Community Feedback Update - February 18 - Page 11

On February 19 2016 08:09 avilo wrote:
Ok 2 things i will write as constructive feedback as a player who's played Mech TvX for literally 95% of my SC2 games over the last 5-6 yrs that the game has been out:

a) Siege tank needs more damage to trade better. It's great blizzard is taking a step here, is it enough damage? Maybe, that's what testing is for to be honest, and if it goes live people will find out pretty fast if it really does make the tank able to hold it's ground better or not.

b) Even a bigger issue with mech...ANTI-AIR. Despite the siege tank sorta sucking...the worse problem is that mech cannot build an auto-attacking anti-air unit like the goliath to dissuade someone from just massing tempest, carrier, liberator, or broodlords.

Mech cyclones/thors need to be strengthened versus air to the point that they actually can kill tempests/carriers/brood/liberators. There previously was a thor change that might have done something like this that was randomly scrapped...

I can tell you 100% that every single mech game played at any decent level always devolves into both players spamming air units because mech can't go up to 8-10 factories and then switch production over to 8-12 goliaths like in SC1.

Along the same lines, tempests are only 4 supply. Liberators are 3 supply. Broodlords are only 4 supply...i have written already two-three long posts about how air units are way too strong in LOTV and in SC2 in general.

I honestly think blizzard has a really easy fix to the late game mass air deathball for all 3 races - increase the supply cost of all major air units in the game. What does this do? It makes it so Terran, Zerg, and Protoss ground armies in lategame always have more supply invested than an army that is pure air.

So if someone wants to turtle to mass air, the player that is making ground units is the one that inherently has more of the advantage, can push the action, and then both players are encouraged to make ground units to constantly fight and trade, rather than turtle into air units that can't be shot at by half of the ground units in the game.

Example changes;

Tempest supply cost increased to 8.
Carrier supply / BC supply increased to 8.
Broodlord supply increased to 6 (corruptor 2 supply, broodlord morph 4 supply).
Liberator supply increased to 4.
Raven supply increased to 3 (along with possible revert of some of the previous nerts in some way).
Viper supply increased to 4 (and parasitic bomb nerf hammered/removed since all these changes fix air).

If something like the above is done, we would not see air dominating every single match-up in every single game in late game.

It's just really frustrating to me as a Mech Terran that when i want to play Mech and be aggressive, i know that i basically can't be because my opponent sees i'm going mech and then starts massing tempests which invalidates every single unit i've built that's not a viking or raven.

I can show everyone here a replay pack of about 10-20+ Mech TvP that i have attempted and every single one Protoss scouts i'm "going mech" and then the game devolves into 4-10 tempests forcing me to sit in base and turtle into 15-25 vikings because there's not a single unit, including mass mine, that can fight mass tempest that has splash damage underneath. The same applies to TvT - bio Terran will just start spamming 100% liberator+viking and if you do not turtle into mass viking/raven/liberator yourself you autolose the game.

Mech needs an auto-attacking anti-air unit, and air needs to be toned down.

On February 19 2016 04:28 ArtyK wrote:
Sounds cool but how will the siege tank 3 shot a ravager (120hp and 1 armor) with 40 damage?

On February 19 2016 16:18 SC2Toastie wrote:

Sst Blizzard knows their own units!!

On February 19 2016 04:28 ArtyK wrote:
Sounds cool but how will the siege tank 3 shot a ravager (120hp and 1 armor) with 40 damage?

On February 19 2016 19:50 Cyro wrote:


yeah it would survive with 4hp even if they all fired at the same time

-----

As for design: I don't really understand the people who would rather have a weak flying tank instead of a strong immobile tank, given that you can't do both at the same time (adding power in one form means that you have to reduce it in the other for balance reasons)

The immobility is very core to the unit design - it's a siege tank.

On February 19 2016 16:18 SC2Toastie wrote:

Sst Blizzard knows their own units!!

On February 19 2016 18:56 zakadar wrote:
to pick up siege tank but then they are unsieged would be fine but a complete remove would be boring no mor micro possible to dodge corrosive biles or save them

On February 19 2016 20:31 Vanadiel wrote:


Quite simple, we all have play against mech, and for some people, including me, the experience against it is 95% of the time playing against turtle fest. I enjoy very much a game where it's a battle of mechanics, decision and position and thus I liked tankivacs (although I agree it was problematic in TvT), rather than who is going to be the most patient and turtle better.

When I watch this thread and post like those of Avilo, what I learn is that mech terran wants an even bigger buff of the tank, sometimes with a bigger range and less supply, stronger cyclone AA, and a nerf of lategame Air units. Am I wrong in assuming that? Because then what I read, is that they want an unbreakable ground army, especially in defensive position, and no late game solution to play against it. That will lead, in my opinion, only to even more turtle play which is completely boring, or more accurately, that turtle play will be the most efficient way to win the game. I've always thought that the whole "buff the tank and we won't turtle I promise" argument is completely wrong, and thus I fear we're going to get a repeat of the end of HoTS.

On February 19 2016 20:42 Sapphire.lux wrote:

Did you consider TvT mech vs bio in HOTS and WOL a "turtle fest" ? Because if yes, then it means you just don't like mech; if no, then that is what mech Terrans want in TvZ and TvP, and not what we actually got in HOTS due to Ravens.