|
On March 09 2016 21:29 Apoteosis wrote:
Everyone, except a few handpicked hipsters, hates mech.
Why?
Players and watchers alike, disregard turtilng. Also, disregard slow, positional play that can last for 60 minutes. And finally, and most importantly, the community hates unbeatable compositions (that is the goal of the mech hipsters: turn mech into an invulnerable composition, with no weaknesses, unless unsieged).
You mean hates Raven. Understand the difference please.
|
On March 09 2016 21:03 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Agree with this. What i don't understand is why all the playacting. Does he think that selling false hope will keep some people attached to the game in some sort of fallow the carrot move? If anything, this sort of thing creates more negativity around the game and ends up hurting their feelings 
Just say what you want to do and the people that disagree will move on, and the people that agree will stay and have a more positive environment to build on. If you (DK) are correct, then the numbers will show, if not, tough luck.
Blizz has already created a lot of frustration within the community with them being to slow, not knowing how to handle maps, game design choices, just to name a few. There is no point in adding to that. Do a Browder and say "you don't like this? Go play BW, great game!".
|
On March 09 2016 21:29 Apoteosis wrote:
Everyone, except a few handpicked hipsters, hates mech.
Why?
Players and watchers alike, disregard turtilng. Also, disregard slow, positional play that can last for 60 minutes. And finally, and most importantly, the community hates unbeatable compositions (that is the goal of the mech hipsters: turn mech into an invulnerable composition, with no weaknesses, unless unsieged).
Everyone except a few handpicked hipsters loves mech.
Why?
Players and watchers alike like positional play.
Also, like the positional warfare between one player trying to pull the other apart while the other one tries slowly siege forward while defending flawlessly.
And finally, and most importantly the community hates seeing bio all game every game for 5 years straight and want to see something else (that's the goal of the anti-mech hipsters: turn terran into a race without compositional diversity, with no options other than bio)
|
On March 09 2016 21:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 21:16 CheddarToss wrote:On March 09 2016 21:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 09 2016 20:26 Qikz wrote:On March 09 2016 18:39 HellHound wrote:On March 09 2016 09:22 Charoisaur wrote:On March 09 2016 09:06 blade55555 wrote:On March 09 2016 08:51 Charoisaur wrote:Also the kind of games DK is talking about weren't mech only, they were 30% mech 70% skyterran. For the three good mech games, I can point out way way way more for Bio. Most Mech games are boring, whether it's turtle mech into Sky Terran, it's what the meching players prefer or want to do. Unless they can find a way to make Turtle mech not viable, while making Mech viable, keep it out of the game. For the three good roach ravager games I can point out way way way more for ling bane muta. Does that mean we should kill roach ravager?Even if one playstyle doesn't produce as many good games on average as another one it's still important to keep multiple styles viable for diversity. Bio is fun yes but that doesn't mean that every game ever should be bio. Yes. Please do. It's a shit playstyle it's not fun to play it's not fun to watch. Do you like playing against it? Why should we keep it? Because it's easier at low level? Zerg is already the easiest race to play on low level. Let's be honest here, roach ravager is about as engaging mentally as Bio is, if not more as you have the biles to aim. Why do people complain about rr being boring when Bio is literally the same just with smaller units? Roach Ravager plays out nothing like Bio. Marines are responsive low hp high dps units. Medivacs add an entierly different dimension with heal drops, pickups and boost. How Z, T and P plays out against roach ravager and bio are totally different. How exactly is roach ravager and bio similar? It's not. vP Roach/Ravager is an a-move comp, with the tiniest bit of micro in form of bile spamming. What? So bio is a-move? That's some hardcore protoss bias. Please show yourself out.
I was referring to Roach/Ravager.
|
i'm sorry, but i just dont see the appeal in mech. when i watch high level marine tank im impressed at the speed, outmaneuvering and multitasking capabilities of the players.
When i see high level mech, its like. yeah he camped that choke point really well.
I'm all for making every unit viable. swarmhosts, ravens, thors, battlecruisers, make them viable. make aggressive mech viable. but turtle mech? hell no.
|
On March 09 2016 21:47 CheddarToss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 21:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 09 2016 21:16 CheddarToss wrote:On March 09 2016 21:13 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 09 2016 20:26 Qikz wrote:On March 09 2016 18:39 HellHound wrote:On March 09 2016 09:22 Charoisaur wrote:On March 09 2016 09:06 blade55555 wrote:On March 09 2016 08:51 Charoisaur wrote:Also the kind of games DK is talking about weren't mech only, they were 30% mech 70% skyterran. For the three good mech games, I can point out way way way more for Bio. Most Mech games are boring, whether it's turtle mech into Sky Terran, it's what the meching players prefer or want to do. Unless they can find a way to make Turtle mech not viable, while making Mech viable, keep it out of the game. For the three good roach ravager games I can point out way way way more for ling bane muta. Does that mean we should kill roach ravager?Even if one playstyle doesn't produce as many good games on average as another one it's still important to keep multiple styles viable for diversity. Bio is fun yes but that doesn't mean that every game ever should be bio. Yes. Please do. It's a shit playstyle it's not fun to play it's not fun to watch. Do you like playing against it? Why should we keep it? Because it's easier at low level? Zerg is already the easiest race to play on low level. Let's be honest here, roach ravager is about as engaging mentally as Bio is, if not more as you have the biles to aim. Why do people complain about rr being boring when Bio is literally the same just with smaller units? Roach Ravager plays out nothing like Bio. Marines are responsive low hp high dps units. Medivacs add an entierly different dimension with heal drops, pickups and boost. How Z, T and P plays out against roach ravager and bio are totally different. How exactly is roach ravager and bio similar? It's not. vP Roach/Ravager is an a-move comp, with the tiniest bit of micro in form of bile spamming. What? So bio is a-move? That's some hardcore protoss bias. Please show yourself out. I was referring to Roach/Ravager. I get your meaning now. I misread sorry.
|
On March 09 2016 19:57 PressureSC2 wrote:
If you remove boost and cut Medivac speed in half we would see the emergeance of turtle bio into Skyterran blizz.
If Mech could move accross the map at 100 supply and take an engagement without being destroyed on the field and also at home maybe there would be less concern about defensive mech.
If mech could move across the map at 100 supply like this, it would be able to anihilate any army when they move at 200 supply. Then: why move at 100?
Anyway, really happy to see this community feedback, the game is amazing and goes in the right direction.
Funny to see that the people complaining about diversity in Terran's army wants to be able to play pure mech-factory-no-starport-units. Basically, they want to spam 3 units in the whole game.
|
On March 09 2016 11:04 Superbanana wrote:
It does bother me that they are so slow and insecure about changes
For instance, why does Blizzard need months to be able to make a decision on the siege tank? A designer supposedly spending 40 hours a week on improving SC2 ought to be a bit embarrassed if that time is spent tentatively considering failed idea after failed idea for the siege tank without concrete results for like a month.
When they came up with the tankivac everyone said it would change the nature of the siege tank and would create very obnoxious harassment and would make TvT even less positional. All of this happened. Now six months later Blizzard is like: "hm, it seems that this hasn't quite worked out the we way we had hoped (prayed) for, so let's take a few more months to consider what to do about it". Wow, so inspiring. Meanwhile SC1 & SC:BW were made in like a year and a half in total and they still have more well thought out design decisions than SC2 after 10 years of development (with SC:BW as a template to work from!)
|
On March 09 2016 22:02 Vanadiel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 19:57 PressureSC2 wrote:
If you remove boost and cut Medivac speed in half we would see the emergeance of turtle bio into Skyterran blizz.
If Mech could move accross the map at 100 supply and take an engagement without being destroyed on the field and also at home maybe there would be less concern about defensive mech. If mech could move across the map at 100 supply like this, it would be able to anihilate any army when they move at 200 supply. Then: why move at 100? Anyway, really happy to see this community feedback, the game is amazing and goes in the right direction. Funny to see that the people complaining about diversity in Terran's army wants to be able to play pure mech-factory-no-starport-units. Basically, they want to spam 3 units in the whole game.
You mean, like they're forced into spamming bio right now?
Oh no sorry it's 4 units, MMMtanks or MMMlibs. That's so much better.
|
There is absolutely no reason that factory/starport units (other than the Medivac perhaps) cannot be adjusted to allow for them to be more than support for Bio units. If they need to reduce the power of certain mech units, and/or nerf the overall splash/range/firepower to increase movement speed so that we do not need to turtle in fear of the counter-aggression - then that is what needs to be done.
I do not buy the "mech support units then become too strong when used inside the bio army" argument. Right now, that may be the case with the Liberator, and it will probably be nerfed like it should be if that is the case. However, when you are running on 3-3 bio with all of the other upgrades, you are not going to add in 0-0 slower than stimed bio Thors and all of a sudden have this terrible army that is much stronger than Bio/Liberator and that cannot be dealt with. Baloney.
Certain units such as the Cyclone, Thor, Hellbat, Banshee, Battlecruiser could be changed and you would still have that opportunity cost if you build them because you have less 3-3 bio and/or less Liberators. There is a big gap now in the relative power of these units versus the compositions we do see in play at the pro level. Just because you build other types of Mech units for bio support does not make them 3-3 like a Mech army.
One final note - I think that at the GSL level bio should remain the most exciting and most effective composition. I agree that this must be the case, otherwise we would see too little bio play at lower levels. But, why could we not see 25-30% mech games at WCS NA level, for example, because the skill cap may not be quite as high to make bio the absolute best style at that level of play? I am not talking turtle Mech, I mean constantly move across the map and deny the 3rd or 4th base Mech.
I think that even if you had to remove Siege Mode entirely, and remove Thor splash damageto make them move faster - Terran players would really be excited that you are finally going to move towards much more effective Mech play. With faster units, you would see less turtling until 160-200 supply.
The only reason Turtle mech exists is because MOST of the units from the factory and/or starport are poorly designed other than a few units that are fantastic as support units for Bio (and the Liberator is fine of course, perhaps the Hellion as well).
Do not blame the Factory itself, or the skin/visual of the units for turtle gameplay. The balance values assigned to the units (movement, attack, splash) are to blame for Factory play creating a turtle style.
|
Something that really annoys me. Why do he call bio marines+marauders while calling mech ALL factory units+alot of starport units. Shouldnt Ghosts be there and reapers and so on when someone mentions Bio..........
Besides, I hate THE raven. Its 100% worse than the SV from broodwar. It always has and always will with the shit design it has.
So mech is about camping, SO WAS PROTOSS in hots. Wait for max, move out.
It wasnt because there were no "differnet times different races had different advantages", it was because protoss as a race needs their high tech units or else they need to relie on RNG.
Anway, they dont want to "fix" mech AND NO I DONT MEAN STARPORT UNITS. I mean the factory units. MECH for me=factory units. I call the starport units=air.
You cant just say "bio = biological" THEN WHEN SOMEONE SAYS BIO it should MEAN REAPERS AND GHOSTS.
|
On March 09 2016 22:02 Vanadiel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 19:57 PressureSC2 wrote:
If you remove boost and cut Medivac speed in half we would see the emergeance of turtle bio into Skyterran blizz.
If Mech could move accross the map at 100 supply and take an engagement without being destroyed on the field and also at home maybe there would be less concern about defensive mech. If mech could move across the map at 100 supply like this, it would be able to anihilate any army when they move at 200 supply. Then: why move at 100? Anyway, really happy to see this community feedback, the game is amazing and goes in the right direction. Funny to see that the people complaining about diversity in Terran's army wants to be able to play pure mech-factory-no-starport-units. Basically, they want to spam 3 units in the whole game.
It seems you don't understand the difference. Mech will always use starport units, as they are right now they are really strong, the problem is that the ground mech is really weak, wich means that people will always make air over mech and we all know how that shit ends.
The solution is to have both be as equally strong but with difference so that a healty mix is made, thus allowing for more uses and less turtling.
As for the 100 vs 200 supply question is very easy, mech (and the other races and comps) has strenghts and weaknesses that go beyond just how strong they are in X supply. Such as economy, production, capacity to take bases, tech units, etc.
Right now we have an economy that already forces mech to be aggressive, production is also much better, maps are huge and super open, theres quite a few reasons as why it would be better to push early rather than late.
|
On March 09 2016 22:02 Vanadiel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 19:57 PressureSC2 wrote:
If you remove boost and cut Medivac speed in half we would see the emergeance of turtle bio into Skyterran blizz.
If Mech could move accross the map at 100 supply and take an engagement without being destroyed on the field and also at home maybe there would be less concern about defensive mech. If mech could move across the map at 100 supply like this, it would be able to anihilate any army when they move at 200 supply. Then: why move at 100?
Then change mech. Make it more powerful at 100 supply and faster. Make it weaker at 200 supply. I agree with you.
Given the scope of this game and what this community update might mean for the future, why not create a second "Balance Test Map" where the goal is only to review Mech changes. If it takes six months to get the factory right, start rolling some of the changes gradually to the real balance test maps.
Do it slowly, but correctly. Why not give the community a Mech Balance Test map that is a longer term project - what do yo have to lose Blizzard at this point?
|
Czech Republic12134 Posts
On March 09 2016 22:05 Foxxan wrote:
Something that really annoys me. Why do he call bio marines+marauders while calling mech ALL factory units+alot of starport units. Shouldnt Ghosts be there and reapers and so on when someone mentions Bio..........
Besides, I hate THE raven. Its 100% worse than the SV from broodwar. It always has and always will with the shit design it has.
So mech is about camping, SO WAS PROTOSS in hots. Wait for max, move out.
It wasnt because there were no "differnet times different races had different advantages", it was because protoss as a race needs their high tech units or else they need to relie on RNG.
Anway, they dont want to "fix" mech AND NO I DONT MEAN STARPORT UNITS. I mean the factory units. MECH for me=factory units. I call the starport units=air.
You cant just say "bio = biological" THEN WHEN SOMEONE SAYS BIO it should MEAN REAPERS AND GHOSTS.
Protoss from WoL-HotS was the mech race of SC2. That's why Flash should have gone Protoss 
|
Does he think that selling false hope will keep some people attached to the game in some sort of fallow the carrot move? If anything, this sort of thing creates more negativity around the game and ends up hurting their feelings
Well from his perspective; If he said "Guys I hate tank-based mech, and I am not gonna make it viable", he would receive a lot more unpopular opinions. Thus he chooses to go for the PR-strategy.
But in reality the issue is that he is too narrowminded/simplistic in his analysis. He doesn't seem to be capable of explaining the factors that makes mech too turtly and discuss how to make siege tank based mech more interesting; as it was in BW late game.
Something to praise about Riot's community feedback is that its actually much less bullshitty. They will argue why they want to see a certain change and explain why other solutions aren't viable/possible.
The consequence is that David Kim comes out as lacking analytical skills, which I believe is true. Nothing he has written indicates that his analysis goes deeper than "I like actionpaced harass play, let's buff it".
|
Czech Republic12134 Posts
On March 09 2016 22:15 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Does he think that selling false hope will keep some people attached to the game in some sort of fallow the carrot move? If anything, this sort of thing creates more negativity around the game and ends up hurting their feelings Well from his perspective; If he said "Guys I hate tank-based mech, and I am not gonna make it viable", he would receive a lot more unpopular opinions. Thus he chooses to go for the PR-strategy. But in reality the issue is that he is too narrowminded/simplistic in his analysis. He doesn't seem to be capable of explaining the factors that makes mech too turtly and discuss how to make siege tank based mech more interesting; as it was in BW late game. Something to praise about Riot's community feedback is that its actually much less bullshitty. They will argue why they want to see a certain change and explain why other solutions aren't viable/possible.
Blizzard cannot do this, Blizzard is working with 300k population. They have to approach much carefully. Losing 50k people is nothing for Riot. Losing 50k people is huge for Blizzard.
|
On March 09 2016 21:53 QzYSc2 wrote:
make them viable. make aggressive mech viable. but turtle mech? hell no.
Fantastic. I think Terran mech fans will agree.
One issue that Blizzard must realize (and perhaps is causing them to want to withdraw from mech balancing) is that so many changes might be required that it would not be realistic to test them in the "main" balance test map because it would delay progress on other fronts. That is one reason why a separate test map would be best to improve factory play.
|
When they came up with the tankivac everyone said it would change the nature of the siege tank and would create very obnoxious harassment and would make TvT even less positional
To be fair, it's not that simple. TvT tank + marine isn't less positional than it was in HOTS. However, the issue is that it makes it much harder to control the units, which significantly raises the learning barrier, and opportunites for a ton of small mistakes that costs you the game.
And from their perspective, if they nerfed Siege tank pick up, Ravagers would be overpowered; hence they needed to be sure that Ravagers should be nerfed as well.
|
On March 09 2016 22:18 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 22:15 Hider wrote:Does he think that selling false hope will keep some people attached to the game in some sort of fallow the carrot move? If anything, this sort of thing creates more negativity around the game and ends up hurting their feelings Well from his perspective; If he said "Guys I hate tank-based mech, and I am not gonna make it viable", he would receive a lot more unpopular opinions. Thus he chooses to go for the PR-strategy. But in reality the issue is that he is too narrowminded/simplistic in his analysis. He doesn't seem to be capable of explaining the factors that makes mech too turtly and discuss how to make siege tank based mech more interesting; as it was in BW late game. Something to praise about Riot's community feedback is that its actually much less bullshitty. They will argue why they want to see a certain change and explain why other solutions aren't viable/possible. Blizzard cannot do this, Blizzard is working with 300k population. They have to approach much carefully. Losing 50k people is nothing for Riot. Losing 50k people is huge for Blizzard.
Riot doesn't lose anyone by doing this though, and my point wasn't that he should say the above quote. My point was that he is narrowminded/simplistic in his analysis that isn't capable of providing a detailed explanation of the decision making. So from DKs perspective he only feels like has two choices; The PR bullshit or the above sentence.
On the other hand when Riot responds to the community, the designers are explaining their thought proces and typically they end up receiving a ton of positive feedback. They win by doing this. I am trying to find a recent example where I actually disagreed with the Riot designer, but he still comes out as reasonable (and not an idiot).
EDIT: Here is an example. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sobp97
Here is the reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/473kff/balance_team_member_smashgizmos_rebuttal_to/
The highest upvoted (726) comment is this:
I really think riot needs more people who aren't afraid to just tell us "You're just wrong because x, y and z" every so often like this.
And note that just 1-2 days before he made this comment, there was a massive circlejerk against the nerf. And as I said, I think it was the wrong nerf as it balances the game around hardcounters, which I don't believe LOL should be about, but you still gotta respect the man for responding in a (somewhat) logical way.
On the other hand, DK is not getting popular by trying to deceive the community.
|
Oh I would be in perfect agreement to have agressive mech viable while turtle mech not. I just don't think it's possible in Starcraft 2, given the overall design of the game, of the layout of the maps, the IA, pathing and so on. I'll add that if we have mech as strong as bio, then the synergy of the two would make it too strong, and thus, even if pure mech could be made viable (which I do not believe), it would needs to sacrifice BIO for it.
We have 5 threads every week explaining how to mech great again, but those have never been convincing. Not to me at least, and apparently to Blizzard as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
