|
On August 23 2016 07:48 ihatevideogames wrote:
Mech simply takes a different kind of skill than bio. While bio is arguably pure APM, mech is about positioning, composition and timing. It's so easy to die with mech, you get caught out of position and you're dead. It's also pretty hard to defend bases and expand. The wrong composition can also cost you the game.
In my opinion, a player who can defend his bases properly with the slow mech units, not get caught out unsieged and have the right composition to fight the lategame P/Z armies is not less skillfull than someone who shift-clicks medivacs all over the map.
due to the fog of war and watching my replays of my own Mech Games i'd say not getting caught unsieged has a significant component of luck to it. like more than 10% luck but less than 50% luck. some place in that range.
Also, your "time to move out" decision can fubar your army whether or not its Mech if your luck is bad. At play levels below Masters there is no real "optimal move out time".
Disclaimer: 60% Random. 40% Terran Diamond player.
I'd like to see Mech and ground units get stronger with this big new off-season patch.
Even with Mech getting stronger...I think pure Mech should be weaker than Bio and weaker than Bio/Mech.
How much weaker? Dunno.
To take it to an extreme .. it takes a lot more skill to manage 80 Marines than 12 Thors... and that skill should be rewarded.
|
On August 23 2016 08:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 07:48 ihatevideogames wrote:
Mech simply takes a different kind of skill than bio. While bio is arguably pure APM, mech is about positioning, composition and timing. It's so easy to die with mech, you get caught out of position and you're dead. It's also pretty hard to defend bases and expand. The wrong composition can also cost you the game.
In my opinion, a player who can defend his bases properly with the slow mech units, not get caught out unsieged and have the right composition to fight the lategame P/Z armies is not less skillfull than someone who shift-clicks medivacs all over the map.
due to the fog of war and watching my replays of my own Mech Games i'd say not getting caught unsieged has a significant component of luck to it. like more than 10% luck but less than 50% luck. some place in that range. Also, your "time to move out" decision can fubar your army whether or not its Mech if your luck is bad. At play levels below Masters there is no real "optimal move out time". Disclaimer: 60% Random. 40% Terran Diamond player. I'd like to see Mech and ground units get stronger with this big new off-season patch. Even with Mech getting stronger...I think pure Mech should be weaker than Bio and weaker than Bio/Mech. How much weaker? Dunno. To take it to an extreme .. it takes a lot more skill to manage 80 Marines than 12 Thors... and that skill should be rewarded.
It takes more skill to manage 80 marines than to amove 12 Ultras. See how much of a fallacy that statement is?
There's a certain amount of skill involved to getting to those 12 ultras, thors, whatever.
I made it to Diamond on NA and EU playing mech in 80% of my games and I have to say not getting caught unsieged has nothing to do with luck, it's carelessness. This is the different kind of skill I was talking about, a good mech player will always spread out cheaper units to scout ahead for his army so he has time to siege, use smart scans, and always keep half of hits tanks sieged when his army is stopped, etc etc.
And to be honest, playing bio feels easier to me. It's especially infuriating when I play a 50 min turtle mech game on New Gettys because I can never attack with mech in TvZ and the next game I win in 5 minutes because my stim 16 marine drop killed 12 drones and then the next I get another easy win by shift-clicking medivacs all over the map. If anything, I feel like bio is much more luck based than mech.
|
On August 23 2016 08:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 07:48 ihatevideogames wrote:
Mech simply takes a different kind of skill than bio. While bio is arguably pure APM, mech is about positioning, composition and timing. It's so easy to die with mech, you get caught out of position and you're dead. It's also pretty hard to defend bases and expand. The wrong composition can also cost you the game.
In my opinion, a player who can defend his bases properly with the slow mech units, not get caught out unsieged and have the right composition to fight the lategame P/Z armies is not less skillfull than someone who shift-clicks medivacs all over the map.
due to the fog of war and watching my replays of my own Mech Games i'd say not getting caught unsieged has a significant component of luck to it. like more than 10% luck but less than 50% luck. some place in that range.
Thats why mech takes skill to play, if you aren't on top of your map countrol and scouting you can't talk about mech.
Mech is a positional play and as such its core value is controlling then map, having good vision and map control, keeping constant tabs on the enemy army and compoisition, being capable to split the right number of units and controlling more than 1 place at once (since you army is strong but slow its better at being split and worst at being moved around in 1 ball).
Positional play is much more than just making a bunch of tanks and planting them perfectly in the ground (altough its is a part of it).
|
Anyone tried doing this Cyclone heavy think (kinda like Innovation is trying right now) and it just not work vs Protoss? cyclones just get crushed by even a few stalkers or a single immortal?
|
On August 23 2016 09:30 ihatevideogames wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 08:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 23 2016 07:48 ihatevideogames wrote:
Mech simply takes a different kind of skill than bio. While bio is arguably pure APM, mech is about positioning, composition and timing. It's so easy to die with mech, you get caught out of position and you're dead. It's also pretty hard to defend bases and expand. The wrong composition can also cost you the game.
In my opinion, a player who can defend his bases properly with the slow mech units, not get caught out unsieged and have the right composition to fight the lategame P/Z armies is not less skillfull than someone who shift-clicks medivacs all over the map.
due to the fog of war and watching my replays of my own Mech Games i'd say not getting caught unsieged has a significant component of luck to it. like more than 10% luck but less than 50% luck. some place in that range. Also, your "time to move out" decision can fubar your army whether or not its Mech if your luck is bad. At play levels below Masters there is no real "optimal move out time". Disclaimer: 60% Random. 40% Terran Diamond player. I'd like to see Mech and ground units get stronger with this big new off-season patch. Even with Mech getting stronger...I think pure Mech should be weaker than Bio and weaker than Bio/Mech. How much weaker? Dunno. To take it to an extreme .. it takes a lot more skill to manage 80 Marines than 12 Thors... and that skill should be rewarded. It takes more skill to manage 80 marines than to amove 12 Ultras. See how much of a fallacy that statement is? There's a certain amount of skill involved to getting to those 12 ultras, thors, whatever. I made it to Diamond on NA and EU playing mech in 80% of my games and I have to say not getting caught unsieged has nothing to do with luck, it's carelessness. This is the different kind of skill I was talking about, a good mech player will always spread out cheaper units to scout ahead for his army so he has time to siege, use smart scans, and always keep half of hits tanks sieged when his army is stopped, etc etc. And to be honest, playing bio feels easier to me. It's especially infuriating when I play a 50 min turtle mech game on New Gettys because I can never attack with mech in TvZ and the next game I win in 5 minutes because my stim 16 marine drop killed 12 drones and then the next I get another easy win by shift-clicking medivacs all over the map. If anything, I feel like bio is much more luck based than mech.
yep , it takes skill to play Mech. it takes more skill to play Bio and Bio/Mech.
and i'm not talking about A-moving.. which is only 1 thing out of 5,000 things you can do with 80 marines. you could place 8 marines in 10 different places on the map. and have them all having different responsibilities. Managing that process is more difficult than managing 12 Thors.
i want the potency of any strategy/composition/technique to be congruent/commensurate with the skill level required to execute it.
as an example, right after LotV was released easy Sky Terran tactics made it easy for me to defeat people who were probably better than me at the game. Blizzard did the right thing and nerfed Terran Air. My ranking went down and it deserved to go down because i was using BS tricks to win games against superior opponents.
|
On August 23 2016 10:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 09:30 ihatevideogames wrote:On August 23 2016 08:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 23 2016 07:48 ihatevideogames wrote:
Mech simply takes a different kind of skill than bio. While bio is arguably pure APM, mech is about positioning, composition and timing. It's so easy to die with mech, you get caught out of position and you're dead. It's also pretty hard to defend bases and expand. The wrong composition can also cost you the game.
In my opinion, a player who can defend his bases properly with the slow mech units, not get caught out unsieged and have the right composition to fight the lategame P/Z armies is not less skillfull than someone who shift-clicks medivacs all over the map.
due to the fog of war and watching my replays of my own Mech Games i'd say not getting caught unsieged has a significant component of luck to it. like more than 10% luck but less than 50% luck. some place in that range. Also, your "time to move out" decision can fubar your army whether or not its Mech if your luck is bad. At play levels below Masters there is no real "optimal move out time". Disclaimer: 60% Random. 40% Terran Diamond player. I'd like to see Mech and ground units get stronger with this big new off-season patch. Even with Mech getting stronger...I think pure Mech should be weaker than Bio and weaker than Bio/Mech. How much weaker? Dunno. To take it to an extreme .. it takes a lot more skill to manage 80 Marines than 12 Thors... and that skill should be rewarded. It takes more skill to manage 80 marines than to amove 12 Ultras. See how much of a fallacy that statement is? There's a certain amount of skill involved to getting to those 12 ultras, thors, whatever. I made it to Diamond on NA and EU playing mech in 80% of my games and I have to say not getting caught unsieged has nothing to do with luck, it's carelessness. This is the different kind of skill I was talking about, a good mech player will always spread out cheaper units to scout ahead for his army so he has time to siege, use smart scans, and always keep half of hits tanks sieged when his army is stopped, etc etc. And to be honest, playing bio feels easier to me. It's especially infuriating when I play a 50 min turtle mech game on New Gettys because I can never attack with mech in TvZ and the next game I win in 5 minutes because my stim 16 marine drop killed 12 drones and then the next I get another easy win by shift-clicking medivacs all over the map. If anything, I feel like bio is much more luck based than mech. yep , it takes skill to play Mech. it takes more skill to play Bio and Bio/Mech. and i'm not talking about A-moving.. which is only 1 thing out of 5,000 things you can do with 80 marines. you could place 8 marines in 10 different places on the map. and have them all having different responsibilities. Managing that process is more difficult than managing 12 Thors.
You missed my point completely.
I wasn't talking about amoving 80 marines, I was talking about managing them, vs managing 12 ultras. There are only a few things you can do with 12 ultras, 90% of the time you amove them. But that's fine and skillfull, but 12 thors is not apparently.
You also completely ignored the whole point of getting to 12 3/3 thors or 12 8 armor ultras etc etc.
What I'm trying to say is, microing bio and shitft-clicking drops are not the only indicators of skill in this game. But they've been the ones on the spotlight for terran for far too long.
You know, there are certain communities that were making fun of SC2 for being a 'asian clicking simulator'. It's like alot of people really want it to be just that, instead of having more strategic options.
|
On August 23 2016 11:14 ihatevideogames wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 10:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 23 2016 09:30 ihatevideogames wrote:On August 23 2016 08:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 23 2016 07:48 ihatevideogames wrote:
Mech simply takes a different kind of skill than bio. While bio is arguably pure APM, mech is about positioning, composition and timing. It's so easy to die with mech, you get caught out of position and you're dead. It's also pretty hard to defend bases and expand. The wrong composition can also cost you the game.
In my opinion, a player who can defend his bases properly with the slow mech units, not get caught out unsieged and have the right composition to fight the lategame P/Z armies is not less skillfull than someone who shift-clicks medivacs all over the map.
due to the fog of war and watching my replays of my own Mech Games i'd say not getting caught unsieged has a significant component of luck to it. like more than 10% luck but less than 50% luck. some place in that range. Also, your "time to move out" decision can fubar your army whether or not its Mech if your luck is bad. At play levels below Masters there is no real "optimal move out time". Disclaimer: 60% Random. 40% Terran Diamond player. I'd like to see Mech and ground units get stronger with this big new off-season patch. Even with Mech getting stronger...I think pure Mech should be weaker than Bio and weaker than Bio/Mech. How much weaker? Dunno. To take it to an extreme .. it takes a lot more skill to manage 80 Marines than 12 Thors... and that skill should be rewarded. It takes more skill to manage 80 marines than to amove 12 Ultras. See how much of a fallacy that statement is? There's a certain amount of skill involved to getting to those 12 ultras, thors, whatever. I made it to Diamond on NA and EU playing mech in 80% of my games and I have to say not getting caught unsieged has nothing to do with luck, it's carelessness. This is the different kind of skill I was talking about, a good mech player will always spread out cheaper units to scout ahead for his army so he has time to siege, use smart scans, and always keep half of hits tanks sieged when his army is stopped, etc etc. And to be honest, playing bio feels easier to me. It's especially infuriating when I play a 50 min turtle mech game on New Gettys because I can never attack with mech in TvZ and the next game I win in 5 minutes because my stim 16 marine drop killed 12 drones and then the next I get another easy win by shift-clicking medivacs all over the map. If anything, I feel like bio is much more luck based than mech. yep , it takes skill to play Mech. it takes more skill to play Bio and Bio/Mech. and i'm not talking about A-moving.. which is only 1 thing out of 5,000 things you can do with 80 marines. you could place 8 marines in 10 different places on the map. and have them all having different responsibilities. Managing that process is more difficult than managing 12 Thors. You missed my point completely. I wasn't talking about amoving 80 marines, I was talking about managing them, vs managing 12 ultras. There are only a few things you can do with 12 ultras, 90% of the time you amove them. But that's fine and skillfull, but 12 thors is not apparently. You also completely ignored the whole point of getting to 12 3/3 thors or 12 8 armor ultras etc etc. What I'm trying to say is, microing bio and shitft-clicking drops are not the only indicators of skill in this game. But they've been the ones on the spotlight for terran for far too long. You know, there are certain communities that were making fun of SC2 for being a 'asian clicking simulator'. It's like alot of people really want it to be just that, instead of having more strategic options.
LOL @ the racist and ignorant comment above.
You are totally missing his point.
What he's saying is that bio has a higher skill cap - which is what separates the Korean Terrans from the rest of the world. There's a reason that Korean Terrans in the history of SC2 have mostly chosen bio - and it's because it allows them to use their mechanics to gain an advantage that they wouldn't have otherwise (multitask and micro).
If they go through with this patch - they are taking that away - which in my opinion is a shame.
They say they want the Terran to have "options" but everything in this patch makes it pretty clear that mech will be the only viable option in all 3 match-ups. Foreign Terrans have always shown a much higher percentage of mech because it allows you to rely more on your positioning and macro than on your ability to out-maneuver your opponent and defeat them with constant pressure through multi-tasking.
This will definitely level the playing field - but in my opinion lowering the skill cap of the game is moving in the wrong direction - I would really like to hear someone from Blizzard address this concern - please do not set the meta so that the correct way to play is to turtle to super late game tech every game - you have already made it that way for zerg in ZvT and it's bad enough with 1 race - if you go through with all of these patches every TvT is going to be a split map mech bore-fest and we're going to see this same thing in TvZ and more than likely TvP.
|
On August 23 2016 11:49 DomeGetta wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 11:14 ihatevideogames wrote:On August 23 2016 10:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 23 2016 09:30 ihatevideogames wrote:On August 23 2016 08:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 23 2016 07:48 ihatevideogames wrote:
Mech simply takes a different kind of skill than bio. While bio is arguably pure APM, mech is about positioning, composition and timing. It's so easy to die with mech, you get caught out of position and you're dead. It's also pretty hard to defend bases and expand. The wrong composition can also cost you the game.
In my opinion, a player who can defend his bases properly with the slow mech units, not get caught out unsieged and have the right composition to fight the lategame P/Z armies is not less skillfull than someone who shift-clicks medivacs all over the map.
due to the fog of war and watching my replays of my own Mech Games i'd say not getting caught unsieged has a significant component of luck to it. like more than 10% luck but less than 50% luck. some place in that range. Also, your "time to move out" decision can fubar your army whether or not its Mech if your luck is bad. At play levels below Masters there is no real "optimal move out time". Disclaimer: 60% Random. 40% Terran Diamond player. I'd like to see Mech and ground units get stronger with this big new off-season patch. Even with Mech getting stronger...I think pure Mech should be weaker than Bio and weaker than Bio/Mech. How much weaker? Dunno. To take it to an extreme .. it takes a lot more skill to manage 80 Marines than 12 Thors... and that skill should be rewarded. It takes more skill to manage 80 marines than to amove 12 Ultras. See how much of a fallacy that statement is? There's a certain amount of skill involved to getting to those 12 ultras, thors, whatever. I made it to Diamond on NA and EU playing mech in 80% of my games and I have to say not getting caught unsieged has nothing to do with luck, it's carelessness. This is the different kind of skill I was talking about, a good mech player will always spread out cheaper units to scout ahead for his army so he has time to siege, use smart scans, and always keep half of hits tanks sieged when his army is stopped, etc etc. And to be honest, playing bio feels easier to me. It's especially infuriating when I play a 50 min turtle mech game on New Gettys because I can never attack with mech in TvZ and the next game I win in 5 minutes because my stim 16 marine drop killed 12 drones and then the next I get another easy win by shift-clicking medivacs all over the map. If anything, I feel like bio is much more luck based than mech. yep , it takes skill to play Mech. it takes more skill to play Bio and Bio/Mech. and i'm not talking about A-moving.. which is only 1 thing out of 5,000 things you can do with 80 marines. you could place 8 marines in 10 different places on the map. and have them all having different responsibilities. Managing that process is more difficult than managing 12 Thors. You missed my point completely. I wasn't talking about amoving 80 marines, I was talking about managing them, vs managing 12 ultras. There are only a few things you can do with 12 ultras, 90% of the time you amove them. But that's fine and skillfull, but 12 thors is not apparently. You also completely ignored the whole point of getting to 12 3/3 thors or 12 8 armor ultras etc etc. What I'm trying to say is, microing bio and shitft-clicking drops are not the only indicators of skill in this game. But they've been the ones on the spotlight for terran for far too long. You know, there are certain communities that were making fun of SC2 for being a 'asian clicking simulator'. It's like alot of people really want it to be just that, instead of having more strategic options. LOL @ the racist and ignorant comment above. You are totally missing his point. What he's saying is that bio has a higher skill cap - which is what separates the Korean Terrans from the rest of the world. There's a reason that Korean Terrans in the history of SC2 have mostly chosen bio - and it's because it allows them to use their mechanics to gain an advantage that they wouldn't have otherwise (multitask and micro). If they go through with this patch - they are taking that away - which in my opinion is a shame. They say they want the Terran to have "options" but everything in this patch makes it pretty clear that mech will be the only viable option in all 3 match-ups. Foreign Terrans have always shown a much higher percentage of mech because it allows you to rely more on your positioning and macro than on your ability to out-maneuver your opponent and defeat them with constant pressure through multi-tasking. This will definitely level the playing field - but in my opinion lowering the skill cap of the game is moving in the wrong direction - I would really like to hear someone from Blizzard address this concern - please do not set the meta so that the correct way to play is to turtle to super late game tech every game - you have already made it that way for zerg in ZvT and it's bad enough with 1 race - if you go through with all of these patches every TvT is going to be a split map mech bore-fest and we're going to see this same thing in TvZ and more than likely TvP.
How the heck is that racist, get some thicker skin. I was just saying how certain communities called the game (they used a trully racist word btw, i changed it) and how I find it funny that it sort of became true. Or are you denying the fact that LOTV shifted the game towards more micro and multitasking and less strategy and tactics? That's what I was trying to point out.
The fact that mech is bad and bio is the only viable terran comp is a testament to that.
And I don't think bio will be as weak as you say. Baneling buff aside, it will make it how it's supossed to be, the bio terran won't be able to just a-move into a tank line and win.
You need to realise that turtle mech became a thing because you can NEVER attack with mech. If these changes go through, attacking with mech will be much, much more viable. I might be a scrub, but I can understand that much.
Also, relying more on positioning, macro and unit composition instead of pure multitasking and APM is somehow reducing the skill cap of the game? What?
Do you understand my 'racist' comment now? Everyone goes nuts over APM and multitasking, there's more to this game than how many medivacs you can shift-click across the map.
|
Can't wait for Blizz to fuck up again :D
|
On August 23 2016 11:14 ihatevideogames wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 10:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 23 2016 09:30 ihatevideogames wrote:On August 23 2016 08:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 23 2016 07:48 ihatevideogames wrote:
Mech simply takes a different kind of skill than bio. While bio is arguably pure APM, mech is about positioning, composition and timing. It's so easy to die with mech, you get caught out of position and you're dead. It's also pretty hard to defend bases and expand. The wrong composition can also cost you the game.
In my opinion, a player who can defend his bases properly with the slow mech units, not get caught out unsieged and have the right composition to fight the lategame P/Z armies is not less skillfull than someone who shift-clicks medivacs all over the map.
due to the fog of war and watching my replays of my own Mech Games i'd say not getting caught unsieged has a significant component of luck to it. like more than 10% luck but less than 50% luck. some place in that range. Also, your "time to move out" decision can fubar your army whether or not its Mech if your luck is bad. At play levels below Masters there is no real "optimal move out time". Disclaimer: 60% Random. 40% Terran Diamond player. I'd like to see Mech and ground units get stronger with this big new off-season patch. Even with Mech getting stronger...I think pure Mech should be weaker than Bio and weaker than Bio/Mech. How much weaker? Dunno. To take it to an extreme .. it takes a lot more skill to manage 80 Marines than 12 Thors... and that skill should be rewarded. It takes more skill to manage 80 marines than to amove 12 Ultras. See how much of a fallacy that statement is? There's a certain amount of skill involved to getting to those 12 ultras, thors, whatever. I made it to Diamond on NA and EU playing mech in 80% of my games and I have to say not getting caught unsieged has nothing to do with luck, it's carelessness. This is the different kind of skill I was talking about, a good mech player will always spread out cheaper units to scout ahead for his army so he has time to siege, use smart scans, and always keep half of hits tanks sieged when his army is stopped, etc etc. And to be honest, playing bio feels easier to me. It's especially infuriating when I play a 50 min turtle mech game on New Gettys because I can never attack with mech in TvZ and the next game I win in 5 minutes because my stim 16 marine drop killed 12 drones and then the next I get another easy win by shift-clicking medivacs all over the map. If anything, I feel like bio is much more luck based than mech. yep , it takes skill to play Mech. it takes more skill to play Bio and Bio/Mech. and i'm not talking about A-moving.. which is only 1 thing out of 5,000 things you can do with 80 marines. you could place 8 marines in 10 different places on the map. and have them all having different responsibilities. Managing that process is more difficult than managing 12 Thors. You missed my point completely. I wasn't talking about amoving 80 marines, I was talking about managing them, vs managing 12 ultras. There are only a few things you can do with 12 ultras, 90% of the time you amove them. But that's fine and skillfull, but 12 thors is not apparently. You also completely ignored the whole point of getting to 12 3/3 thors or 12 8 armor ultras etc etc. What I'm trying to say is, microing bio and shitft-clicking drops are not the only indicators of skill in this game. But they've been the ones on the spotlight for terran for far too long. You know, there are certain communities that were making fun of SC2 for being a 'asian clicking simulator'. It's like alot of people really want it to be just that, instead of having more strategic options.
i'd like the game to be a mix of both. and intelligently micro-ing marines is not an "asian clicking sim". i like SC2 because it has auto-mining, MBS ,etc.. SC2 has moved away from Brood War's "asian clicking sim". and i like it. CTRL-F1 to gather up idle workers.. etc.
i just think stuff like my Thor, Tank, Medivac, Raven, Marauder, Bashee ( with a sprinkling of SCVs ) a-move deathball shouldn't be rewarded.
i watch other higher level players do the same thing (at a higher level) and claim the only thing stopping them from being the best player on planet earth is Blizzard refusing to buff the tank.
|
On August 23 2016 12:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 11:14 ihatevideogames wrote:On August 23 2016 10:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 23 2016 09:30 ihatevideogames wrote:On August 23 2016 08:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 23 2016 07:48 ihatevideogames wrote:
Mech simply takes a different kind of skill than bio. While bio is arguably pure APM, mech is about positioning, composition and timing. It's so easy to die with mech, you get caught out of position and you're dead. It's also pretty hard to defend bases and expand. The wrong composition can also cost you the game.
In my opinion, a player who can defend his bases properly with the slow mech units, not get caught out unsieged and have the right composition to fight the lategame P/Z armies is not less skillfull than someone who shift-clicks medivacs all over the map.
due to the fog of war and watching my replays of my own Mech Games i'd say not getting caught unsieged has a significant component of luck to it. like more than 10% luck but less than 50% luck. some place in that range. Also, your "time to move out" decision can fubar your army whether or not its Mech if your luck is bad. At play levels below Masters there is no real "optimal move out time". Disclaimer: 60% Random. 40% Terran Diamond player. I'd like to see Mech and ground units get stronger with this big new off-season patch. Even with Mech getting stronger...I think pure Mech should be weaker than Bio and weaker than Bio/Mech. How much weaker? Dunno. To take it to an extreme .. it takes a lot more skill to manage 80 Marines than 12 Thors... and that skill should be rewarded. It takes more skill to manage 80 marines than to amove 12 Ultras. See how much of a fallacy that statement is? There's a certain amount of skill involved to getting to those 12 ultras, thors, whatever. I made it to Diamond on NA and EU playing mech in 80% of my games and I have to say not getting caught unsieged has nothing to do with luck, it's carelessness. This is the different kind of skill I was talking about, a good mech player will always spread out cheaper units to scout ahead for his army so he has time to siege, use smart scans, and always keep half of hits tanks sieged when his army is stopped, etc etc. And to be honest, playing bio feels easier to me. It's especially infuriating when I play a 50 min turtle mech game on New Gettys because I can never attack with mech in TvZ and the next game I win in 5 minutes because my stim 16 marine drop killed 12 drones and then the next I get another easy win by shift-clicking medivacs all over the map. If anything, I feel like bio is much more luck based than mech. yep , it takes skill to play Mech. it takes more skill to play Bio and Bio/Mech. and i'm not talking about A-moving.. which is only 1 thing out of 5,000 things you can do with 80 marines. you could place 8 marines in 10 different places on the map. and have them all having different responsibilities. Managing that process is more difficult than managing 12 Thors. You missed my point completely. I wasn't talking about amoving 80 marines, I was talking about managing them, vs managing 12 ultras. There are only a few things you can do with 12 ultras, 90% of the time you amove them. But that's fine and skillfull, but 12 thors is not apparently. You also completely ignored the whole point of getting to 12 3/3 thors or 12 8 armor ultras etc etc. What I'm trying to say is, microing bio and shitft-clicking drops are not the only indicators of skill in this game. But they've been the ones on the spotlight for terran for far too long. You know, there are certain communities that were making fun of SC2 for being a 'asian clicking simulator'. It's like alot of people really want it to be just that, instead of having more strategic options. i'd like the game to be a mix of both. and intelligently micro-ing marines is not an "asian clicking sim". i like SC2 because it has auto-mining, MBS ,etc.. SC2 has moved away from Brood War's "asian clicking sim". and i like it. CTRL-F1 to gather up idle workers.. etc. i just think stuff like my Thor, Tank, Medivac, Raven, Marauder, Bashee ( with a sprinkling of SCVs ) a-move deathball shouldn't be rewarded. i watch other higher level players do the same thing (at a higher level) and claim the only thing stopping them from being the best player on planet earth is Blizzard refusing to buff the tank.
Read my other post.
By 'asian clicking sim' I meant LOTV's change towards more micro and multitasking, making that old meme come true.
Anyway, I believe that the better STRATEGIC player should always win in a STRATEGY game. This is something that was missing from the game. Right now, we got a game full of active abilities, where harassment is the most important thing in the world, where if you look away for a split second you lose the game, and a whole race that completely relies on outmultitasking the opponent to win. Is that really what we want SC2 to be?
|
its more than 1 second... you are creating a strawman to provide evidence in favour of ur point.
part of skill is multi-tasking and fast battles have been part of SC2 since day 1... its intrinsic to the game. When i'm in the mood for a slower pace of battles i play CoH1.
fast, skillful, split-second micro on multiple fronts simultaneously is part of RTS skill for games like SC2, RA3, and many C&C games.
Strategy and out-of-the box thinking should be part of what makes a player good.. but this game is not chess. Pinpoint micro should also be rewarded.
for the record my favourite WoL Terran is Sjow. I'd say he employed some very unusual tactics, strategies and decision-making to win. He had unusual no scout builds and at the same time he could make a Banshee do everything except make you breakfast in the morning.
By no means was Sjow's success due to being an "asian click robot" or whatever term you used.
I recall Tasteless describing Sjow as "macgiver with Starcraft units" during his long run through an MLG where he was the last standing non-korean. The guy's compositions were fucking weird... and damn it .. they worked.
Sjow is the kind of player and play i want to see rewarded.
|
On August 23 2016 14:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
its more than 1 second... you are creating a strawman to provide evidence in favour of ur point.
part of skill is multi-tasking and fast battles have been part of SC2 since day 1... its intrinsic to the game. When i'm in the mood for a slower pace of battles i play CoH1.
fast, skillful, split-second micro on multiple fronts simultaneously is part of RTS skill for games like SC2, RA3, and many C&C games.
Strategy and out-of-the box thinking should be part of what makes a player good.. but this game is not chess. Pinpoint micro should also be rewarded.
for the record my favourite WoL Terran is Sjow. I'd say he employed some very unusual tactics, strategies and decision-making to win. He had unusual no scout builds and at the same time he could make a Banshee do everything except make you breakfast in the morning.
By no means was Sjow's success due to being an "asian click robot" or whatever term you used.
I agree to an extent. I thought the game was striking a good balance between micro and multitasking and actual strategic depth. There were some issues in both expansions that could be easily fixed though.
Then LOTV came and it brought with it a huge emphasis on worker harassment and the balance shifted towards more micro and multitasking.
All I'm saying is that I want that balance back and that's the direction they seem to be going towards.
|
On August 23 2016 04:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2016 23:12 Blackfeather wrote:
Ok then I'll adress your post. I still think that for Blizzard the topic is closed after the macro mechanics patch and that Blizzard wants boring macro units/mechanics in the game that just eat apm up.
Terran
I doubt blizz is gonna remove the mule for reasons listed above. And tbh I'd rather have the very limited strategic possibilities mule provides than having to spam supply drop at the speed I spam mules.
I think your techreactor is directed at countering Ullis with marauders? I don't see the big advantages of it anyways because most of your buildings are in place when you build an armory. And afterwards people would only build techreactors for their other buildings, because why not?
there is a tension between SCANS and Mineral Collection on the energy in your Orbital Command. THat is what makes the MULE interesting and not "boring". Devastate a Terrans SCV count and you know they can't scan as much... and u use that ur advantage in the game. the labelling of all macro-mechanics as boring is a vast oversimplification and does a gross injustice to the decision-making Terrans must navigate through as they decide between a MULE and a SCAN. Also, if you MULE all the time you will mine out your base much faster. More tension and another factor that's part of the MULE/SCAN decision.
Might be that that has changed since LotV. In WoL and Hots, there was no real decision making. There was maybe one pinpoint scan at the tech timing and holding energy if it wasn't clear whether or not dts are coming. Else it was spam those MULEs. But yeah from my viewing experience T scans a lot more nowadays.
On August 23 2016 12:57 ihatevideogames wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 12:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 23 2016 11:14 ihatevideogames wrote:On August 23 2016 10:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 23 2016 09:30 ihatevideogames wrote:On August 23 2016 08:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 23 2016 07:48 ihatevideogames wrote:
Mech simply takes a different kind of skill than bio. While bio is arguably pure APM, mech is about positioning, composition and timing. It's so easy to die with mech, you get caught out of position and you're dead. It's also pretty hard to defend bases and expand. The wrong composition can also cost you the game.
In my opinion, a player who can defend his bases properly with the slow mech units, not get caught out unsieged and have the right composition to fight the lategame P/Z armies is not less skillfull than someone who shift-clicks medivacs all over the map.
due to the fog of war and watching my replays of my own Mech Games i'd say not getting caught unsieged has a significant component of luck to it. like more than 10% luck but less than 50% luck. some place in that range. Also, your "time to move out" decision can fubar your army whether or not its Mech if your luck is bad. At play levels below Masters there is no real "optimal move out time". Disclaimer: 60% Random. 40% Terran Diamond player. I'd like to see Mech and ground units get stronger with this big new off-season patch. Even with Mech getting stronger...I think pure Mech should be weaker than Bio and weaker than Bio/Mech. How much weaker? Dunno. To take it to an extreme .. it takes a lot more skill to manage 80 Marines than 12 Thors... and that skill should be rewarded. It takes more skill to manage 80 marines than to amove 12 Ultras. See how much of a fallacy that statement is? There's a certain amount of skill involved to getting to those 12 ultras, thors, whatever. I made it to Diamond on NA and EU playing mech in 80% of my games and I have to say not getting caught unsieged has nothing to do with luck, it's carelessness. This is the different kind of skill I was talking about, a good mech player will always spread out cheaper units to scout ahead for his army so he has time to siege, use smart scans, and always keep half of hits tanks sieged when his army is stopped, etc etc. And to be honest, playing bio feels easier to me. It's especially infuriating when I play a 50 min turtle mech game on New Gettys because I can never attack with mech in TvZ and the next game I win in 5 minutes because my stim 16 marine drop killed 12 drones and then the next I get another easy win by shift-clicking medivacs all over the map. If anything, I feel like bio is much more luck based than mech. yep , it takes skill to play Mech. it takes more skill to play Bio and Bio/Mech. and i'm not talking about A-moving.. which is only 1 thing out of 5,000 things you can do with 80 marines. you could place 8 marines in 10 different places on the map. and have them all having different responsibilities. Managing that process is more difficult than managing 12 Thors. You missed my point completely. I wasn't talking about amoving 80 marines, I was talking about managing them, vs managing 12 ultras. There are only a few things you can do with 12 ultras, 90% of the time you amove them. But that's fine and skillfull, but 12 thors is not apparently. You also completely ignored the whole point of getting to 12 3/3 thors or 12 8 armor ultras etc etc. What I'm trying to say is, microing bio and shitft-clicking drops are not the only indicators of skill in this game. But they've been the ones on the spotlight for terran for far too long. You know, there are certain communities that were making fun of SC2 for being a 'asian clicking simulator'. It's like alot of people really want it to be just that, instead of having more strategic options. i'd like the game to be a mix of both. and intelligently micro-ing marines is not an "asian clicking sim". i like SC2 because it has auto-mining, MBS ,etc.. SC2 has moved away from Brood War's "asian clicking sim". and i like it. CTRL-F1 to gather up idle workers.. etc. i just think stuff like my Thor, Tank, Medivac, Raven, Marauder, Bashee ( with a sprinkling of SCVs ) a-move deathball shouldn't be rewarded. i watch other higher level players do the same thing (at a higher level) and claim the only thing stopping them from being the best player on planet earth is Blizzard refusing to buff the tank. Read my other post. By 'asian clicking sim' I meant LOTV's change towards more micro and multitasking, making that old meme come true. Anyway, I believe that the better STRATEGIC player should always win in a STRATEGY game. This is something that was missing from the game. Right now, we got a game full of active abilities, where harassment is the most important thing in the world, where if you look away for a split second you lose the game, and a whole race that completely relies on outmultitasking the opponent to win. Is that really what we want SC2 to be?
compared to 1a deathballs definitely. Multitasking and harass still asks for some strategic thinking, scouting and space becomes very important, splitting units up becomes very important. Those are strategic elements. Harass was always the promise of splitting up the deathball and I'm happy that it came true to some extent in LotV.
Also the "look away for a second and you loose the game" has pretty much always been true, miss that FF and you are dead, look away for a second and miss those 2 banes who raced into your zerglings, don't have marines in your mineral line and watch how this oracle mows them down. The game has always punished mistakes brutally.
It's a result of Blizz "terrible terrible damage" mentality which imo always dealt terrible damage to the game, but it makes for fast and action packed viewing.
|
Anyway, I believe that the better STRATEGIC player should always win in a STRATEGY game.
Well this is where the 99% of the masses dont get the key word(noun i believe) in this sentence. The above is a little bit silly when you are talking a real time strategy. It would be true if all was equal. We all know what happened in the last samurai(and now i use a anyonesgoddamn film to case my point . .sheesh) , you cant deny that the samurai had the strats and skill down to godtier level but in the end they were beat by numbers and advanced tech. This is a strategy game, the best in the world but its never anyones strategy to a-move an army by mistake, by this action, NO the better strategys dont win when there is another level of the game to be mastered
|
Oh my goodness StatixEx, please use another analogy, any analogy. Yours is so bad and nonsensical that after reading it, I had to walk round my garden to reorientate my brain to something approximating sanity.
|
On August 22 2016 22:16 Blackfeather wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 19:21 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On August 20 2016 19:50 a_flayer wrote:
I'm just going to throw some shit out there. I don't know what my icon says, but I've only been playing random on those rare occasions that I've played SC2 in the past 5 years or so. I started out as a Zerg player in WoL when I borderlined as a low-level master player (I've been in and out of masters during the first season).
Personally, I'm still upset that they didn't remove the macro mechanics. I just feel like it's detrimental to my enjoyment of the game. I never played as much SC2 as I did in that short time period where they reduced the need for macro mechanics. In addition to that, I feel like units such as the Queen and MSC detract from my freedom to pick and choose my strategies, both in offence (playing against those units) and defence (where they are basically 100% necessary to be built). Add to that the economic "defence" of the MULE (which allows Terran to sustain worker damage and recover from it), and we've covered all three races somewhat in this respect, I think.
Me too. I really hope they will at some point re-evaluate the macro mechanics removal. IMO, one of the major reasons of why they didn't keep this change was that it tipped balance against Terran. With the buffs to mech it may have played out otherwise. From my experience, without macro mechanics your micro in battles became way more important if you played Protoss or Terran (inject was just toned down, so not much of a change for Zerg). I really enjoyed that. On August 20 2016 19:50 a_flayer wrote:
I would like to see a SC2 where these units just aren't absolutely necessary in order to play the game and at the same time deal with my dislike for the macro mechanics.
Maybe increase the natural larvae spawn of hatcheries to the point where queens aren't necessary, or at least not quite as prolific. Remove the spawn larvae ability of queens or reduce it to 1 larva per inject to make it an optional boost if you want more zerglings for your strategy of choice and increase the cost of the queen (maybe 200/50?) and her abilities (50 energy?) so that maybe you'll just have one or two if you really want to spread creep fast or something.
Change the MULE into something where it can provide a boost to the Terran economy without making it necessary to be dropped constantly. Perhaps allow it to be dropped and convert into a building at a faster rate than normal SCVs build them instead of the harvest-resources-at-an-increased-rate ability.
I'm not sure how to handle the MSC at all. It just seems like such an incredible mess of a unit, as you absolutely 100% cannot go around this unit in any shape way or form when you are playing Protoss. I basically hated sentries throughout WoL and HotS for the same reason. Stuff like that just disgusts me as someone who likes to get a choice in where I invest my resources.
It's bad enough that we have to make all these workers all the time (joke!).
Ah well, it's never gonna happen, I guess. I agree with this completely. Why are there units (other than workers) you basically must build regardless of your strategy? Queens, MULEs and Chrono Boost just add a mechanical barrier but very little strategic-wise. While I agree and always thought that sc2 had too many inflexible elements that take the focus away from actual strategy (yay, macro apm, so interesting...), blizzard made clear that they want the game to be mechanical taxing and they want to keep their dog trainer parts in the game. They reemphasized this again @fundamental changes. I doubt we are going to see any macro changes that aren't +/-costs. So I guess talking about it really serves no purpose 
Honestly, I think that what they are saying in public is always in some way meant to direct and manage the community discussion. Right now, they just don't want us to consider sweeping changes with this re-design patch. Not to mention that it's unclear if "sweeping changes to how the game functions" (what they don't want) and "big improvements within" (what they want) excludes economy changes and/or changes to key mechanisms.
I'm not sure if changes to the macro mechanics are off the table forever. They barely touched on that in the beta and it keeps coming up again and again in the community discussions. So at some point they might relent and give it a spin. Hopefully. 
On August 22 2016 20:43 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 19:21 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On August 20 2016 19:50 a_flayer wrote:
I'm just going to throw some shit out there. I don't know what my icon says, but I've only been playing random on those rare occasions that I've played SC2 in the past 5 years or so. I started out as a Zerg player in WoL when I borderlined as a low-level master player (I've been in and out of masters during the first season).
Personally, I'm still upset that they didn't remove the macro mechanics. I just feel like it's detrimental to my enjoyment of the game. I never played as much SC2 as I did in that short time period where they reduced the need for macro mechanics. In addition to that, I feel like units such as the Queen and MSC detract from my freedom to pick and choose my strategies, both in offence (playing against those units) and defence (where they are basically 100% necessary to be built). Add to that the economic "defence" of the MULE (which allows Terran to sustain worker damage and recover from it), and we've covered all three races somewhat in this respect, I think.
Me too. I really hope they will at some point re-evaluate the macro mechanics removal. IMO, one of the major reasons of why they didn't keep this change was that it tipped balance against Terran. With the buffs to mech it may have played out otherwise. From my experience, without macro mechanics your micro in battles became way more important if you played Protoss or Terran (inject was just toned down, so not much of a change for Zerg). I really enjoyed that. On August 20 2016 19:50 a_flayer wrote:
I would like to see a SC2 where these units just aren't absolutely necessary in order to play the game and at the same time deal with my dislike for the macro mechanics.
Maybe increase the natural larvae spawn of hatcheries to the point where queens aren't necessary, or at least not quite as prolific. Remove the spawn larvae ability of queens or reduce it to 1 larva per inject to make it an optional boost if you want more zerglings for your strategy of choice and increase the cost of the queen (maybe 200/50?) and her abilities (50 energy?) so that maybe you'll just have one or two if you really want to spread creep fast or something.
Change the MULE into something where it can provide a boost to the Terran economy without making it necessary to be dropped constantly. Perhaps allow it to be dropped and convert into a building at a faster rate than normal SCVs build them instead of the harvest-resources-at-an-increased-rate ability.
I'm not sure how to handle the MSC at all. It just seems like such an incredible mess of a unit, as you absolutely 100% cannot go around this unit in any shape way or form when you are playing Protoss. I basically hated sentries throughout WoL and HotS for the same reason. Stuff like that just disgusts me as someone who likes to get a choice in where I invest my resources.
It's bad enough that we have to make all these workers all the time (joke!).
Ah well, it's never gonna happen, I guess. I agree with this completely. Why are there units (other than workers) you basically must build regardless of your strategy? Queens, MULEs and Chrono Boost just add a mechanical barrier but very little strategic-wise. I think that they could keep some mechanics in the game, but only if they make them not a must-have. I posted a suggestion a while ago that was approximately like this: Terran: - MULE removed. - Calldown supplies being more usable (upgrades also bunkers individually, but provides less supply buff and is more spammeable). - Terran gets a nerfed version of Techreactors, that can't research and can only produce one massive unit at a time, maybe at Armory tech level (or Armory + Shadow Ops). Or just an upgrade to reactor marauders. - Maybe another ability at Orbital. Terran has been given a ton of reactored units in LotV that intend to be core units, so a semi-Tech reactor makes relative sense. A semi-lategame Tech reactor makes bio less dependant on mules (Reactored Marauders) and is a big buff to mech, although several iterations need to be tested. With the removal of MULES, building Orbitals is noticeably optional, and once the supply limit is reached there's no reason to build more of them. Zerg: - Inject Larva removed, replaced with an ability that increases the morph speed of building hatcheries and zerg cocoons nearby. - Hatcheries can bank 4 larva (but produce them at the same speed), Lairs and Hives have slightly increased larva production speed and Larva limit. With baseline buffs to larva Production, an ability that enchances the building speed of Hatcheries would make a ton of sense, and it would have exactly the same feeling and micro than Injecting Larva. Increasing the building speed of Zerg units is not as broken as it is to other races, because Zerg is highly dependant on the production speed of Larva, not the morphing speed of them. THe morph speed buff to Zerg cocoons is just a buff in defensive situations, for example when you have a push knocking the door. Protoss: The easiest. - Chronboost requires energy again, but it has a high energy cost (75-100)and is oriented towards long-term rewards, for example with 60s-80s duration, 50% speed buff. Cannot target nexuses, pylons or cannons, only production and reasearch buildings. - Some defensive ability is given to nexus, like Pylon Overcharge (with balance adjustements) it costs energy too (50), and has limited cast range (2-3 bases long MAX) - Both abilities and maybe the energy regeneration of Nexus require CyberCore. - MSC reworked. This balances the small early game advantage that protoss has in terms of Workers, has an interesting strategic choice on energy usage of Nexuses, and Chronoboost is mostly tech oriented as it is in LotV. Removes the need of a unit to cast a core defensive ability
There are some good ideas in there, but I don't see how this changes macro APM requirements for Protoss and Terrans very much.
For comparison, the last time I thought about different macro mechanics, these were my ideas:
- Terran
M.U.L.E. replaced by a calldown on mineral patch which enriches the mineral patch (for example to give it gold mineral return value). Is attackable and destroys itself when the mineral patch has been mined out.
- Zerg
Spawn Larva replaced by Clone. Clone reproduces a friendly biological unit for health cost equivalent to unit HP.
- Protoss
Chrono Boost changed to area of effect unit buff. Target friendly units receive a timed buff to key stats (movement speed, attack/ mining rate, shield/ energy regeneration). Does not stack.
I think that those are some really unobtrusive mechanisms with largely the same effect as the existing macro mechanics for Terran and Zerg and a kind of catch-all solution for Protoss (replacing chrono'ing probe production is replaced by chrono'ing probe mining/ movement speed, Protoss gains a sort of shield battery, a sort of Khaydarin Amulet for all energy units, an inverse Time Warp, etc.).
On August 23 2016 07:03 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 00:12 Blackfeather wrote:On August 22 2016 23:22 a_flayer wrote:On August 22 2016 22:43 JCoto wrote:On August 22 2016 22:16 Blackfeather wrote:On August 21 2016 19:21 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On August 20 2016 19:50 a_flayer wrote:
I'm just going to throw some shit out there. I don't know what my icon says, but I've only been playing random on those rare occasions that I've played SC2 in the past 5 years or so. I started out as a Zerg player in WoL when I borderlined as a low-level master player (I've been in and out of masters during the first season).
Personally, I'm still upset that they didn't remove the macro mechanics. I just feel like it's detrimental to my enjoyment of the game. I never played as much SC2 as I did in that short time period where they reduced the need for macro mechanics. In addition to that, I feel like units such as the Queen and MSC detract from my freedom to pick and choose my strategies, both in offence (playing against those units) and defence (where they are basically 100% necessary to be built). Add to that the economic "defence" of the MULE (which allows Terran to sustain worker damage and recover from it), and we've covered all three races somewhat in this respect, I think.
Me too. I really hope they will at some point re-evaluate the macro mechanics removal. IMO, one of the major reasons of why they didn't keep this change was that it tipped balance against Terran. With the buffs to mech it may have played out otherwise. From my experience, without macro mechanics your micro in battles became way more important if you played Protoss or Terran (inject was just toned down, so not much of a change for Zerg). I really enjoyed that. On August 20 2016 19:50 a_flayer wrote:
I would like to see a SC2 where these units just aren't absolutely necessary in order to play the game and at the same time deal with my dislike for the macro mechanics.
Maybe increase the natural larvae spawn of hatcheries to the point where queens aren't necessary, or at least not quite as prolific. Remove the spawn larvae ability of queens or reduce it to 1 larva per inject to make it an optional boost if you want more zerglings for your strategy of choice and increase the cost of the queen (maybe 200/50?) and her abilities (50 energy?) so that maybe you'll just have one or two if you really want to spread creep fast or something.
Change the MULE into something where it can provide a boost to the Terran economy without making it necessary to be dropped constantly. Perhaps allow it to be dropped and convert into a building at a faster rate than normal SCVs build them instead of the harvest-resources-at-an-increased-rate ability.
I'm not sure how to handle the MSC at all. It just seems like such an incredible mess of a unit, as you absolutely 100% cannot go around this unit in any shape way or form when you are playing Protoss. I basically hated sentries throughout WoL and HotS for the same reason. Stuff like that just disgusts me as someone who likes to get a choice in where I invest my resources.
It's bad enough that we have to make all these workers all the time (joke!).
Ah well, it's never gonna happen, I guess. I agree with this completely. Why are there units (other than workers) you basically must build regardless of your strategy? Queens, MULEs and Chrono Boost just add a mechanical barrier but very little strategic-wise. While I agree and always thought that sc2 had too many inflexible elements that take the focus away from actual strategy (yay, macro apm, so interesting...), blizzard made clear that they want the game to be mechanical taxing and they want to keep their dog trainer parts in the game. They reemphasized this again @fundamental changes. I doubt we are going to see any macro changes that aren't +/-costs. So I guess talking about it really serves no purpose I think that what I prosposed above is not a bad solution. I think I've read your proposed solutions before and I found them terribly vague and incomplete. And I still think that. Much like mine, except in different ways. I was really just venting with my original post because I can't be arsed to play the game in the way Blizzard seems to want the game to be played. I wasn't trying to start a discussion or even expecting people to agree with me, lel. Can totally relate to that, was a random plat/diamond player in wol and feel the same about macro mechanics (although I couldn't test it cause I got no beta key). One of the reasons I stopped playing was because Sc2 was for me too much RT and too little S. But the macro mechanics resolution made pretty clear that Blizz wants to keep it that way, or at least keep APM a major factor. I feel that, if you remove artificial macro mechanics, the excessive APM will simply be dedicated to more multi-pronged harassments & engaging the other player in combat instead of macroing. But maybe I'm crazy like that and people will still go for the 1a deathball while APM drops down to next to nothing cause its so easy in SC2 to do that.
Yeah, exactly. Less macro-APM does not mean less APM overall. It just means more micro APM: less a-move big army clashes and more skirmishes and flanks.
|
|
|
On August 23 2016 12:04 ihatevideogames wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 11:49 DomeGetta wrote:On August 23 2016 11:14 ihatevideogames wrote:On August 23 2016 10:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 23 2016 09:30 ihatevideogames wrote:On August 23 2016 08:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 23 2016 07:48 ihatevideogames wrote:
Mech simply takes a different kind of skill than bio. While bio is arguably pure APM, mech is about positioning, composition and timing. It's so easy to die with mech, you get caught out of position and you're dead. It's also pretty hard to defend bases and expand. The wrong composition can also cost you the game.
In my opinion, a player who can defend his bases properly with the slow mech units, not get caught out unsieged and have the right composition to fight the lategame P/Z armies is not less skillfull than someone who shift-clicks medivacs all over the map.
due to the fog of war and watching my replays of my own Mech Games i'd say not getting caught unsieged has a significant component of luck to it. like more than 10% luck but less than 50% luck. some place in that range. Also, your "time to move out" decision can fubar your army whether or not its Mech if your luck is bad. At play levels below Masters there is no real "optimal move out time". Disclaimer: 60% Random. 40% Terran Diamond player. I'd like to see Mech and ground units get stronger with this big new off-season patch. Even with Mech getting stronger...I think pure Mech should be weaker than Bio and weaker than Bio/Mech. How much weaker? Dunno. To take it to an extreme .. it takes a lot more skill to manage 80 Marines than 12 Thors... and that skill should be rewarded. It takes more skill to manage 80 marines than to amove 12 Ultras. See how much of a fallacy that statement is? There's a certain amount of skill involved to getting to those 12 ultras, thors, whatever. I made it to Diamond on NA and EU playing mech in 80% of my games and I have to say not getting caught unsieged has nothing to do with luck, it's carelessness. This is the different kind of skill I was talking about, a good mech player will always spread out cheaper units to scout ahead for his army so he has time to siege, use smart scans, and always keep half of hits tanks sieged when his army is stopped, etc etc. And to be honest, playing bio feels easier to me. It's especially infuriating when I play a 50 min turtle mech game on New Gettys because I can never attack with mech in TvZ and the next game I win in 5 minutes because my stim 16 marine drop killed 12 drones and then the next I get another easy win by shift-clicking medivacs all over the map. If anything, I feel like bio is much more luck based than mech. yep , it takes skill to play Mech. it takes more skill to play Bio and Bio/Mech. and i'm not talking about A-moving.. which is only 1 thing out of 5,000 things you can do with 80 marines. you could place 8 marines in 10 different places on the map. and have them all having different responsibilities. Managing that process is more difficult than managing 12 Thors. You missed my point completely. I wasn't talking about amoving 80 marines, I was talking about managing them, vs managing 12 ultras. There are only a few things you can do with 12 ultras, 90% of the time you amove them. But that's fine and skillfull, but 12 thors is not apparently. You also completely ignored the whole point of getting to 12 3/3 thors or 12 8 armor ultras etc etc. What I'm trying to say is, microing bio and shitft-clicking drops are not the only indicators of skill in this game. But they've been the ones on the spotlight for terran for far too long. You know, there are certain communities that were making fun of SC2 for being a 'asian clicking simulator'. It's like alot of people really want it to be just that, instead of having more strategic options. LOL @ the racist and ignorant comment above. You are totally missing his point. What he's saying is that bio has a higher skill cap - which is what separates the Korean Terrans from the rest of the world. There's a reason that Korean Terrans in the history of SC2 have mostly chosen bio - and it's because it allows them to use their mechanics to gain an advantage that they wouldn't have otherwise (multitask and micro). If they go through with this patch - they are taking that away - which in my opinion is a shame. They say they want the Terran to have "options" but everything in this patch makes it pretty clear that mech will be the only viable option in all 3 match-ups. Foreign Terrans have always shown a much higher percentage of mech because it allows you to rely more on your positioning and macro than on your ability to out-maneuver your opponent and defeat them with constant pressure through multi-tasking. This will definitely level the playing field - but in my opinion lowering the skill cap of the game is moving in the wrong direction - I would really like to hear someone from Blizzard address this concern - please do not set the meta so that the correct way to play is to turtle to super late game tech every game - you have already made it that way for zerg in ZvT and it's bad enough with 1 race - if you go through with all of these patches every TvT is going to be a split map mech bore-fest and we're going to see this same thing in TvZ and more than likely TvP. How the heck is that racist, get some thicker skin. I was just saying how certain communities called the game (they used a trully racist word btw, i changed it) and how I find it funny that it sort of became true. Or are you denying the fact that LOTV shifted the game towards more micro and multitasking and less strategy and tactics? That's what I was trying to point out. The fact that mech is bad and bio is the only viable terran comp is a testament to that. And I don't think bio will be as weak as you say. Baneling buff aside, it will make it how it's supossed to be, the bio terran won't be able to just a-move into a tank line and win. You need to realise that turtle mech became a thing because you can NEVER attack with mech. If these changes go through, attacking with mech will be much, much more viable. I might be a scrub, but I can understand that much. Also, relying more on positioning, macro and unit composition instead of pure multitasking and APM is somehow reducing the skill cap of the game? What? Do you understand my 'racist' comment now? Everyone goes nuts over APM and multitasking, there's more to this game than how many medivacs you can shift-click across the map.
lol let me get this straight - you've expressed confusion about how what you said is racist - followed immediately by sourcing the original comment as being "truly racist"? I hope I'm not troll feeding here.
Moving on to relevancy - I may have missed the part of the buffs that eliminate the tremendous defenders advantage of mech? Less mobile siege tank with more damage? Stronger BC's that can't be produced in volume without a huge late game economy?
I can clarify further on the skill gap concern - imagine post design changes - 2 players both have pro level skill related to positioning their units and macro - who wins the game? Everything that I've seen playing this game at high master level for the last few years related to mech says that the player who decides he'd rather hang himself than continue sitting on his split map sensor towers and decides to attack loses. This leads to the turtle-fest which in my opinion will kill viewership and active players (just an opinion). Anyone who was around for wol and hots (pre PDD nerf) knows that horror-show that late game skyterran vs skyterran is (who is better at pdding / seekering and then running their ravens away?) Unless there is something I'm missing about the new mech comp that would allow for attacking on multiple fronts and some sort of harass that doesn't get completely shut down by turrets I don't see a way that one player separates himself from the other relative to his skill in the game - effectively lowering the skill cap. You won't get to see a player dominating the scene because of his insane mechanics - you'll see a much more level foreigner vs Korean playing field (same reason you see successful foreign zergs and protoss but not Terrans (outside of uthermal who is a beast - but has relied on gimmicky reaper builds to some extent). Z and P can position / macro / defend and still win the game late - T in the current meta really cannot (although TY might beg to disagree based on that ridiculous and incredible game vs. rogue in code S - inspiring shit right there if you haven't seen it - tho I will say this is the only game I can site in all of LOTV where a Terran won a super-late game vs. Z where the Z didn't make a blaring error).
Edit:
What I really think Blizzard needs to do is to create multiple modes that you can play the game on - one for pro level play and one that's more like game being shouted for by so many players (easier). This way everybody gets what they want? Blizz? Pls?
|
So I'm curious, is bio dead in some TvX matchups, at the diamond level or higher with this update?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
