Mobility, micro, production capability, etc. When all things are considered, Tanks are very poor vs P and mediocre vs Z. This is reflected then in real games.
You see, that's where I said that he is switching between arguments. He said the tank is weak because he just refers to the tank without the medivac, which is not reflected in real games. In real games tanks are played in all matchups at the moment.
But I gave him that benefit and said ok, let's do it your way. Go to the unit tester and just test the tank. Really, you gotta decide what measure you want to apply. The real game scenario, or the tester scenario. But you can't do a half-arsed in between where you take a real game and then dismiss the medivac interaction.
Also, I don't see your point with marines and banelings. You can micro in the unit tester, and you can make compositions with marines that are pretty good against zerg compositions with banelings, but yeah, they won't be end-all compositions.
I agree about mobility, which is hard to test. I disagree about production, production is a value of production buildings since you can make up for any amount of production time by making more production facilities. Which is something I already said, the tank draws its weakness from the factory, the same way it draws strenght from the medivac. In a real game what we are left with is watching if the unit is played successfully. But if we evaluate the unit on its own (which doesn't necessarily have to be a unit tester, that's just an easy way to test combat strengths in a vacuum), you cannot just say the tank is weak because 10 ravagers beat 3 tanks. That doesn't show that the tank is weak, but it might be an argument that the queen is horribly overpowered in comparison to the factory.
On January 18 2016 04:53 Bohemond wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 04:36 Big J wrote:On January 18 2016 04:19 Bohemond wrote:
Big J,
The statement that the tank is a weak unit is not a blatant lie. The tank, as an individual unit, is weak according to many people, are they all blatant liars? It is possible for a unit to be weak individually, but effective with synergy. It is possible for a unit to be weak in general, but strong in certain circumstances.
You are trying argue against something I have not said and purposely misinterpreting me. But the unit is not weak individually. You can go to any unit tester and check for yourself, tanks are quite strong and with a tiny bit of buffer/support can wipe any ground composition that Terran and Zerg can field in cost- and supplyequal scenarios. I'm not purposely missinterpreting you. I'm just sick of hearing that the tank is bad despite it being played in all matchups right now and despite turtlemech heavily reliant on tanks being the dominant style at the end of HotS (even without medivacpick-up) in TvZ and TvT. Are you actually unaware of that fact that a person(s) can be incorrect without blatantly lying? Do you not realize that is all I said when I responded to you originally? You seem intelligent and articulate, so I assumed you understood those two things. For example: In my experience, it takes more than 'a tiny bit of buffer' for a handful of deployed tanks to trade cost effectively vs. Terran ground. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm insane and imagining this whole conversation, but I am not lying when I say it. The veracity of the claim is not important.
I'm fully aware of that. And I'm fully aware of who I responded to, which was avilo not you or anybody else. I stand by what I said, it's a blatant lie. He just calls it weak because he wants the unit to be buffed in stats so he can use it differently than it is used right now. But it is lie. Watch his episode on the Evolution chamber and how much he circlejerks about how good tanks are against protoss. Then you know it's a lie if he now says or writes that tanks are weak.
|
Stasis wards aren't used much either, Blizzard should make them viable.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On January 17 2016 15:08 Thinh123456 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2016 12:16 avilo wrote:
You kids today think the marine is the iconic Terran unit? Well, guess what - the most memorable and iconic unit of SC's history for Terran was the siege tank.
Lol, but you are absolutely right about this ))) Anw, I just still don't get it. You want to get its damage back. Ok, done. Now you have 2 choices: either turtle to 200/200 army or somehow be able to moving out on the map to attack with small force??? The latter is ok, but the problem is the first choice. Since people were getting used to play safe, turtle mech; then why do they need to try to move out before 200/200??? I understand that the turtle play style will come eventually as the match last longer, so i think to force people out of turtle play is very hard if there is only a change to tank damage. I mean there must be a clear advantage/disadvantage between the turtle and the active play of Mech. Therefor, i believe introducing overkill and bring back the old siegetank damage is a solid way to go (2 supply siegetank sounds interesting, but it will even cause the game to redesign about clumping, maps, units'stats,...)
The disadvantage to turtle mech is the enemy takes the whole map and macros up 100 gateways + x robos and then just instantly remaxes when your army dies. I personally think it should take multiple waves of basic units to take out a well positioned pushing mech force. It's supposed to be strong.
Right now, mech can't trade well enough to ever push an advantage unless you're insanely ahead through harass.
|
Good old Fantasy, this was after a (rare) mech TVP
![[image loading]](http://static.tweakers.net/ext/f/aI9BmpECwHGHxxVBpVuL6kQD/full.png)
|
On January 18 2016 05:05 Big J wrote:
I'm fully aware of that. And I'm fully aware of who I responded to, which was avilo not you or anybody else. I stand by what I said, it's a blatant lie. He just calls it weak because he wants the unit to be buffed in stats so he can use it differently than it is used right now. But it is lie. Watch his episode on the Evolution chamber and how much he circlejerks about how good tanks are against protoss. Then you know it's a lie if he now says or writes that tanks are weak.
I'm trying real hard to imagine that you're a fundamentally good egg, so I'm going to give this one more shot. You are misrepresenting what I said, and now, with the above, you are misrepresenting what Avilo said on Evo Chamber.
You see, that's where I said that he is switching between arguments. He said the tank is weak because he just refers to the tank without the medivac, which is not reflected in real games. In real games tanks are played in all matchups at the moment.
But I gave him that benefit and said ok, let's do it your way. Go to the unit tester and just test the tank. Really, you gotta decide what measure you want to apply. The real game scenario, or the tester scenario. But you can't do a half-arsed in between where you take a real game and then dismiss the medivac interaction.
He is perfectly capable of reading my own posts. Within my own posts is what I actually said. You invent arguments I did not posit and then start debunking them. This is disingenuous and arguing in poor faith.
I stand by what I said, it's a blatant lie... Watch his episode on the Evolution chamber and how much he circlejerks about how good tanks are against protoss. Then you know it's a lie if he now says or writes that tanks are weak.
He is in the OP, in my mind rather clearly, referring to the tank being a weak unit (in his opinion) with regards to its stats and cost. Also, we both know that he knows that tank is used in all match ups right now, so when you say:
Reality check:... It's currently being played in all matchups.
Acting like you're saying something he doesn't know. You are, once again, arguing in bad faith. I could be mistaken, but I don't think he expects tankivacs to remain with his suggested change. I don't watch his stream with any regularity, but I as I recall, he doesn't approve of tankivacs due to the horrible impact it has had on mech in TvT. I think it's pretty clear he's not suggesting a straight up buff to tanks without removing the pickup. Maybe I'm mistaken.
As for the Evo Chamber episode, the strength of the tank in that match up is, clearly, entirely dependent on medivacs. I know that you know that. You know that Avilo knows that. Why pretend otherwise?
Without the medivac pickup, tanks would be much worse, and probably wouldn't see much play outside of TvT. That's what I mean when I say the tank is a weak unit, I assume that's what he means. Why call him a liar for positing a reasonable opinion that many other people (myself included) agree with? Why repeatedly try and make it out that I'm arguing things I'm not arguing?
|
I agree with Avilo on this. Mech should be buffed and it is possible to to so. The most important things to make mech viable in all matchups are
1. Remove tankivac.
2. Tone down parasitic bomb
3. Improve tank damage
I am not sure it is necessary to improve mech anti-air though. Vikings, Liberators and BC are good enough as they are if only parasitic bomb got nerfed and maybe Tempest supply cost increased.
|
On January 18 2016 05:12 Bareleon wrote:
Stasis wards aren't used much either, Blizzard should make them viable.
Used to see them a lot when in beta the carriers were broken. Protoss then zoomed around with bunch of oracles, spammed stasis ward to give vision and map control around map while massing carrier behind it.
Now I never see it used
|
On January 18 2016 06:13 jinjin5000 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 05:12 Bareleon wrote:
Stasis wards aren't used much either, Blizzard should make them viable. Used to see them a lot when in beta the carriers were broken. Protoss then zoomed around with bunch of oracles, spammed stasis ward to give vision and map control around map while massing carrier behind it. Now I never see it used
How i wish Terran had that ability. A supply free, soft ground control unit/ability would have synergized perfectly with mech.
|
On January 18 2016 06:27 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 06:13 jinjin5000 wrote:On January 18 2016 05:12 Bareleon wrote:
Stasis wards aren't used much either, Blizzard should make them viable. Used to see them a lot when in beta the carriers were broken. Protoss then zoomed around with bunch of oracles, spammed stasis ward to give vision and map control around map while massing carrier behind it. Now I never see it used How i wish Terran had that ability. A supply free, soft ground control unit/ability would have synergized perfectly with mech.
Stasis wards are useless. Just send in one unit to activate it or just use detection. Even changelings when they take the form of one of your opponent's units activates a ward...
|
Give thors Yamato cannon. All air problems solved
|
On January 18 2016 00:01 Bohemond wrote:It's really shocking how many people are posting in here with an attitude that seems best summarized as: 'I just don't want to have to play against mech.' Well, I just don't want to have to play against DTs, Oracles, Mutalisk harass, any proxy play ever, Reaper all-ins, Cloaked Banshees, all-ins in general the disrupt the build I planned to do while the game loaded up, or people with red hair. So goddamn it, none of those things should be viable! As has been mentioned and linked many times in other threads: there are lots of great mech games in SC2 despite the fact that it's rarely played. Mech being viable would add diversity, which most people agree is desirable. Would Zerg players be happier if they could only go LingBlingMuta in TvZ and never build Roaches or Hydras? Perhaps my memory is poor, but I seem to recall there being a push during the early days of HotS to make Roach/Hydra more viable. Wasn't there a speed upgrade added? Does anyone doubt that the people asking for Hydras to see more play would have felt somewhat bemused if a ton of people started posting about how they hate Hydras, they're sick of hearing about Hydras, sure Hydras are an iconic unit in BW, but this is SC2, that Hydras shouldn't be viable because they just don't feel like playing against them? And there is an extremely negative, borderline abusive tone to some posts in here, talking about how sick they are of this topic even being mentioned on these forums. No one is forcing anyone to click on this thread or post in it, so why does it matter if it's brought up? Is it a general practice of these people to go around the internet and tell other people not to talk about things? Do they do this in real life? Why would anyone care what people who they don't know are talking about? Show nested quote +On January 17 2016 21:04 Big J wrote:
1) Reality check: The tank doesn't suck. It's currently being played in all matchups. I wouldn't mind it working differently (without the medivac synergy), but saying it sucks is blatent lying.
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. 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.
it matters if it's brought up in this manner because we're all part of the community, and this stance is nothing particularly new even regarding new and improved wording.
i'm sorry, but if you load up ladder and hit 7 terrans in a row, half of them being mech, you typically hate playing vs the mech portion of games. you see planetaries, lines of turrets with tanks, and it all feels a bit cancerous.
there is a massive difference between not wanting to play against the 'style' (which makes for the longest games if they ever take off) and having to account for an all-in. nearly all the strategies you posted save for 2 or 3 rax reaper are all going to die to earlier pressure or having an ebay up in time. what you need to prepare against a mech style is to form an entire game-plan around it and play an entirely solid tactical and macro game as the non-mech opposition. the learning curve is quite higher.
this is the same guy (not verbatim) who complains about mass tempests. how is it even likely that a protoss gets to the point of 4+ stargates pumping nothing but tempests?
|
On January 18 2016 06:27 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 06:13 jinjin5000 wrote:On January 18 2016 05:12 Bareleon wrote:
Stasis wards aren't used much either, Blizzard should make them viable. Used to see them a lot when in beta the carriers were broken. Protoss then zoomed around with bunch of oracles, spammed stasis ward to give vision and map control around map while massing carrier behind it. Now I never see it used How i wish Terran had that ability. A supply free, soft ground control unit/ability would have synergized perfectly with mech.
And dropped from the hellion via an upgrade. It would slow down pushes by the opponent so that the mech player could get more into position. As one or more people have said on this thread, it's not just that tanks were viable, it was tank + vulture + vulture mines that made it viable. Currently, terran is missing that fast, light unit that can help give map control (in the late game as opposed to the early game)
EDIT:
On January 18 2016 06:59 PEPE!! wrote:
Give thors Yamato cannon. All air problems solved
Actually on second thought, just put this on the hellions. Now they can really deal damage.
|
Great post; hopefully someone at Blizz reads this. Liberator is the only unit that is keeping Terrans afloat in LOTV.
|
I agree with the ground anti air needing to be stronger. i just wish the goliath was in the game and have done so since Wol. Dont need the Liberator, its just a Goliath anyhow with a unfun cheese mechanic that is balanced just because the damage and cost is too bad atm, a unit that can strike and move away with and not being hit back is just bad, like a tempest and the old infestor did aswell very effectively. Blizzard even had the warhound earlier that was a OP ground only goliath, they could have just removed the haywire missile and tweaked the stats and let it shoot air and not have a 23 dmg single attack so armor did more.
|
So when I think of buffing the tank and adding a goliath like factory unit, I try to imagine how it creates more action for both players. If tanks are stronger and mech has better anti-air, why bother moving out if you can simply just get more and more mech? There has to be reasons for moving to the other side of the map or terrans will just split the map and trade cost effectively to victory. Tech switches are what encourages terran to not wait around. All of the races needs to have a unit composition that beats any mech composition, to threaten the mech player into not waiting too long to be countered. Air control and air siege units do this.
So if we buff tanks and add stronger AA, this gives terran a wider timing window to move across the map to get work done. Buffing mech shouldn't be about letting terran sit behind +2 building armoured PFs and turrets all game long, it should be about enabling the terran to move out before it is too late.
With the LOTV economy model a mech player will be more spread out and thus also a motivator to move out on the map to get damage done so they aren't just sitting back and expanding into losing.
Every race needs to have ways to beat a meching player who isn't attacking though. If playing passive is the correct option for both players, the game will be boring to watch and boring to play.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On January 18 2016 08:33 ThunderBum wrote:
So when I think of buffing the tank and adding a goliath like factory unit, I try to imagine how it creates more action for both players. If tanks are stronger and mech has better anti-air, why bother moving out if you can simply just get more and more mech? There has to be reasons for moving to the other side of the map or terrans will just split the map and trade cost effectively to victory. Tech switches are what encourages terran to not wait around. All of the races needs to have a unit composition that beats any mech composition, to threaten the mech player into not waiting too long to be countered. Air control and air siege units do this.
So if we buff tanks and add stronger AA, this gives terran a wider timing window to move across the map to get work done. Buffing mech shouldn't be about letting terran sit behind +2 building armoured PFs and turrets all game long, it should be about enabling the terran to move out before it is too late.
With the LOTV economy model a mech player will be more spread out and thus also a motivator to move out on the map to get damage done so they aren't just sitting back and expanding into losing.
Every race needs to have ways to beat a meching player who isn't attacking though. If playing passive is the correct option for both players, the game will be boring to watch and boring to play.
The whole point is to counteract this the other person could just mass expand and get a huge macro lead, like in Broodwar. There's so many reasons why I could say Map Design in SC2 causes turtling to be a problem, but the amount of times I've repeated myself and it's fallen on deaf ears I'm not sure I can make a difference anymore.
Maps where you can barely leave your main and defend 3/4 bases are not good. Fighting Spirit is a good example of this as the third, while relatively close to your main is defendable by a small ramp making it hard to push up, but pushing up there and then pushing the main at the same time is a good way to break a defense. Maps where there's a big ramp to the third, but it's right on top of the natural and the whole army sits in one place and defends all three bases.
It's why Ohana was an inherently bad map and pretty much destroyed map and game design in SC2. Daybreak, Cloud Kingdom and Ohana all suffered from the same issue, you could defend too many bases from one choke, there pretty much was no reason at all to ever leave your bases and it wasn't even remotely hard to split the map. Map design in LOTV is getting a bit better (with further thirds with chokes and what not), but the map design causes turtling to be a problem, not mech itself.
|
On January 18 2016 07:26 nanaoei wrote:
it matters if it's brought up in this manner because we're all part of the community, and this stance is nothing particularly new even regarding new and improved wording.
One could make this exact same argument about what Seed did. Everyone paying attention has known that Adepts were a problem in TvP since the beginning of the beta. Seed's stance is nothing particularly new. One use this same line of reasoning to discredit people complaining about HotS Swarm Hosts. Every single complaint about Swarm Hosts after the first one was 'nothing particularly new.'
On January 18 2016 07:26 nanaoei wrote:
i'm sorry, but if you load up ladder and hit 7 terrans in a row, half of them being mech, you typically hate playing vs the mech portion of games. you see planetaries, lines of turrets with tanks, and it all feels a bit cancerous.
there is a massive difference between not wanting to play against the 'style' (which makes for the longest games if they ever take off) and having to account for an all-in. nearly all the strategies you posted save for 2 or 3 rax reaper are all going to die to earlier pressure or having an ebay up in time. what you need to prepare against a mech style is to form an entire game-plan around it and play an entirely solid tactical and macro game as the non-mech opposition. the learning curve is quite higher.
First off, great players die to cheese and all-ins all the time. It is not as simple as 'having an ebay up in time.' Come on, man.
Second, I'm sorry you don't like playing vs. mech. I actually hate playing vs. Terran (don't like to play mirror match ups in any game, not just SC2). I actually especially hate playing vs. mech in TvT because the games last longer. I'm disappointed every time I see that bird in the loading screen. Life sucks, then you die. Just because I don't like something, doesn't mean other people should be allowed to have it or that other people shouldn't be allowed to talk about having it.
|
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.
|
Complaints about mech go from Flash to Fantasy. Avilo made the post but the sentiment has been around for a long time.
|
On January 18 2016 08:56 Bohemond wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 07:26 nanaoei wrote:
it matters if it's brought up in this manner because we're all part of the community, and this stance is nothing particularly new even regarding new and improved wording. One could make this exact same argument about what Seed did. Everyone paying attention has known that Adepts were a problem in TvP since the beginning of the beta. Seed's stance is nothing particularly new. One use this same line of reasoning to discredit people complaining about HotS Swarm Hosts. Every single complaint about Swarm Hosts after the first one was 'nothing particularly new.' Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 07:26 nanaoei wrote:
i'm sorry, but if you load up ladder and hit 7 terrans in a row, half of them being mech, you typically hate playing vs the mech portion of games. you see planetaries, lines of turrets with tanks, and it all feels a bit cancerous.
there is a massive difference between not wanting to play against the 'style' (which makes for the longest games if they ever take off) and having to account for an all-in. nearly all the strategies you posted save for 2 or 3 rax reaper are all going to die to earlier pressure or having an ebay up in time. what you need to prepare against a mech style is to form an entire game-plan around it and play an entirely solid tactical and macro game as the non-mech opposition. the learning curve is quite higher.
First off, great players die to cheese and all-ins all the time. It is not as simple as 'having an ebay up in time.' Come on, man. Second, I'm sorry you don't like playing vs. mech. I actually hate playing vs. Terran (don't like to play mirror match ups in any game, not just SC2). I actually especially hate playing vs. mech in TvT because the games last longer. I'm disappointed every time I see that bird in the loading screen. Life sucks, then you die. Just because I don't like something, doesn't mean other people should be allowed to have it or that other people shouldn't be allowed to talk about having it.
you're talking about yourself as though you're putting yourself in my shoes and placing words in my mouth. it's obvious enough what you're trying to do. to address the point you were making though, it is as simple as making an appropriate e-bay timing. 3:40-4:30, drops occur from all races for all openings of every type. why? those are the appropriate times for necessary tech for those harassment units. they're understood timings, such as when zergling speed can complete off a 17 hatch or a pool-first. this is another reason why people can open aggressively with reapers, take a later expansion behind a factory/starport, and potentially defend against any drop harass using a cyclone. the timing just works out and is understood by many. +1 infantry lines up nearly perfectly with stim research, guess what, this timing is used extensively as well and people can get creative with that sort of knowledge.
about seed speaking his mind, it is something new, because he's an actual professional who plays the race he's talking about. if anything, it can hold extra credence for those reasons alone. he spoke out in the largest esports tournament for sc2 at the moment and after his games, not in an offline talk.
i am not saying i don't like playing vs mech at all, but it's definitely harder than playing against the regular bio-tankvac composition if you're not used to the crazy amounts of static D involved. mech is both a playstyle and a unit composition involving overall slow units. specific units or all-ins involving said units are risks and investments that are in fact countered by appropriate and simple solutions. if you've seen polt on his daily streams, he plays in an unnecessary way against zerg and loses more and more to units such as mutas whereas other terran have appropriate solutions to deter that muta situation from even happening. there is a reason why most of his losses involve mutas and why his opponents make them against him at some points in the game.
and stance meaning, there are literally tens of these threads by the same few posters restating the same points.
go back and take a look, with the exception of this latest one, every one is an update of a previous attempt to bump the overall topics or suggestions. unironically, each time i've suggested the same thing as well: do your own testing and go through private channels, or do something more extensive if this is incredibly important to you. honestly, posting on a forum (although it is TLnet) isn't going to net you anywhere near the exposure you need to make a change to the multi-million dollar system.
|
Even when they buff the tank and get proper AA from the factory there will be a lot of other issues left. for example Disruptor ball is faster than mech can move or "split" since the mech units are derpy etc.
|
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.
i think the best terran players in the world with much faster APM see the game totally differently. i'd prefer Blizzard balance the game at the very top level first while keeping all 6 match ups fun. with that as their #1 priority then they can deal with lower level players as a secondary concern. so i don't think ignoring this stuff would be much of a big deal.
i recall Avilo screaming blue murder when Greg Black nerfed Vindicator Bombers. Avilo claimed Vindicators would become suicide flyers. Avilo claimed he understood Allies at the very top level of play. Furthermore, that he possessed knowledge no one else did. This suicide flyer thing never did happened. Vindicators remained in their nerfed state. Greg Black was proven 100% correct and Avilo was proven wrong. It made the game better because Allies was just too air-centric.
Ironic that we're now debating the other side of the air-centric argument a few years later.
|
Dominican Republic614 Posts
i agree but just buffing tanks without tanking into account other units from terran will be bad... in BW tanks were desing like that because Terran was supposed to be played Marine+medic+Tank support, but since in SC2 marines are so GOOD, imagine marine+medivac+tanks buff? that will be a really strong army composition.
|
On January 18 2016 13:24 SC2BF3Love wrote:
i agree but just buffing tanks without tanking into account other units from terran will be bad... in BW tanks were desing like that because Terran was supposed to be played Marine+medic+Tank support, but since in SC2 marines are so GOOD, imagine marine+medivac+tanks buff? that will be a really strong army composition.
Higher tank damage will also mean higher splash damage, so friendly splash will be a increased issue for marines when fighting melee units.
|
First, a response to this:
On January 17 2016 14:15 Bohemond wrote:
As PB is now, it can wipe out most of an air army in a couple of seconds. Huge numbers of units dying in a handful of seconds isn't something most people want more of in SC2.
Uh, uhm, well actually that's exactly what I want. Armies melting in seconds because of risks taken, control mistakes, or one player being too well prepared or too smart, that stuff makes my heart beat faster. Oh the destruction and the shock value! I'm jumping out off my seat because I can't take it!!
To balance this out, I also want the the little skirmishes and the finesse. A good portion of games should also consist of poking, threatening, positioning, surrounding, or constant reinforcing of the main army in a long-lasting battle.
We have both right now. I think it's great.
To the main topic:
I have an issue with this thread. It's not clear to me what the end goal is.
Is balance the issue, or is it diversity? Do we just want to see more mech? Or do we think terran is too weak? I think we need this to be clear, because it's not the same thing.
Also, it's very difficult to fix one without messing up the other. It really is really difficult.
How I see it:
Lets compare for a moment. In BW TvP and TvT we (virtually) never saw M&M. We did complain about that for a while a long time ago, but eventually we accepted it and made the best of it.
In TvZ we rarely saw (successful) mech and it was the same issue. We didn't like that, but we accepted it. And then fortunately a few gods of terran turned things around in TvZ, at last. A mech transition became viable, not only in late game but also early/mid game. Sadly, TvT and TvP stayed the same.
In ZvZ we never saw hydras and lurkers. I mean yes we did, but... nah. Not really.
Don't get me wrong, this is no justification for not having a lot of mech games in SC2. I just want to put things into perspective. Making demands, really? That's a bit much. Give Blizzard a break. Every big change they make can potentially break the game for a lot of people. Big changes are risky.
PS: I think ThunderBum and JimmyJRaynor made good points.
|
On January 18 2016 11:51 nanaoei wrote:
you're talking about yourself as though you're putting yourself in my shoes and placing words in my mouth. it's obvious enough what you're trying to do.
You mean it's obvious that I was trying to point out how absolutely nonsensical it is to criticize something someone said because it's 'nothing particularly new'? I didn't put any words in your mouth, I just applied the statement you made to other situations. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by:
it matters if it's brought up in this manner because we're all part of the community, and this stance is nothing particularly new...
If that is the case, I apologize.
And, once again, defending cheese and all-ins at top level is not as simple as making a single building, knowing the timings, or even scouting it. Nor should it be. I don't know why you're making this claim, it doesn't have to do with anything and is clearly, at best, hyperbole.
On January 18 2016 11:51 nanaoei wrote:about seed speaking his mind, it is something new, because he's an actual professional who plays the race he's talking about. if anything, it can hold extra credence for those reasons alone.
Top Korean pros of all three races have said the exact same thing in interviews that Seed said before Seed said it. That makes it - drum roll please - not new.
On January 18 2016 11:51 nanaoei wrote:
but it's definitely harder than playing against the regular bio-tankvac composition
I will say this for you: At least you're honest about your motives.
|
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.
|
On January 18 2016 15:20 Magic Powers wrote:First, a response to this: Show nested quote +On January 17 2016 14:15 Bohemond wrote:
As PB is now, it can wipe out most of an air army in a couple of seconds. Huge numbers of units dying in a handful of seconds isn't something most people want more of in SC2. Uh, uhm, well actually that's exactly what I want. Armies melting in seconds because of risks taken, control mistakes, or one player being too well prepared or too smart, that stuff makes my heart beat faster. Oh the destruction and the shock value! I'm jumping out off my seat because I can't take it!!
There we (and I think many others) then have a fundamental disagreement. I don't believe a single error (if you can even can call it an error) should in seconds cost you the game after 20 minutes. There are many other strong AOE spells, but generally just pressing f2 and moving back will at least mitigate the worst of it, not amplify the damage. Which still gives the opponent an advantage, as it should be, but it does not directly end the game.
|
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?
|
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.
|
On January 18 2016 19:47 FoxDog wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On January 18 2016 19:58 Vanadiel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2016 19:47 FoxDog wrote: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. 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.
|
While I have defended that siege tank needs a damage buff since late WoL, saying that people will not turtle with it in a thread opened (yet again) by avilo is quite ironic.
|
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.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On January 19 2016 00:22 Elentos 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. An 8 mine drop with drilling claws sounds completely ridiculous tbh.
ahaha.. well I guess you don't HAVE to also reduce cargo size
|
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.
|
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!
|
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?
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On January 19 2016 01:03 EatingBomber wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
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.
|
On January 19 2016 01:22 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
This is why I still play brood war. See you on ICCUP Avilo
|
I think making mech a more desired option as a variety is good idea, but then Blizzard would need make many changes to overall game including Zerg and Protoss. I don't think Blizzard is going to do that because they maybe are afraid of so many changes because of unforseen balance issues. 
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On January 20 2016 11:53 Garnet wrote:Show nested quote +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.
About 28-29
Anyway,
Mech internal issues are known and has been discussed over and over. But still we are not talking about the external issues. In TvZ, there are no such issues other than Viper being a complete shut down to mech. This can be solved by making Cyclone into Goliath 2.0. As for TvP, it won't be solved until Tempests gets a HUGE range nerf.
I still don't understand why an air unit that is considered the most tanky unit in the entire Protoss army has the highest range in the game and can shoot without being in siege mode and shoot both ground and air. It has no terrain limitation or anything, yet gets to be the highest range in the game with unjustified supply cost of 4.
Mech has no answer to Tempests and even a Goliath 2.0 won't be an answer. Mech depends on siegeing and forcing a fight with Tanks high range but Tempests completely shut that down with its range and mobility as an air unit. If you try to siege a location and take a position and slowly pushing, the Tempests will slowly chip away from your army thus you are being forced to unsiege and go away or Yolo into the Protoss army and siege during the battle, 4 seconds wasted while your tanks are being sieged and your entire mech army gets obliterated.
Until Tempests gets a huge range nerf, Mech won't work in TvP, unless you mean both transition into sky-terran vs sky-protoss, that is not mech anymore. That is air glop vs air glop
|
On January 20 2016 10:02 alexanderzero wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
Its officially just david kim, and so thats the name of the balancer(s) of sc2 as pertains to the horrible balance state.
|
On January 20 2016 15:45 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2016 11:53 Garnet wrote: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. About 28-29 Anyway, Mech internal issues are known and has been discussed over and over. But still we are not talking about the external issues. In TvZ, there are no such issues other than Viper being a complete shut down to mech. This can be solved by making Cyclone into Goliath 2.0. As for TvP, it won't be solved until Tempests gets a HUGE range nerf. I still don't understand why an air unit that is considered the most tanky unit in the entire Protoss army has the highest range in the game and can shoot without being in siege mode and shoot both ground and air. It has no terrain limitation or anything, yet gets to be the highest range in the game with unjustified supply cost of 4. Mech has no answer to Tempests and even a Goliath 2.0 won't be an answer. Mech depends on siegeing and forcing a fight with Tanks high range but Tempests completely shut that down with its range and mobility as an air unit. If you try to siege a location and take a position and slowly pushing, the Tempests will slowly chip away from your army thus you are being forced to unsiege and go away or Yolo into the Protoss army and siege during the battle, 4 seconds wasted while your tanks are being sieged and your entire mech army gets obliterated. Until Tempests gets a huge range nerf, Mech won't work in TvP, unless you mean both transition into sky-terran vs sky-protoss, that is not mech anymore. That is air glop vs air glop
So increasing the supply of the tempest to 6, and buffing the thor while also removing parasitic bomb would solve most of mechs issues by themselves
|
On January 21 2016 21:18 FoxDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2016 15:45 WrathSCII wrote:On January 20 2016 11:53 Garnet wrote: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. About 28-29 Anyway, Mech internal issues are known and has been discussed over and over. But still we are not talking about the external issues. In TvZ, there are no such issues other than Viper being a complete shut down to mech. This can be solved by making Cyclone into Goliath 2.0. As for TvP, it won't be solved until Tempests gets a HUGE range nerf. I still don't understand why an air unit that is considered the most tanky unit in the entire Protoss army has the highest range in the game and can shoot without being in siege mode and shoot both ground and air. It has no terrain limitation or anything, yet gets to be the highest range in the game with unjustified supply cost of 4. Mech has no answer to Tempests and even a Goliath 2.0 won't be an answer. Mech depends on siegeing and forcing a fight with Tanks high range but Tempests completely shut that down with its range and mobility as an air unit. If you try to siege a location and take a position and slowly pushing, the Tempests will slowly chip away from your army thus you are being forced to unsiege and go away or Yolo into the Protoss army and siege during the battle, 4 seconds wasted while your tanks are being sieged and your entire mech army gets obliterated. Until Tempests gets a huge range nerf, Mech won't work in TvP, unless you mean both transition into sky-terran vs sky-protoss, that is not mech anymore. That is air glop vs air glop So increasing the supply of the tempest to 6, and buffing the thor while also removing parasitic bomb would solve most of mechs issues by themselves
The range is still a very big concern. You can consider this bias from me, but logically a unit sacrificing mobility and is a ground unit limited by the terrain should have higher range than an air unit.
But the Tempest is really awkward. It serves both as siege unit and as a tank unit...
|
On January 21 2016 21:21 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2016 21:18 FoxDog wrote:On January 20 2016 15:45 WrathSCII wrote:On January 20 2016 11:53 Garnet wrote: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. About 28-29 Anyway, Mech internal issues are known and has been discussed over and over. But still we are not talking about the external issues. In TvZ, there are no such issues other than Viper being a complete shut down to mech. This can be solved by making Cyclone into Goliath 2.0. As for TvP, it won't be solved until Tempests gets a HUGE range nerf. I still don't understand why an air unit that is considered the most tanky unit in the entire Protoss army has the highest range in the game and can shoot without being in siege mode and shoot both ground and air. It has no terrain limitation or anything, yet gets to be the highest range in the game with unjustified supply cost of 4. Mech has no answer to Tempests and even a Goliath 2.0 won't be an answer. Mech depends on siegeing and forcing a fight with Tanks high range but Tempests completely shut that down with its range and mobility as an air unit. If you try to siege a location and take a position and slowly pushing, the Tempests will slowly chip away from your army thus you are being forced to unsiege and go away or Yolo into the Protoss army and siege during the battle, 4 seconds wasted while your tanks are being sieged and your entire mech army gets obliterated. Until Tempests gets a huge range nerf, Mech won't work in TvP, unless you mean both transition into sky-terran vs sky-protoss, that is not mech anymore. That is air glop vs air glop So increasing the supply of the tempest to 6, and buffing the thor while also removing parasitic bomb would solve most of mechs issues by themselves The range is still a very big concern. You can consider this bias from me, but logically a unit sacrificing mobility and is a ground unit limited by the terrain should have higher range than an air unit. But the Tempest is really awkward. It serves both as siege unit and as a tank unit...
maybe add some kind of siege mode to the tempest so its stationary while firing like the liberator
|
On January 21 2016 21:18 FoxDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2016 15:45 WrathSCII wrote:On January 20 2016 11:53 Garnet wrote: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. About 28-29 Anyway, Mech internal issues are known and has been discussed over and over. But still we are not talking about the external issues. In TvZ, there are no such issues other than Viper being a complete shut down to mech. This can be solved by making Cyclone into Goliath 2.0. As for TvP, it won't be solved until Tempests gets a HUGE range nerf. I still don't understand why an air unit that is considered the most tanky unit in the entire Protoss army has the highest range in the game and can shoot without being in siege mode and shoot both ground and air. It has no terrain limitation or anything, yet gets to be the highest range in the game with unjustified supply cost of 4. Mech has no answer to Tempests and even a Goliath 2.0 won't be an answer. Mech depends on siegeing and forcing a fight with Tanks high range but Tempests completely shut that down with its range and mobility as an air unit. If you try to siege a location and take a position and slowly pushing, the Tempests will slowly chip away from your army thus you are being forced to unsiege and go away or Yolo into the Protoss army and siege during the battle, 4 seconds wasted while your tanks are being sieged and your entire mech army gets obliterated. Until Tempests gets a huge range nerf, Mech won't work in TvP, unless you mean both transition into sky-terran vs sky-protoss, that is not mech anymore. That is air glop vs air glop So increasing the supply of the tempest to 6, and buffing the thor while also removing parasitic bomb would solve most of mechs issues by themselves
I wouldn't consider it solving mech's issues. Mech would be viable with that change. It would even be strong vs zerg. However, it still wouldn't be fun.
|
On January 21 2016 23:24 FoxDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2016 21:21 WrathSCII wrote:On January 21 2016 21:18 FoxDog wrote:On January 20 2016 15:45 WrathSCII wrote:On January 20 2016 11:53 Garnet wrote: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. About 28-29 Anyway, Mech internal issues are known and has been discussed over and over. But still we are not talking about the external issues. In TvZ, there are no such issues other than Viper being a complete shut down to mech. This can be solved by making Cyclone into Goliath 2.0. As for TvP, it won't be solved until Tempests gets a HUGE range nerf. I still don't understand why an air unit that is considered the most tanky unit in the entire Protoss army has the highest range in the game and can shoot without being in siege mode and shoot both ground and air. It has no terrain limitation or anything, yet gets to be the highest range in the game with unjustified supply cost of 4. Mech has no answer to Tempests and even a Goliath 2.0 won't be an answer. Mech depends on siegeing and forcing a fight with Tanks high range but Tempests completely shut that down with its range and mobility as an air unit. If you try to siege a location and take a position and slowly pushing, the Tempests will slowly chip away from your army thus you are being forced to unsiege and go away or Yolo into the Protoss army and siege during the battle, 4 seconds wasted while your tanks are being sieged and your entire mech army gets obliterated. Until Tempests gets a huge range nerf, Mech won't work in TvP, unless you mean both transition into sky-terran vs sky-protoss, that is not mech anymore. That is air glop vs air glop So increasing the supply of the tempest to 6, and buffing the thor while also removing parasitic bomb would solve most of mechs issues by themselves The range is still a very big concern. You can consider this bias from me, but logically a unit sacrificing mobility and is a ground unit limited by the terrain should have higher range than an air unit. But the Tempest is really awkward. It serves both as siege unit and as a tank unit... maybe add some kind of siege mode to the tempest so its stationary while firing like the liberator
I don't understand why you are trying to go around the idea of nerfing the range of Tempests...
|
david kim is just a face, he says what he is told to say so go easy on him
|
On January 22 2016 00:03 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
david kim is just a face, he says what he is told to say so go easy on him
You kidding?
|
On January 22 2016 00:03 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
david kim is just a face, he says what he is told to say so go easy on him
if you think like this blizzards strategy works in that you can never criticize them ever because they hire people who you cant blame to do their job.
|
On January 22 2016 00:03 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
david kim is just a face, he says what he is told to say so go easy on him
its clear the way he answers questions at BlizzCon and other public events that he is more than just "a face". he is a really good game designer and has done a great job. Any RTS game with more than 2 races and racial diversity requires a year or two of balance patches after release to become well balanced and fun. And, many RTS games never become fully balanced.
David Kim and his team have some very tough problems to solve because.. again.. they're dealing with more than 2 races ; a high degree of racial diversity ; an APM ceiling and an improving skill level that is not well defined.
if Blizzard management thought Kim was doing a bad job on their RTS team he would've been long gone years ago. Not only is he still @ Blizz ... he has been promoted.
|
On January 27 2016 03:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 00:03 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
david kim is just a face, he says what he is told to say so go easy on him its clear the way he answers questions at BlizzCon and other public events that he is more than just "a face". he is a really good game designer and has done a great job. Any RTS game with more than 2 races and racial diversity requires a year or two of balance patches after release to become well balanced and fun. And, many RTS games never become fully balanced. David Kim and his team have some very tough problems to solve because.. again.. they're dealing with more than 2 races ; a high degree of racial diversity ; an APM ceiling and an improving skill level that is not well defined. if Blizzard management thought Kim was doing a bad job on their RTS team he would've been long gone years ago. Not only is he still @ Blizz ... he has been promoted.
Regarding Balance, I give him that, he did a wonderful job. Regarding designing the game to be fun for players, I'd say he failed. His focus was entirely on how the crowd watching the games would feel, would they love this stuff? Would making this work in that way could make more excitement moments for viewers? I don't feel he cared for what the players who play the game would feel about stuff. The only times he changed stuff is because of how critical issues they were. Like Swarm Hosts games, Ravens and stuff. Things that did massive critical damage on the VIEWERS before players. That is why they were changed in the first place.
In the past, he used to keep like "we will look into SH, we are working on it" and so on. Then Stephano came on Red Bull vs Jaedong that led to an immediate update that we will work on SH that we will tweak now and redesign it for LOTV, later how critical shit went, they had to copy the LOTV design into HOTS because it was just impossible to watch it. Literally.
If this is fun for viewers, it will have a GO by him even if it was a retarded shit that frustrate the players. If not, we will look into it later even if it was asked by like 80% of the community.
|
|
|
On January 27 2016 04:24 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 03:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On January 22 2016 00:03 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
david kim is just a face, he says what he is told to say so go easy on him its clear the way he answers questions at BlizzCon and other public events that he is more than just "a face". he is a really good game designer and has done a great job. Any RTS game with more than 2 races and racial diversity requires a year or two of balance patches after release to become well balanced and fun. And, many RTS games never become fully balanced. David Kim and his team have some very tough problems to solve because.. again.. they're dealing with more than 2 races ; a high degree of racial diversity ; an APM ceiling and an improving skill level that is not well defined. if Blizzard management thought Kim was doing a bad job on their RTS team he would've been long gone years ago. Not only is he still @ Blizz ... he has been promoted. Regarding Balance, I give him that, he did a wonderful job. Regarding designing the game to be fun for players, I'd say he failed. His focus was entirely on how the crowd watching the games would feel, would they love this stuff? Would making this work in that way could make more excitement moments for viewers? I don't feel he cared for what the players who play the game would feel about stuff. The only times he changed stuff is because of how critical issues they were. Like Swarm Hosts games, Ravens and stuff. Things that did massive critical damage on the VIEWERS before players. That is why they were changed in the first place. In the past, he used to keep like "we will look into SH, we are working on it" and so on. Then Stephano came on Red Bull vs Jaedong that led to an immediate update that we will work on SH that we will tweak now and redesign it for LOTV, later how critical shit went, they had to copy the LOTV design into HOTS because it was just impossible to watch it. Literally. If this is fun for viewers, it will have a GO by him even if it was a retarded shit that frustrate the players. If not, we will look into it later even if it was asked by like 80% of the community.
i'm having fun.
Blizzard will not commit the resources to substantially re-design this game.
Therefore , if you're not having fun i advise playing one of the many other really fun games Blizzard has made the past 20 years. There are even online Rock'n'Roll Racing competitions with a specially modified SNES emulator you can play.
i think LotV is basically good and it requires minor changes that all RTS games go through in their first year after release. I think most of the loud angry complaining is overly dramatic, hyperbolic, drivel.
|
On January 20 2016 15:45 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2016 11:53 Garnet wrote: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. About 28-29 Anyway, Mech internal issues are known and has been discussed over and over. But still we are not talking about the external issues. In TvZ, there are no such issues other than Viper being a complete shut down to mech. This can be solved by making Cyclone into Goliath 2.0. As for TvP, it won't be solved until Tempests gets a HUGE range nerf. I still don't understand why an air unit that is considered the most tanky unit in the entire Protoss army has the highest range in the game and can shoot without being in siege mode and shoot both ground and air. It has no terrain limitation or anything, yet gets to be the highest range in the game with unjustified supply cost of 4. Mech has no answer to Tempests and even a Goliath 2.0 won't be an answer. Mech depends on siegeing and forcing a fight with Tanks high range but Tempests completely shut that down with its range and mobility as an air unit. If you try to siege a location and take a position and slowly pushing, the Tempests will slowly chip away from your army thus you are being forced to unsiege and go away or Yolo into the Protoss army and siege during the battle, 4 seconds wasted while your tanks are being sieged and your entire mech army gets obliterated. Until Tempests gets a huge range nerf, Mech won't work in TvP, unless you mean both transition into sky-terran vs sky-protoss, that is not mech anymore. That is air glop vs air glop
I don't think tempest are as big a threat to mech viability as you say, yes they are really good in shouting mech down, but I think the lack of punch in the mid-game factory units (tank, thor,cyclone, hellbat) is the biggest problem.
In bio/lib vs protoss tempest are also crucial to beating the composition, but they are expensive and hard to get and the danger of being overrun by bio in the middle of transition is big. With mech on the other hand, the mid-game army is so weak that it doesn't matter if the protoss tries to tech super fast, the mech player won't be able to stop him anyway.
First I think mech needs to be fixed in the early-mid game, with enfasis in tanks, thors and cyclones.
Altough I do agree that massive air blobs fighting each other is big concern, but its not like its a concern that only exist in mech match ups.
|
I played SC since around 1998/1999. I played all three races in Brood War at a decent level, getting to around B- or so on iccup at one point as random (in SC1 playing random was about 10x more difficult than SC2).
Just a bit of meta game background that i can fondly remember from when i was a noobie first starting to play SC1 online in BGH pub games:
I remember a game of BGH i was top left playing Terran and it was a 4v4. Back then, RTS was so new and concepts of playing optimally were non-existent. People didn't even understand basic concepts as walling off our bases with buildings lol.
Vultures in those n00b games were considered a trash tier unit (i know this sounds fucking hilarious). Eventually...like most players that wanted to get good i moved onto "low money maps" with a USEast clan.
As it turned out, vultures were one of the most necessary units in the game to play versus Protoss, and by our communities standards today, if we could go back in time, all of us would be yelling and screaming "OP OP NERF VULTURES MINES IMBA" instead of just "getting better."
Vulture/tank/goliath was the go-to strategy versus Protoss, and in fact bio was literally not viable ever besides a 6 rax marine medic build that would be considered quite all-in. Reavers and psi storm, which were very strong in SC1, completely shredded bio.
Bro, u bring some good old memories...
i like to use firebats against Protoss.
|
Ironic given the above discussion how Avilo lost a game in the WCS qualifier last night. (See this link starting 2hrs 24mins in):
http://www.twitch.tv/avilo/v/38258989
I know it's hard to tell exactly how well someone is playing but, to me, Avilo does a pretty incredible job of stopping the Protoss early cheese here. And despite this he can't exploit any advantage that, as a viewer, it feels he should have. In the end the game ascends/descends into an air war - and the game takes about an hour. Given that few people would argue about Avilo's ability with late game Raven/Viking - it's interesting that he just can't do anything vs mass tempest here. He tries nukes, emps, liberators. Even at the end he looks like he's engineered an outstanding engagement with mass marine and hunter/seeker (having emp'ed) but he still gets owned. Be interested in others' views but, to me, this game illustrates perfectly the point above ie there is something wrong with the Tempest in TvP.
(I'd actually go further and say the game illustrates a problem with balance in the early game also but hopefully the upcoming patch will address this.)
|
On January 30 2016 05:16 terrantosaur wrote:Ironic given the above discussion how Avilo lost a game in the WCS qualifier last night. (See this link starting 2hrs 24mins in): http://www.twitch.tv/avilo/v/38258989I know it's hard to tell exactly how well someone is playing but, to me, Avilo does a pretty incredible job of stopping the Protoss early cheese here. And despite this he can't exploit any advantage that, as a viewer, it feels he should have. In the end the game ascends/descends into an air war - and the game takes about an hour. Given that few people would argue about Avilo's ability with late game Raven/Viking - it's interesting that he just can't do anything vs mass tempest here. He tries nukes, emps, liberators. Even at the end he looks like he's engineered an outstanding engagement with mass marine and hunter/seeker (having emp'ed) but he still gets owned. Be interested in others' views but, to me, this game illustrates perfectly the point above ie there is something wrong with the Tempest in TvP. (I'd actually go further and say the game illustrates a problem with balance in the early game also but hopefully the upcoming patch will address this.)
Not only Tempest/storm composition late-game. But I've seen players included 4-5 Disruptors so Ghosts or tanks can't even zone out the Templar. It is absolutely impossible to engage the Protoss at that point; you might as well type GG, while your Defensive PF and Turrets slowly die to Disruptor shots while Templar and Tempest camp below them. It was funny to see Kifire only use one hotkey, while Avilo is trying to Micro Liberator, Raven, Ghost, Viking.
|
It's pretty well known that terran has to basically allin protoss and zerg before they get their unbeatable army in the current state of the game.
That's of course really bad for a player like avilo who excels in the lategame.
|
I can honestly not understand why Tempest only is 4 supply. Tempest should be unit for forcing engagements and picking of key units, not something you can mass up on.
I think all problems with Tempest could be easily solved by increasing their supply cost to 6.
|
On January 30 2016 05:16 terrantosaur wrote:Ironic given the above discussion how Avilo lost a game in the WCS qualifier last night. (See this link starting 2hrs 24mins in): http://www.twitch.tv/avilo/v/38258989I know it's hard to tell exactly how well someone is playing but, to me, Avilo does a pretty incredible job of stopping the Protoss early cheese here. And despite this he can't exploit any advantage that, as a viewer, it feels he should have. In the end the game ascends/descends into an air war - and the game takes about an hour. Given that few people would argue about Avilo's ability with late game Raven/Viking - it's interesting that he just can't do anything vs mass tempest here. He tries nukes, emps, liberators. Even at the end he looks like he's engineered an outstanding engagement with mass marine and hunter/seeker (having emp'ed) but he still gets owned. Be interested in others' views but, to me, this game illustrates perfectly the point above ie there is something wrong with the Tempest in TvP. (I'd actually go further and say the game illustrates a problem with balance in the early game also but hopefully the upcoming patch will address this.)
Yeh the game i played last night pretty much demonstrates everything written in my OP about air units...=/
|
this game is not sc1 time to deal with it. If you buff tanks you buff bio as well.
And when mech was playable in hots for a while it created AWFUL turtle games so I really hope they do not make the same mistake in lotv again. We might as well ask for swarm host buff because they are not longer viable :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
