Call to Action: February 23 Balance Testing - Page 9

On February 25 2016 06:02 Elentos wrote:

Oh god please no.

On February 25 2016 06:06 Spinoza wrote:


A small group of people as opposed to a large group of people ... I prefer the larger group. What is in your opinion better with decisions made by a small group?

On February 25 2016 06:10 sAsImre wrote:


They can take decisions unanimously. They're specialized in what they're doing. The community is full of ignorant whine and shouldn't be listened too much. On the other hand actually taking feedback from kr pros could be good.

On February 25 2016 05:57 Psychobabas wrote:


This guy is not biased in anyway lol

Liberator
Casting range of Defender Mode reduced from 5 to 4

The fact that this unit comes out at Star port (with no need for tech lab or fusion core), this should have been in place from the start. Being forced to open ravagers just to defend liberators (without the guarantee that they're even going libs) is silly.

On February 25 2016 05:52 QzYSc2 wrote:


which is exactly why the tankivac should stay. aggressive games are the most exciting. if i wanted to play your so called 'strategical positioning' and turtle with 50 siege tanks behind turrets and planetaries until i max out i would replay the campaign.

On February 25 2016 06:06 sAsImre wrote:


strategic thinking is often equal to a ratio of 2 turrets/tank.

Funny that you think this game wasn't about strategy when it went almost immediately to a low eco situation.

On February 25 2016 07:14 JackONeill wrote:


Yeah, as said the mighty DK : http://i.imgur.com/I2Qu0oK.jpg
And the shortcut "strategical positioning" => "turtle" is as stupid as the rest of your post.
Agressive games are nice, but only agressive games with the same composition with no possibility for variation isn't something you should have in a strategy game. I'd direct you to CS:GO, but there's probably more strategy involved than with the tankivac TvT, and you can choose your stuff instead of being forced into going AK47 each game.



Liberators in TvP allowed some pretty nice macro games TvP, with constant agression while terran was playing defensively. I'm thinking about TY and Taeja games in particular. Yet another example that the shortcut "strategy" + "positioning" = "turtle" is stupid.

How is low eco situation strategy friendly??? That's an idiotic thing to say, by definition low eco limits strategic options and encourages micro.

Anyways, people wanting the tankivac to stay in the game seem to be forgeting that there's "strategy" in the word RTS. Being forced into a sole composition that denies defender's advantage has nothing to do with strategy. Even in TvZ, the tankivac allows terran to harass strongly with no risk whatsoever.
This mechanic needs to go, and I'm glad blizzard is finally considering making intelligent cuts on the bad designed stuff.

On February 25 2016 05:24 NewSunshine wrote:

It's not just about what you think is "cool to watch", because people disagree on that. SC2 is supposed to be a game, so the pieces in it should be designed to have a distinctly clear goal. Mech should be a more straight up powerful strategy, that comes with the cost of mobility. Bio should have the edge in mobility, but lose to stronger armies straight up. When you have Tankivacs, suddenly both playstyles are now the same. When the once-positional unit can now be whisked all over the place in a high-speed Medivac, that defeats the very identity of Mech play.

If you want units that have mobility and can be picked up by medivacs, you should be playing Bio, that's what Bio does. When you opt for Mech, you should be opting for a more positional strategy, where the placement of your units matters, with the Siege Tank at the core. If you take Siege Tanks and give them all the mobility of Bio by letting Medivacs do their thing with them, there's no choice in playstyle anymore, because both paths are the same.

On February 25 2016 07:29 QzYSc2 wrote:


1. i never said anything about worker harrassment.
2. calling my post stupid does not win you the discussion. Your post was so stupid. what an counter argument.
3. if you're gonna tell me to play cs:go only because i like aggressive games, i can tell you to play europa universalis 4 which has an wider array of strategies compared to your only bio/mech fantasy. AND even play your strategical positioning game of camping in the mountains for a -2 dice roll bonus! also go fuck yourself for name calling.

On February 25 2016 07:47 JackONeill wrote:


I'm very fond of your logic, going from "calling my post stupid does not make you right" to "go fuck yourself", that's a real display of intelligence.
Thanks for discrediting what you write on your own, I don't have to do it myself. The fact that your only grid of analysis for these kind of games is "they're agressive wow so cool" also contributes to prove how little you understand about the game (since it's your only argument) : so not only are you rude, but you are ignorant too.

On February 24 2016 16:03 bObA wrote:
And I guess that's the end of Liberator's harass

On February 25 2016 07:11 slit wrote:


You can say exactly the same with any unit Z throws at you. Being forced to open tanks (TvZ) or cyclones (TvP) just to defend Ravagers or Warp Prism Adept (without the guarantee that they're even going those) is silly.

On February 25 2016 08:01 QzYSc2 wrote:


yes, i responded with the same childish fallacies you put me up with.you do not seem to realize i did that on purpose. if you responded as an adult, i would have aswell, but it seems are/were you incapable of doing so,so i reply with insults aswell, simple really. 'oh wow so much strategical depth' is your only argument 'also contributes how little u understand about this game'.
YOU are the one starting to call my posts stupid, YOU started being rude. i just play along.

On February 25 2016 08:04 slit wrote:
@JackONeill: It was, and I remember some late HoTS InNovation games playing that way... awesome indeed. The problem nowadays is that TvT seems to rely only in this composition, Tankivac-ahoy. But to me, it adds another choice pick into playstiles, and T is far from being varied.

On February 25 2016 08:10 JackONeill wrote:
Oh yes please, tell me how you dragged yourself down to my level of communication. By stating "also go fuck yourself for name calling", when there was absolutely no name calling on my post.

About the fact I don't have arguments of my own... I didn't think I'd be able to quote myself until I became a university teacher, but since you seem to have trouble reading :

only agressive games with the same composition with no possibility for variation isn't something you should have in a strategy game

Well that's the main argument against the tankivac : it forces TvT games to be about one composition only, which is kinda sad. Mech vs bio TvT on WOL were so fun to watch.

To sum up (for your reading issues... or comprehension issues I dunno) :
- tankivac forces you into only one composition in TvT => fact, from what we've seen of pro level
- tankivac/marine play is strategically poor => subjective, can be discussed

Your sole argument is :
- strategic/positional play equals camp => IDIOTIC

So please, I'm interested, tell me how many arguments you brought to the table. And please stop embarassing yourself by pretending I insult you by proving how poor and barren your reflexion is.