|
On March 01 2016 06:58 PinoKotsBeer wrote:
Just lings counter Thors as well. Does that mean lings are OP?
lol, lings counter ONE thor, as soon as you have enough thors to make it impossible to do a full surround, lings are useless. Hell, even ultras melt to thors if they can't get enough surface area.
Avilo, I respect the work you put in this game and I think this is a good upgrade, but Thor's are such beefy tanky units that it seems once you reach that critical mass that nothing would counter this unit. Remember that mass Thor(zain) was a problem in WoL and it was toned down for a reason. I'm not entirely opposed to this because toss has feedback + immortals but Zerg's best counter, the viper may not even get a chance to use it's abilities if it gets shot down at 9 range or whatever the full range is.
with that said, would be nice if blizzard implemented this into a test map so there could be more widespread testing and feedback given directly to blizzard. I'm a fan of BW Goliath, but they were supposed to be massed because they were disposable, the Thor is a like a hero unit that never dies once it's upgraded.
edit: holy fuck, 13 range with splash damage? Take out the splash damage and we're looking at something much more fair, even then, 13 range? seriously? what's the point of ever needing to make a viking?
|
On March 03 2016 05:18 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2016 06:58 PinoKotsBeer wrote:
Just lings counter Thors as well. Does that mean lings are OP? lol, lings counter ONE thor, as soon as you have enough thors to make it impossible to do a full surround, lings are useless. Hell, even ultras melt to thors if they can't get enough surface area. Avilo, I respect the work you put in this game and I think this is a good upgrade, but Thor's are such beefy tanky units that it seems once you reach that critical mass that nothing would counter this unit. Remember that mass Thor(zain) was a problem in WoL and it was toned down for a reason. I'm not entirely opposed to this because toss has feedback + immortals but Zerg's best counter, the viper may not even get a chance to use it's abilities if it gets shot down at 9 range or whatever the full range is. with that said, would be nice if blizzard implemented this into a test map so there could be more widespread testing and feedback given directly to blizzard. I'm a fan of BW Goliath, but they were supposed to be massed because they were disposable, the Thor is a like a hero unit that never dies once it's upgraded. edit: holy fuck, 13 range with splash damage? Take out the splash damage and we're looking at something much more fair, even then, 13 range? seriously? what's the point of ever needing to make a viking?
Lings counter mass thors with ultras.
As for the thorzain thing, i clearly remember MC was clueless about what to do vs mech, and some of the maps were really narrow which helped as well as the strike cannon upgrade. They nerfed it after one bo5 series without even letting Protosses learn how to play (it was actually incredibly easy to counter "mass thors")
And the splash damage i specifically put in to help versus interceptors, i am probably going to lower the +.25 to .125 
|
Keep the upgrade but reduce vs ground dps. That was the weakness of the goliath. If you want your Thor to be goliath 2.0, it has to have a weakness as well.
If a unit is too good vs air and ground, you end up with a warhound.
|
On March 03 2016 05:27 avilo wrote:Lings counter mass thors with ultras. As for the thorzain thing, i clearly remember MC was clueless about what to do vs mech, and some of the maps were really narrow which helped as well as the strike cannon upgrade. They nerfed it after one bo5 series without even letting Protosses learn how to play (it was actually incredibly easy to counter "mass thors") And the splash damage i specifically put in to help versus interceptors, i am probably going to lower the +.25 to .125
but you're also going to have hellbats, tanks, widow mines and maybe even liberators, of course it won't just be mass ling vs mass thor, there will be ultras sure, but you'll have stronger tanks (if the latest tank buff patch goes live) and still have 3/3 hellbats which will melt lings and Thors will straight up body BL's/Vipers with 13 range.
limiting splash damage will help, but to truly compare the thor to the goliath, it needs weaker ground damage and less health.
|
I'm posting this here because I think this is what will make mech and the overall game work better for every race:
TERRAN
- Siege tanks: Damage buff, Unload unsieged from medivacs
- Liberators: Increase supply cost to 4, reduce move speed
- Cyclones: Lower cost, Increase HP
- Thors: Possibly boost AA vs armored (Avilo's upgrade ?)
ZERG
- Ravagers: Change to armored since they have +1 armor, increase morph time, possibly nerf corrosive bile
- Lurkers: Reduce their range, possibly give them bonus damage vs Light instead of vs Armored
- Nydus: Remove invincibility
- Ultra: Possibly reduce their armor to +6 instead of +8
PROTOSS
- Immortals: Increase cooldown on their shield
- Tempest: Increase their supply cost to 6, Reduce their range, Possibly make them only attack air
- Adept: Increase their cost to 150/25 or 125/25
- Disruptors: Remove their bonus damage agaisn't shield
|
On March 03 2016 08:51 MaxTa wrote:
PROTOSS
- Immortals: Remove autocast on their shield and make it manual with a cooldown
Just FYI, it already is, its just that most protoss don't turn auto cast off.
|
On March 03 2016 08:56 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 08:51 MaxTa wrote:
PROTOSS
- Immortals: Remove autocast on their shield and make it manual with a cooldown
Just FYI, it already is, its just that most protoss don't turn auto cast off.
yeah the change would be rather irrelevant, you always want to activate the shield when the engage happens, so it's just one more button to press.
|
On March 03 2016 05:27 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:18 emc wrote:On March 01 2016 06:58 PinoKotsBeer wrote:
Just lings counter Thors as well. Does that mean lings are OP? lol, lings counter ONE thor, as soon as you have enough thors to make it impossible to do a full surround, lings are useless. Hell, even ultras melt to thors if they can't get enough surface area. Avilo, I respect the work you put in this game and I think this is a good upgrade, but Thor's are such beefy tanky units that it seems once you reach that critical mass that nothing would counter this unit. Remember that mass Thor(zain) was a problem in WoL and it was toned down for a reason. I'm not entirely opposed to this because toss has feedback + immortals but Zerg's best counter, the viper may not even get a chance to use it's abilities if it gets shot down at 9 range or whatever the full range is. with that said, would be nice if blizzard implemented this into a test map so there could be more widespread testing and feedback given directly to blizzard. I'm a fan of BW Goliath, but they were supposed to be massed because they were disposable, the Thor is a like a hero unit that never dies once it's upgraded. edit: holy fuck, 13 range with splash damage? Take out the splash damage and we're looking at something much more fair, even then, 13 range? seriously? what's the point of ever needing to make a viking? Lings counter mass thors with ultras. As for the thorzain thing, i clearly remember MC was clueless about what to do vs mech, and some of the maps were really narrow which helped as well as the strike cannon upgrade. They nerfed it after one bo5 series without even letting Protosses learn how to play (it was actually incredibly easy to counter "mass thors") And the splash damage i specifically put in to help versus interceptors, i am probably going to lower the +.25 to .125
Why do you think terran should be able to win games making only one production building? There has been plenty of arguments in this thread why it doesnt and shouldnt work. Its obvious you invested a lot of effort into your idea. Sometimes an idea is just not worth pursuing.
SC2 isnt scbw and hopefully never will be. I for one dont enjoy playing or watching hour long turtlefests but hey, theres always brood war for that. I hear they even have goliaths there!
|
On March 03 2016 08:56 Lexender wrote:
Show nested quote +
Just FYI, it already is, its just that most protoss don't turn auto cast off.
yeah the change would be rather irrelevant, you always want to activate the shield when the engage happens, so it's just one more button to press.
Yes but I'm afraid most players are just not caring about it and keeping it auto and "a" moving randomly and still doing a pretty damn good job... But perhaps cooldown could be increased as well...
|
I'm sad to say this but last community update :
"We see Terran players fielding a good mix of Bio and Mech units—do we really have to split those two strategies again?
We definitely understand this stance. Perhaps Terran is more fun to play with and watch if there’s always a mix of the two like we’re currently seeing, and maybe we don’t need them to be completely split."
We see, of course, bio play integrate some amout of support from the factory and the SP.
Now I'd be interested to see a mech army with bio support that isn't ghostmech.
Translation, DK is basically stating that mech should be cut as a viable core army.
So much for diversity.
|
On March 03 2016 08:51 MaxTa wrote:
- Lurkers: Reduce their range, possibly make their bonus damage vs Light instead of Armored
don't you dare touch my lurkers you savage! seriously, lurkers are the best thing to happen to zerg since HotS swarm host and they are fine as is. They cost a shit ton and take forever to build towards safely. Lurkers are T2.5 and counter T2.
|
On March 03 2016 09:11 Branch.AUT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:27 avilo wrote:On March 03 2016 05:18 emc wrote:On March 01 2016 06:58 PinoKotsBeer wrote:
Just lings counter Thors as well. Does that mean lings are OP? lol, lings counter ONE thor, as soon as you have enough thors to make it impossible to do a full surround, lings are useless. Hell, even ultras melt to thors if they can't get enough surface area. Avilo, I respect the work you put in this game and I think this is a good upgrade, but Thor's are such beefy tanky units that it seems once you reach that critical mass that nothing would counter this unit. Remember that mass Thor(zain) was a problem in WoL and it was toned down for a reason. I'm not entirely opposed to this because toss has feedback + immortals but Zerg's best counter, the viper may not even get a chance to use it's abilities if it gets shot down at 9 range or whatever the full range is. with that said, would be nice if blizzard implemented this into a test map so there could be more widespread testing and feedback given directly to blizzard. I'm a fan of BW Goliath, but they were supposed to be massed because they were disposable, the Thor is a like a hero unit that never dies once it's upgraded. edit: holy fuck, 13 range with splash damage? Take out the splash damage and we're looking at something much more fair, even then, 13 range? seriously? what's the point of ever needing to make a viking? Lings counter mass thors with ultras. As for the thorzain thing, i clearly remember MC was clueless about what to do vs mech, and some of the maps were really narrow which helped as well as the strike cannon upgrade. They nerfed it after one bo5 series without even letting Protosses learn how to play (it was actually incredibly easy to counter "mass thors") And the splash damage i specifically put in to help versus interceptors, i am probably going to lower the +.25 to .125 Why do you think terran should be able to win games making only one production building? There has been plenty of arguments in this thread why it doesnt and shouldnt work. Its obvious you invested a lot of effort into your idea. Sometimes an idea is just not worth pursuing. SC2 isnt scbw and hopefully never will be. I for one dont enjoy playing or watching hour long turtlefests but hey, theres always brood war for that. I hear they even have goliaths there!
There's nothing wrong with *wanting* it, the issue comes with why.
As an example: All protoss compositions are gateway compositions + support. And people are okay with that, and even define protoss compositions based on their support pieces instead of their main composition pieces.
Zealot, Stalker, +3-4 colossus? Robo comp.
Zealot, Stalker, +4-5 Voidrays? Stargate comp.
etc...
This does not extend to Terran because people are fixated with using BW terms to define SC2 terms.
In BW, there were three main compositions. Bio, Mech, and Biomech. This was because the barracks was a terrible tech tree.
Barracks only produced marines, medics. Sure, there were ghosts and firebats--but for the most part the composition was just Marines and Medics. No one called it a "firebat comp" if you had Marine, Medic, +2-6 firebats like they do with SC2 because the meat of the composition was the marines.
Bio play essentially became Marine, Medic, Science Vessel
Biomech play essentially became Marine, Medic, Siege Tank, +1-4 Science Vessels
And mech play became Factory play.
And this is where the translation issues crop up.
In BW, barracks tech was terrible, non-adaptive, and easy to counter. It was only really used in 1 matchup, and even then was not the only thing you could do in that matchup. A switch happened when SC2 came about.
First, there were more ways to fight the Siege Tank.
Second, the factory units became more linear.
Third, the barracks tech was diversified.
Now Terran is designed similar to Protoss. Barracks forms the main portion of the composition, with the expectation of support units coming to bear from the Factory and Starport.
This was most exemplified in WoL TvZ when it was Marine, Siege Tank, Medivac compositions. However, the BW elites have already decided that any composition with Marines is considered bio, that they did not like that Wings of Liberty literally had a race that used an equal amount of emphasis on Barracks, Factory, and Starport play. For the most part, the starport use in SC2 is so extensive and so understated that it really hurts the narrative.
No one says that Marine/Maruader/Medivac is Air-Bio or Starracks Play because people want to paint the picture that bio play is barracks only play--which it isn't.
|
- Lurkers: Reduce their range, possibly make their bonus damage vs Light instead of Armored
don't you dare touch my lurkers you savage! seriously, lurkers are the best thing to happen to zerg since HotS swarm host and they are fine as is. They cost a shit ton and take forever to build towards safely. Lurkers are T2.5 and counter T2.
Lol ya well of course I'm suggesting a lot of change at the same time and I think it would be too much in one update so I would start with at least the ravagers problem... Then see about lurkers... But what I'm suggesting wouldn't necessarily kill lurkers, they would actually be better vs T and their Bio like they were in BW and would be good agaisn't zealots/adepts as well so maybe they would fulfill their role even better.
The range nerf we would have to see about that but I just think 9 is kinda absurd.. Colo and immortals can't even get close...
|
your Country52797 Posts
On March 03 2016 05:12 SC2Toastie wrote:
Wow, Avilo actually comes with a good initiative.
Yet the thread is dominated by trolls posting dumb one-liners and extremely flawed reasoning.
I miss the good old days when TL was still a forum in which quality was maintained...
I'm not sure how your post is really helping in this discussion.
|
On March 03 2016 05:12 SC2Toastie wrote:
Wow, Avilo actually comes with a good initiative.
Yet the thread is dominated by trolls posting dumb one-liners and extremely flawed reasoning.
I miss the good old days when TL was still a forum in which quality was maintained...
Toastie at it again, I see.
|
On March 03 2016 09:45 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 09:11 Branch.AUT wrote:On March 03 2016 05:27 avilo wrote:On March 03 2016 05:18 emc wrote:On March 01 2016 06:58 PinoKotsBeer wrote:
Just lings counter Thors as well. Does that mean lings are OP? lol, lings counter ONE thor, as soon as you have enough thors to make it impossible to do a full surround, lings are useless. Hell, even ultras melt to thors if they can't get enough surface area. Avilo, I respect the work you put in this game and I think this is a good upgrade, but Thor's are such beefy tanky units that it seems once you reach that critical mass that nothing would counter this unit. Remember that mass Thor(zain) was a problem in WoL and it was toned down for a reason. I'm not entirely opposed to this because toss has feedback + immortals but Zerg's best counter, the viper may not even get a chance to use it's abilities if it gets shot down at 9 range or whatever the full range is. with that said, would be nice if blizzard implemented this into a test map so there could be more widespread testing and feedback given directly to blizzard. I'm a fan of BW Goliath, but they were supposed to be massed because they were disposable, the Thor is a like a hero unit that never dies once it's upgraded. edit: holy fuck, 13 range with splash damage? Take out the splash damage and we're looking at something much more fair, even then, 13 range? seriously? what's the point of ever needing to make a viking? Lings counter mass thors with ultras. As for the thorzain thing, i clearly remember MC was clueless about what to do vs mech, and some of the maps were really narrow which helped as well as the strike cannon upgrade. They nerfed it after one bo5 series without even letting Protosses learn how to play (it was actually incredibly easy to counter "mass thors") And the splash damage i specifically put in to help versus interceptors, i am probably going to lower the +.25 to .125 Why do you think terran should be able to win games making only one production building? There has been plenty of arguments in this thread why it doesnt and shouldnt work. Its obvious you invested a lot of effort into your idea. Sometimes an idea is just not worth pursuing. SC2 isnt scbw and hopefully never will be. I for one dont enjoy playing or watching hour long turtlefests but hey, theres always brood war for that. I hear they even have goliaths there! There's nothing wrong with *wanting* it, the issue comes with why. As an example: All protoss compositions are gateway compositions + support. And people are okay with that, and even define protoss compositions based on their support pieces instead of their main composition pieces. Zealot, Stalker, +3-4 colossus? Robo comp. Zealot, Stalker, +4-5 Voidrays? Stargate comp. etc... This does not extend to Terran because people are fixated with using BW terms to define SC2 terms. In BW, there were three main compositions. Bio, Mech, and Biomech. This was because the barracks was a terrible tech tree. Barracks only produced marines, medics. Sure, there were ghosts and firebats--but for the most part the composition was just Marines and Medics. No one called it a "firebat comp" if you had Marine, Medic, +2-6 firebats like they do with SC2 because the meat of the composition was the marines. Bio play essentially became Marine, Medic, Science Vessel Biomech play essentially became Marine, Medic, Siege Tank, +1-4 Science Vessels And mech play became Factory play. And this is where the translation issues crop up. In BW, barracks tech was terrible, non-adaptive, and easy to counter. It was only really used in 1 matchup, and even then was not the only thing you could do in that matchup. A switch happened when SC2 came about. First, there were more ways to fight the Siege Tank. Second, the factory units became more linear. Third, the barracks tech was diversified. Now Terran is designed similar to Protoss. Barracks forms the main portion of the composition, with the expectation of support units coming to bear from the Factory and Starport. This was most exemplified in WoL TvZ when it was Marine, Siege Tank, Medivac compositions. However, the BW elites have already decided that any composition with Marines is considered bio, that they did not like that Wings of Liberty literally had a race that used an equal amount of emphasis on Barracks, Factory, and Starport play. For the most part, the starport use in SC2 is so extensive and so understated that it really hurts the narrative. No one says that Marine/Maruader/Medivac is Air-Bio or Starracks Play because people want to paint the picture that bio play is barracks only play--which it isn't.
Altough this is a good argument is still too narrow minded.
First, you can't really compare, for example, robo protoss (like most people do) to terran factory, robos produce only 4 units, 2 of wich aren't actual army units, where a factory can produce 6 units. Not to mention that, theoretically, a factory can produce anything it needs to work in an autonomous way, from harass to AA to AoE, to pretty much everything.
Second, of course, upgrades work differently, ground shares upgrades in protoss and also shields wich all units share, where the only upgrade that its currently shared in terran is the armor for factory and starport.
Third, and probably the most important one, is production, all 3 production buildings for terran work the same, building -> make add on -> queue unit -> wait for unit to be produced -> walk unit across the map. Protoss in the other hand has chrono boost and warp gate, it works so you make power units, robo or stargate, then you walk them and warp gateway units while in the map, protoss players has very expensive units, but it is supported by the fact that the gateway units can be warped at the cost of being weak-ish (not so much the case right now, but lets say it is).
All this means that while protoss depends on power units, terran kind of doesn't, sure there are units that are expensive but they don't work in the same way, this, and upgrades being not shared and also the lack of synergy, make the difference between mech and bio.
Just look at the games tagged bio and the ones tagged mech, how many factories are made by a bio player? how many starport? how many are made by a mech player? Have you seen a bio player get 3-3 for mech and go over 3 factories?
Both styles make all units, ghost-mech has been a thing since forever, but the difference is the core, is not the same a bio army backed up by factory-starport units compared to a mech army backed up by barracks-starport units.
Also theres nothing wron with starport units, at all, its just that mech has depended too much on it, and it kind makes for bad gameplay, depending on making mass air is not really good. Actually if you have put any attention even Avilo himself has said that air play is way to predominant compared to ground play, and for ALL races, air being stronger than ground (muta switches in ZvP, mass libs, broodlord/viper, etc) even pro players have said that. Even I personally think protoss shouldn't depend on phoenix (vZ) and tempest (vT) so much and instead have better ground AA options, for example.
|
Leaving aside whether this suggestion is good or bad. The fact remains that Blizzard doesn't care/doesn't want to make any changes to mech´s design issues. They also show a track record of constantly choosing to ignore/not implement a community presented idea/solution to broken mechanics/units.
|
Hey Guys,
Blizzard promised to do something for mech. I still have hope. And they will do something for mech...
|
On March 03 2016 00:28 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2016 21:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 01 2016 08:29 Branch.AUT wrote:On March 01 2016 06:44 avilo wrote:
Mech in SC2 has no unit at all from the factory currently that can fight versus massed air of any race. Liberators, BCS, tempests, carriers, broods...name a unit from the factory that can fight evenly or beat these. There is none currently, which is why mech is utter garbage.
This argument seems to surface every time as a driving factor when the Terran mech fix threads come up. In my opinion it is a logical fallacy. I mech, therefore my playstyle must have an answer to all my opponents options just sounds broken to me. Just because it used to be like this in this other game? Take a step back for a moment and consider the following: An army that cannot be defeated in a direct engagement. Does that sound fun to you? It sure doesn't sound fun to me, cause you know how it's going to end before the game even starts. This is one possible explanation for blizzard treating mech as more of a support/augment role to a different core. A different way of looking at this is, games that involve one player going mech, tend to be very slow and stationary on one side of the map. This is a spectator's game, or at least the developers want it to be. Having nothing happen at all on one side, into a masterfully executed slow push that wins the game is hard to appreciate for many people. I know it is for me. As much as it pains me to say this, SC2 as a spectator sport, is better of without the kind of games, that come with pure mech compositions known from SCBW. i don't think you should be able to win every game pumping units out of 1 building type. Imagine if Protoss had no stalker/templars available from the gateway. Every single game you realize Protoss builds 5-15 or so gateways versus all races. But if suddenly there was no available anti-air option from gateways...it means once the opponent decides to make any amount of air, Protoss would literally have to sit in his base and turtle until he has mass phoenix, voids, tempests, carriers as those are the only units able to deal with air. All of the gateways he's built up the entire game now completely do not matter - as the only thing that matters is anti-air in that hypothetical situation. That is the core issue with mech. Since the units that come from the factory suck so badly, you're by definition forced to turtle and sit in your base and do nothing if your opponent spams air - all of your factories are invalidated. That is NOT right, nor does it promote healthy or action packed gameplay to force a player to sit and do nothing and mass air to counter air. The only argument people can make against that is "but avilo you don't HAVE to play mech! Go bio and make marines!" And those are the people that would be happy if every single game would be broodlord infestor until the end of time, or bio 99% of games until the end of time and i'm not going to bother responding to those people because they don't have the best interests of the longevity of SC2 in mind.
thx for ur thoughtful reply. here is what i'm against from a philosophical perspective. Before the game even starts i decide:
"i'm going to win this game with Thors, Tanks, Hellions/Bats, Cyclones, and Widow Mines."
What I prefer is: as the game develops a certain percentage of times the best way to win turns out to be by using a composition of factory units. Great... i'm cool with that.
I agree that Terran air is too strong and Terran ground is too weak. I want the Liberator nerfed and I want the Thor and Tank made less mobile ( via a Medivac nerf) ; also, the Thor and Tank damage buffed. But, I don't want them buffed to the extent that i can do nothing but build factory units every game and have a winning percentage anything close to what i'd have if i were willing to employ any strategy including any combo of Rax, Factory and Starport units.
Your stance about SC being primarily a game of ground armies .. i'm not so sure Blizzard holds that view. Brood War added the Corsair, Valkrie, and Devourer.
|
On March 03 2016 11:10 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Your stance about SC being primarily a game of ground armies .. i'm not so sure Blizzard holds that view. Brood War added the Corsair, Valkrie, and Devourer.
Blizzard also had something they called an Air Balance Model that they developed for Starcraft. It's still available on classic.battle.net's Starcraft Compendium (http://classic.battle.net/scc/)
Air Balance Model
The Support Air Units (Corsair, Valkyrie, Devourer) do very well versus the Tactical Air Units of the other species (Scout, Wraith, Mutalisk). The new units in Brood War are intended to be support units, meaning that you cannot win the game with them. Capital Ships (Battlecruiser, Carrier) are equipped to deal with these Supporting Air Units in deadly fashion. The key to retaining air superiority is to be the player with the most balanced air force.
Example: The Devourer is not meant to be a strong attack unit on its own, but rather as a powerful support unit for the Mutalisk. The designed usage of the Devourer is to use them for your initial attack and then, after the Devourer has splashed Acid Spores onto an opponent’s force, bring in the Mutalisks to make short work of them.
It didn't quite work out how they wanted, I think, but they very effectively created a situation where large investments in air superiority units didn't produce an air force that could effectively participate in a head to head ground army fight. Mutalisks harassed, Corsair/Reaver harassed and dodged the Zerg army, 2-port Wraith openings avoided straight up fights with Hydralisks. SC2 completely broke that. Phoenix can be extremely effective at crowd control by targeting key units such as Tanks, Immortals, or Lurkers. Mass Mutalisks has been problematic for most of SC2's life. Liberators... are replacing Tanks for area control. Compared to BW where only capital ships were extremely good at AtG, SC2 has Void Rays, Banshees, Mutalisks, Phoenix (depending on the enemy unit composition), Liberators.. That air balance model that worked in BW is gone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
