|
On March 09 2016 22:59 PressureSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +Bio = The majority of your army composition is mobile.
Mech = The backbone of your army composition is immobile/positional
This is true - but to go further the reason that it is important for Terran to have different "styles", and not just an equal production of all types of units, is that we must commit quite heavily to only one of the following: Double EB upgrades into 9+ Barracks; - OR - Double Armory upgrades into 5+ Factories If you truly want mixed army play - do you combine all weapon upgrades (vehicle + infantry) and armor upgrades (vehicle + infantry), as well as delete the factory from the game entirely and just have all ground vehicles come out from the nine barracks? How do you get around this so that most of your production buildings create 3-3 units in the late game?
While a contributing factor, I don't agree this is the core issue. Rather the issue is a lack of synergy. LIke why exactly would you mix in banshee's with bio? What does banshee's do you which you couldn't do with bio (+ Liberators).
On the other hand there is room for banshee + mech play as there is a bit of synergy there. However, the gas cost of banshee's would have to be reduced + terran mech also needs a decent tool of taking down static defense so photon cannons/spore crawlers/turrets doesn't hardcounter banshee's.
Really? I think it is pretty easy to learn Zerg. (Comming from Bio Terran). Protoss is a harder nut cause of the important timings, the production and the compositions, but Zerg was very easy to learn for me (and also to control). Much easier then my tries with mech in HotS.
Ton of timings you need to figure out. Also, I find zerg pretty boring (lack of micro). Further note that protoss still doesn't have any real positional units. (Positional = a unit that despite being outnumbered can be extremely cost efficient at a specific location).
|
IMO the only possibility to make 100 supply Mech good, while not making 200 supply Mech IMBA, is to introduce some kind of AI penalty with higher numbers.
Examples:
- remove smart fire
- introduce some kind of range or precision reduction mechanic, if several Siege Tanks are too close to each other
- increase friendly fire dealt by Siege Tanks, which would allow for more counterplay (Zealot bombs, unburrowing burrow move Roaches on top of Tanks, etc.)
All these features were present in BW and made Mech scale worse with higher numbers, than it does in SC2.
|
I pretty much agree with everything written there. It's just amazing to not have to play against mech anymore, because it really is boring. Nerfing this mech bull**** is probably the best change they ever made. I also believe that Zerg doesnt need a buff against Terran. Ultras are so damn strong anyway and in the early game, zerg also has a lot of different Options (to defend AND to attack). I'm curious whether they will nerf ravagers further (not just cooldown) and decrease their damage as well. This would be an overreaction though...
I also believe Protoss underperforming was mainly caused by the old, spamable Photon overcharge. Every Protoss learned to defend early rushes mainly with Photon overcharge and no unit control. They just need some time do adapt, i think.
|
IMO the only possibility to make 100 supply Mech good, while not making 200 supply Mech IMBA, is to introduce some kind of AI penalty with higher numbers.
200 supply siege tanks won't be OP if they need to be spread out all over the map and the opponent has tools for consistent army trading.
Further, who said the Siege tank needs to counter every single ground unit? What if Siege tanks were bad vs massive units, but the Liberator had bonus damage vs massive units?
This way both positional units gets a unique role and while Siege tanks will be strong in the midgame, there is a bit of counteroptions in the late game.
And if terran gets liberators, opponent can get the counter to liberators --> Then mech player can readjust his composition once again.
Tons of unused opportunites for mech play in Sc2.
|
On March 09 2016 23:11 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +IMO the only possibility to make 100 supply Mech good, while not making 200 supply Mech IMBA, is to introduce some kind of AI penalty with higher numbers. 200 supply siege tanks won't be OP if they need to be spread out all over the map and the opponent has tools for consistent army trading. Further, who said the Siege tank needs to counter every single ground unit? What if Siege tanks were bad vs massive units, but the Liberator had bonus damage vs massive units? This way both positional units gets a unique role and while Siege tanks will be strong in the midgame, there is a bit of counteroptions in the late game. And if terran gets liberators, opponent can get the counter to liberators --> Then mech player can readjust his composition once again. Tons of unused opportunites for mech play in Sc2.
I don't think that that will work out the way you envision it. The following scenario is far more likely: Siege Tanks get a buff because medivac pickup gets removed. Terran suddenly realize that Thanks are now so strong, that they can just hit a timing and kill the opponent. Especially with the aid of stim Marines.
|
On March 09 2016 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 21:34 JackONeill wrote:On March 09 2016 21:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 09 2016 21:22 JackONeill wrote:On March 09 2016 21:03 Hider wrote:Wow so much moaning, seriously? I'm one of the biggest balance whiners myself, but isn't David trying really hard to please the scene?
No it's PR. Look at what he said 1-2 weeks ago on the tank buff. Something about "we want to make them more immobile to create the Siege Tank fantasy". What would have made him change his mind from the last community feedback to this one? Most likely nothing changed, and I don't believe for a second DK actually believed what he wrote there. He doesn't like Siege Tank mech and he demonstrates that with this Community feedback (and he said so in interviews previously). Further, clearly loves the high skill cap of pick up micro so Siege Tank pickup was always going to stay. It was just a PR move so he can tell fans "oh we tried to test your solutions, they just didn't work out". I noticed a lot of the changes where DK opts for extreme solutions in these community feedbacks, and each time I think to myself "no way", and every time I end up being correct. Also look at all the times he write "we'v seen your feedback on xx, we agreed with your feedback on xx". He uses that quote so many times just to show us that he reads stuff. But if he really cared about feedback, a proper and interesting way to play mech in all 3 matchups would have existed. I agree with you. But what really bothers me is that DK and his team crossed the line of not making sense anymore. Well, actually they did during the beta with the 30 dmg zealot charge, but as a terrible singer once said, "oops, they did it again". The very idea of "biomech", "mixed armies", is actually bio with facto/SP support, which is the norm since WOL. I mean pure bio NEVER worked, excepted for MKP in WoL and Maru in HOTS. And now, we can read "lol go banshee with bio i dunno can be cool lol". Diversity in LOTV, for the terran race, is the wonderfull choice to go for bio liberators, or bio tank. Such interesting diversity. I used to be concerned, and discuss the community feedback at length. But now I just get angry at the total absence of logic in these posts. There's also bio with and combination of hellion/hellbat, widow mines and ghosts and vikings as well. Oh and some pro games mix it up with thors vs ultras. And bio consists of 3 different units. But I guess there isn't enough diversity there. But yeah PR man is PR man. Bio with a combination of hellion/hellbat is a allin/timing attack. Bio with ghosts... is bio. Mines and vikings are used with bio since HOTS and WOL, nothing new here. So the idea that the comps are now "mixed" is BS. "And bio constits of three different units" : wooow, such diversity. Just look at protoss. Every unit in the protoss army has a role, and can be used in every MU except PvP. And just watch pro games. TvT : marine tankivacs TvP : bio mines => bio liberators (+ vikings sometimes) TvZ : bio tanks/bio mines => bio liberators My prediction : this isn't gonna change. Ever. Because bio needs support units that compensate for the bio's weaknesses. You won't be able to go anything but bio tanks or bio mines in TvZ because you need AoE, for instance. Just today Alive was using hellion/hellbats in his bio army along with widow mines against Losira as a standard army. Really though, calling all the various combinations of playstyles and unit compositions of everything as bio is getting really tiresome. You are calling all the various combinations of marine, maurader, medivac, widowmine, widow mine, viking, ghost as bio in your post. Absurd.
What I'm calling "bio" is what people have been calling bio based compositions for 6 years. You don't understand what I'm not agreeing with : DK is stating that LOTV mixed up bio and mech. Which is wrong. All bio based compositions relied on facto/SP tech since WOL. As you say, mine, vikings, tanks, etc.
So the only different thing in LOTV is the addition of the liberator. You get one more support option for bio comps.
So what changed since HOTS? You get one more support unit for bio, and mech isn't viable anymore. That's hardly a fusion between mech and bio. On the two core army options terran had, one is now unviable, and we get liberator support for bio in exchange. Which explains how dishonnest DK post about "mixing up" bio and mech is wrong.
It's really not about "what is bio" or if "mech should be viable". It's about strategic diversity being poorer, and DK being dishonnest about it.
|
nice to see the RTS Team/DK also listens to feedback from Non-Korean and Non-English sources.
|
On March 09 2016 23:11 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +IMO the only possibility to make 100 supply Mech good, while not making 200 supply Mech IMBA, is to introduce some kind of AI penalty with higher numbers. 200 supply siege tanks won't be OP if they need to be spread out all over the map and the opponent has tools for consistent army trading. Further, who said the Siege tank needs to counter every single ground unit? What if Siege tanks were bad vs massive units, but the Liberator had bonus damage vs massive units? This way both positional units gets a unique role and while Siege tanks will be strong in the midgame, there is a bit of counteroptions in the late game. And if terran gets liberators, opponent can get the counter to liberators --> Then mech player can readjust his composition once again. Tons of unused opportunites for mech play in Sc2.
I don't get it.... right now 200 supply is not OP anymore.The foundation is good so we keep it and tweak it.
The turtle play is good or bad depend on how long you turtle,not because you are turtling.
Factory mech turtle to 200 is never boring,the reason it boring because T3 teach.
We just make mech play like zerg.They can turtle and being aggressive (100 supply mech) but they must reach to point they must move out or they lose advantage.
Raven and BC are the reason make mech has infinity advantage.
I don't believe the game will be boring if you make 200 supply factory mech and move out.
200 supply factory mech never reach in late game stage.It just need figure out certain timing to punish who just saw mech and go straigh air in start of the game.
I like the patern of PvZ.We should make mech like zerg move out 200 supply lurker push before tempest and HT count become too high.
We can even buff factory unit and increase it supply to make it max out more easier.Just like zerg.Of course they also have another option is move out in 100 supply.
There is nothing wrong about turtle it's about how long you turtle.
|
On March 09 2016 23:17 CheddarToss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 23:11 Hider wrote:IMO the only possibility to make 100 supply Mech good, while not making 200 supply Mech IMBA, is to introduce some kind of AI penalty with higher numbers. 200 supply siege tanks won't be OP if they need to be spread out all over the map and the opponent has tools for consistent army trading. Further, who said the Siege tank needs to counter every single ground unit? What if Siege tanks were bad vs massive units, but the Liberator had bonus damage vs massive units? This way both positional units gets a unique role and while Siege tanks will be strong in the midgame, there is a bit of counteroptions in the late game. And if terran gets liberators, opponent can get the counter to liberators --> Then mech player can readjust his composition once again. Tons of unused opportunites for mech play in Sc2. I don't think that that will work out the way you envision it. The following scenario is far more likely: Siege Tanks get a buff because medivac pickup gets removed. Terran suddenly realize that Thanks are now so strong, that they can just hit a timing and kill the opponent. Especially with the aid of stim Marines.
Oh yeh, my suggestion requires a lot of other types of changes. Sc2 is flawed in a ton of way because Blizzard isn't willing to change/redesign exsiting flawed units.
|
On March 09 2016 23:11 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +IMO the only possibility to make 100 supply Mech good, while not making 200 supply Mech IMBA, is to introduce some kind of AI penalty with higher numbers. 200 supply siege tanks won't be OP if they need to be spread out all over the map and the opponent has tools for consistent army trading. Further, who said the Siege tank needs to counter every single ground unit? What if Siege tanks were bad vs massive units, but the Liberator had bonus damage vs massive units? This way both positional units gets a unique role and while Siege tanks will be strong in the midgame, there is a bit of counteroptions in the late game. And if terran gets liberators, opponent can get the counter to liberators --> Then mech player can readjust his composition once again. Tons of unused opportunites for mech play in Sc2.
What makes mech interesting sure is positionning, but it's also composition. I mean you build such costly units that you permanently have to scout and choose what units to build. Too much thors ? You die to roaches. Too much tanks? You leave yourself open to mutas.
Making the cyclone the mech footman would enable mech not to rely solely on siege tanks, therefore kinda killing turtle mech. But hey, why give the option to have another terran core composition that may give unused terran units new support roles. Let's just make facto/sp bio support, especially since it doesn't take much analitical skill to see how does that sentence a lot of terran units to niche/useless roles.
|
IF turtle mech is the thing we can't evade then we should hasten the time to max out mech to decrease the time it need to turtle.
|
On March 09 2016 23:39 seemsgood wrote:
IF turtle mech is the thing we can't evade then we should hasten the time to max out mech to decrease the time it need to turtle.
Its not really necessary, the economy changes and faster pace already mean that the other styles can get more economy and more production faster than the mech player does. This already existed in HotS but its much faster now and thus mech has even less time where they can turtle without leaving themselves open as they try to expand.
|
As a whole, agressive mech is possible, because of the economy, the many tank counters and the potential for the cyclone to be a mech footman. But that would take from blizzard to stop their pointless attempt to turn every single unit that isn't marine/marauder/medivac into support unit.
|
On March 09 2016 23:44 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 23:39 seemsgood wrote:
IF turtle mech is the thing we can't evade then we should hasten the time to max out mech to decrease the time it need to turtle.
Its not really necessary, the economy changes and faster pace already mean that the other styles can get more economy and more production faster than the mech player does. This already existed in HotS but its much faster now and thus mech has even less time where they can turtle without leaving themselves open as they try to expand.
I am not sure about this.Some mech streamer said you can't do that because mech doesn't strong enough to move out mid game and thus turtle until get rekt by sky army is the only way.
But meanwhile forgg still doing his mech style and top 5 GM is his peak..... so conflict LOL.
I don't take what fantasy and gumiho said seriously.How could we know what exactly mech style they talked about ?They said it isn't avaiable because raven,BC doest work anymore or something else ? Too little information.
|
But hey, why give the option to have another terran core composition that may give unused terran units new support roles.
No let's instead have terrible maps in the pool that noone wants to play because they create "exciting" and "different" games. Why would you want to make a unit composition that your customers actually want to play viable? That seems like a weird way of rewarding diversity.
# David Kim logic.
|
On March 10 2016 00:27 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +But hey, why give the option to have another terran core composition that may give unused terran units new support roles. No let's instead have terrible maps in the pool that noone wants to play because they create "exciting" and "different" games. Why would you want to make a unit composition that your customers actually want to play viable? That seems like a weird way of rewarding diverrsity. # David Kim logic.
i like the map pool 
i'm having fun.
i'd like terran to be slightly more ground oriented .. that said ... its a nit-picky type of criticism that won't stop me from playing.
|
On March 10 2016 00:54 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 00:27 Hider wrote:But hey, why give the option to have another terran core composition that may give unused terran units new support roles. No let's instead have terrible maps in the pool that noone wants to play because they create "exciting" and "different" games. Why would you want to make a unit composition that your customers actually want to play viable? That seems like a weird way of rewarding diverrsity. # David Kim logic. i like the map pool i'm having fun. i'd like terran to be slightly more ground oriented .. that said ... its a nit-picky type of criticism that won't stop me from playing.
The map pool has been around for way too long. But except for Central Protocol they weren't half as bad as people say. But again, way overplayed. Look at how people complained about amazing maps like Overgrowth and King Sejong Station after a year in competitive play. Orbital Shipard has been around for equally long and never was at quite that level to begin with.
|
Probably its not their priority now but anyone else is frustrated by mutafest in zvz? Seriously, in Lotv muta play is way better than any other play and eventually it becomes mass muta vs muta and whoever try to transition loses the game. Hydras don't counter mutas, hydras don't counter phoneix, hydras don't counter banshees, hydras don't counter new immortals, so what hydras does? Their sole purpose in game is to evolve in a lurker. I think hydras need a serious AA buff along with the corrosive bile cd nerf & pb removal.
|
On March 10 2016 01:05 Aegwynn wrote:
Probably its not their priority now but anyone else is frustrated by mutafest in zvz? Seriously, in Lotv muta play is way better than any other play and eventually it becomes mass muta vs muta and whoever try to transition loses the game. Hydras don't counter mutas, hydras don't counter phoneix, hydras don't counter banshees, hydras don't counter new immortals, so what hydras does? Their sole purpose in game is to evolve in a lurker. I think hydras need a serious AA buff along with the corrosive bile cd nerf & pb removal.
From what I've seen of pro ZvZ, mutas seems to be the strongest lair choice for ZvZ.
However, in TvT marine tankivac is the ONLY viable compositionnal choice. So I suppose taking care of TvT comes first, then PvP disruptor ping pong, then ZvZ.
But that's based on the fact that blizzard isn't happy with the state of the PvP, which is already a huge leap of faith ("WOW PVP CONSTANT AGRESSION SUCH MICRO AMAZING DISRUPTOR SHOTS")
|
On March 10 2016 01:05 Aegwynn wrote:
Probably its not their priority now but anyone else is frustrated by mutafest in zvz? Seriously, in Lotv muta play is way better than any other play and eventually it becomes mass muta vs muta and whoever try to transition loses the game. Hydras don't counter mutas, hydras don't counter phoneix, hydras don't counter banshees, hydras don't counter new immortals, so what hydras does? Their sole purpose in game is to evolve in a lurker. I think hydras need a serious AA buff along with the corrosive bile cd nerf & pb removal.
I think ground focused play is better. But muta play has always been a lot easier to understand.
Everyone under Masters always seems to prefer mutas in ZvZ and only once you reach the higher skill levels it becomes apparent why mutalisk play is not always the best approach to the matchup. At the prolevel there seems to be a healthy mix, though I also believe unpunished mutalisk play might have slight advantages in macro games, but it gets fucked pretty hard by early aggression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
