|
On March 09 2016 08:20 coolman123123 wrote:
I think that when you don't seperate Bio and mech, every game will be 90% MMM with a few extra units splashed in. Just like protoss, there is no unique or differing strategies, just a ball of units consisting of varying amount of the same shit. No diversity.
It should be an easy decision based on the intent of the designers. But the designers can't even make up their mind on what they want to do.
Some design team we have here... Leaving it up to feedback. Do we have actual professional developers? Did SC2 change to an open source game without anyone noticing?
|
My immediate reaction is that if you increase corrosive bile cooldown and still allow tanks to be picked up in siege mode you're going too far to kill early ravager all ins. Without actual numbers its much to early to say for sure
I still hate the siege mode pick up from a design perspective ignoring the balance implications. As long as the terran has medivacs it becomes very difficult to punish poor siege tank positioning and all too easy to readjust them. Maybe if there was a change to boost in such a way that the player couldn't just go from healing their bio, to boosting to pick up the siege tank and back to healing the bio so quickly it would be a better trade off.
|
It seems kinda strange how strongly they have to emphasize how awesome their game is.
|
On March 09 2016 08:20 Fran_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 08:08 Charoisaur wrote:
So increasing the delay before firing is better than entirely removing siege tank pickup because "it feels better"?
What a great reasoning.
It actually is pretty good reasoning: they can keep a cool and diverse mechanics in the game that shows off skills, but still tweaking it through a couple of knobs.
Actually they are trying to make tankivac has a clear weakness.Siege tank trade immobility for damage and this is it's weakness.Now tankivac trade DPS for mobility.
I am not sure about that weakness tho.
|
- Should we be pushing an even greater diversity of mixed armies, rather than going for a complete split again? Have we evolved into a better state?
This sentence makes me furious, it such a pr statement.
|
On March 09 2016 08:18 [PkF] Wire wrote:Love their calm and level-headed approach so far. Let the dust settle, the game is absolutely amazing and I hope they don't do anything before we get some better maps next season. I'm pretty sure LotV as it is already has a huge potential and I would love them to just give players time to adapt and to amaze us with the innovations and ideas they'll come up with. God I'm loving SC2 right now 
No, the time to act is now. PvZ is extremely Zerg favoured since October. And the problem is not that Zerg is stronger, but rather that it is stronger while Protoss is expecting Lurkers and blind countering them every game with Chargelot/Archon/Immo. The strength of Zerg in PvZ makes the MU one-dimensional because Protoss only has one viable unit composition.This should be fixed ASAP!
|
On March 09 2016 08:24 Charoisaur wrote:
It seems kinda strange how strongly they have to emphasize how awesome their game is.
Of course, we're all mindless fools. They said it so it must be true.
Maybe if they keep acting like their completely convinced SC2 is their best design ever, others will start believing too. #Believe
On March 09 2016 08:28 Gullis wrote:
- Should we be pushing an even greater diversity of mixed armies, rather than going for a complete split again? Have we evolved into a better state?
This sentence makes me furious, it such a pr statement.
I feel that way about their entire update, and most of every update they have done in the last 6 months...
|
Hmmm... so Protoss isn't winning anything anywhere and they're gonna focus on Zerg? Ok. Makes sense.
|
On March 09 2016 08:26 seemsgood wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 08:20 Fran_ wrote:On March 09 2016 08:08 Charoisaur wrote:
So increasing the delay before firing is better than entirely removing siege tank pickup because "it feels better"?
What a great reasoning.
It actually is pretty good reasoning: they can keep a cool and diverse mechanics in the game that shows off skills, but still tweaking it through a couple of knobs. Actually they are trying to make tankivac has a clear weakness.Siege tank trade immobility for damage and this is it's weakness.Now tankivac trade DPS for mobility. I am not sure about that weakness tho.
That's a good point.
|
They are going the easy way for sure, it doesn't matter how you tweak the units if the core is always bio, there simply won't be other units used besides a few, why would a terran make cyclones or banshees or thors if bio and liberators do everything else better?
It isnt even a question of nerfing liberators either, the way bio works you just use whatever 1-2 units do the work that bio needs and everything else is just a waste. The only exception maybe the 1-2 units made in the early game and never again.
I hope they don't give up, but theres so much PR in the lastest updates that I don't think they care anymore.
|
Interesting that WCS and SSL where they use the ladder maps Zerg do better, than in GSL&Proleague where they have other maps springled in. The difference between being able to veto the Zerg maps and not, is such an underestimated factor it seems.
As for unit mix diversity I think it's just the more diverse the better, but it would be really nice if Mech was viable in at least one matchup, just to prove that it's not total crap. Also just having one style that is not so absolutely Medivac focused would be a dream scenario.
I think TvT needs to be fixed ASAP, seeing Bomber play a 40 min match on Dusk Towers, the most defensive map and have zero evolvement in terms of compositions, since Marine/Siegevac hits the board and having 5-6 Sensor Towers each, is so telling to how overpowered this combination is in TvT atm.
I'm not sure that I'm loving the Ravager change, nerfing splash vs Protoss could be troublesome and could make the game feel more like HotS. I think if we want to give Protoss a chance on the current Zerg favoured maps, something like a +1 range on Photon Overcharge would really change things around. It could also help with the problem of Overlord drops, if it is indeed an issue.
|
On March 09 2016 08:20 Fran_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 08:08 Charoisaur wrote:
So increasing the delay before firing is better than entirely removing siege tank pickup because "it feels better"?
What a great reasoning.
It actually is pretty good reasoning: they can keep a cool and diverse mechanics in the game that shows off skills, but still tweaking it through a couple of knobs.
How do flying Tanks show of skill? Basically any other micro in the game is harder to pull of than that. Siegetank pickup is the definition of forgivable ant-skill play.
|
"Some of the staler, more boring games (to play and watch) have been mech only."
I love both playing and watching the careful positional play of mech where the focus lies more on the brains than the speed. Carefully using the right units and their positioning (as mech units are beautiful in how each has enormous strengths and enormous weaknesses) to fortify the right places is a beautiful thing. Is it just me?
|
On March 09 2016 08:28 Gullis wrote:
- Should we be pushing an even greater diversity of mixed armies, rather than going for a complete split again? Have we evolved into a better state?
This sentence makes me furious, it such a pr statement.
Actually this isn't a PR statement at all.
This sentence basically says: "Fuck you mech players, bio is the way to go. Be happy that you can sprinkle some factory units in"
|
- Some of the staler, more boring games (to play and watch) have been mech only.
- When you compare bio-only (back when it was just Marines/Marauders/Medivac) compositions vs. those with Siege mode tank drops, Widow Mines, and/or Liberators, it’s pretty clear that the more diverse comp produces much more exciting games.
- Should we be pushing an even greater diversity of mixed armies, rather than going for a complete split again? Have we evolved into a better state?
For example, fast Banshees with bio all utilizing an even heavier mobility-based strategy could be interesting, or Cyclones and Thors could also be looked at in having a clearer role in mixed armies.
Boring games or exciting games is in the eye of the beholder. Plenty of great mech games.
To see only MMMM for another 5 years is fun? and just coinflippy aspect of the tankivac can make exciting games to watch, imho not fun to play and it looks kinda silly. Blizzard itself even stated that they didnt want to see another MMMM fight in tvz, so they made the ultralisk stronger so terran needs to use other units than just bio. The result: another bio unit in the shape of the ghost. Splitting the upgrades didnt help to make "different , exciting" compositions possible for terran and lets not forget the nerfed units. Nerfing the units made an ever bigger split in the compositions, caused by Blizzard themself and now asking for feedback. I have the feeling we arent getting anywhere...
But i have the feeling we have the same "discussion" every week, rinse and repeat.
Blizzard want sc2 be a Micheal Bay game, EXCITING< EXPLOSIONS EVERYWHERE!!!! because that is what matters, not if the game itself is fun to play.
|
Solid points there, but my guess is Mech will never be viable, since Bio game make it a lot more fun to watch, Good Decision IMO, not sure what they will do for the zergs tho 
|
I don't think this development team understands what players mean when they ask for mech. People want the mech style of BW where terran is vulnerable while moving but is powerful after setting up. They keep pushing new garbage units out of the factory at the expense of the siege tank and thinking it is the mech people have been asking for.
What is hilarious is that reintroducing the lurker in LotV gave zerg more of a "mech" style of play than terran ever had in SC2. Watch zerg players slowly move their roach/hydra/ravager composition forward while repositioning their lurkers. That is the true "mech", not the garbage they keep doing with terran.
The closest this dev team got to making terran mech viable was letting players turtle with siege tanks and thors while making a complete transition to skyterran before A-moving the zerg. That's just stupid and boring as hell.
|
The main difference between foreign and Korean professional players - not just Terrans - is mindset. Koreans will do whatever is necessary to win and call that a good strategy. Foreigners will analyse whatever is possible and only call a something a good strategy if it holds answers to most or all possibilities.
It makes it so that Koreans will call the lurker a niche unit in ZvZ, while foreigners will create strategies around getting to them and heavily using them.
It makes it so that foreigner Terrans will rather play defensive bio or straight out Mech or Sky builds, then try their luck with a variety of aggressive attacks with a set up that will eventually crack.
There is a difference in mindsets that makes the standard Korean aggressive bio-style of Terrans less popular in the foreign scene. You just have to look at how many Mech and Sky players or attempts you find in the foreign scene, and how many in Korea. Most of the top Terran population on EU/US has been trying something defensive in TvZ, even in important matches, while in Korea it's probably only Gumiho and maybe one or two others. The West has a different fantasy about RTS games, that's why our pros prefer Zerg - the race with the most reactive and defensive approach to the game, where aggression is an option and not a must - while Korean Zergs still struggle to abuse tools such as 8-armor ultralisks or Broodlord/Viper lategames properly. And vis-verca, our Terrans struggle to consistently just tell themselves "fuck it, here I go", while Polt wins WCS with builds that might have been stopped by a scouting Masters or Grandmasters player.
TL;DR: Whatever approach you take to Terran compositions, if you want foreigners to love playing Terran to the highest level, there needs to be a reactive playstyle. One that doesn't try to choke the opponent before lategame, but holds obvious answers. Take notes from Marinelord or Lillekanin trying to make Sky and Mech work over and over again.
Edit: Also listen to your players, not just the casters and pure-viewers. It's not just about Mech, it's that foreigners do not want to be forced to attack, just because they chose a certain race. Balanced or not, more fun to watch or not, the fact of the matter is that the most defensive and strategical/reactive race in the game, i.e. Zerg, is by far the most popular race at the highest levels in the West. Since 2011-12.
|
On March 09 2016 08:33 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 08:28 Gullis wrote:
- Should we be pushing an even greater diversity of mixed armies, rather than going for a complete split again? Have we evolved into a better state?
This sentence makes me furious, it such a pr statement. Actually this isn't a PR statement at all. This sentence basically says: "Fuck you mech players, bio is the way to go. Be happy that you can sprinkle some factory units in"
If that was an actual design decision, and the race was designed around that, it wouldn't be so bad. They talk like it should be Mech assisting Bio, but if it were thorough design, it would be Mech assisting Bio, as well as Bio assisting Mech. BW was actually like that in some ways. It's just that with good enough micro, mech didn't really need bio anymore past mid-late game.
But the game was not designed as that, they have went back and forth a number of times, were not direct in their decisions since the beginning, and they simply don't know what to do so thats the best bandaid they can come up with.
Why get their hands dirty and work on the actual design of the game? Just do a quick fix. What else is the SC2 editor for?
|
I hope siegetank drop stays in the game without tvt get to a point where nobady can attack anywhere
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
