On September 04 2016 07:38 emc wrote: mech is too strong? and here I'm reading about Avilo complaining it's too weak still
Well avilo's avilo. From my impression of him, he really is not your go-to gamer for design choices
I know more about the balance/design of this game more than 99% of the players/progamers that play this game, prob more than some designers themselves.
Don't buy into the image a few haters perpetuate of me. I also can play all 3 races/random at GM level (yep, i have on my main account many times).
For example, the guy i quoted just wrote that i am complaining mech is too weak still which is completely incorrect and out of context.
I have complained, along with other people, that for years mech has no anti-air unit capable of trading with carriers, tempests, BCS, etc. This in turn forces mech games to end up being turtle/stalemate games because it forces another 10+ minutes of the Terran accumulating mass viking+ravens (which are barely effective against parabomb/fungal/storm in the first place).
Do you see the difference in some random forum poster/hater posting "avilo is complaining mech weak" versus the analysis and description of a game design/balance issue that i just elaborated upon here? I hope you can see the difference.
As for my opinion on "Mech is too strong" just made a video about it and to summarize - just as many people have posted here...very few people have experience playing against mech, which is the only reason it would ever appear to be "too strong" when in fact it's probably just right atm on the test mod.
Those few hater seem to be every big figure in TL forum. I don't mean to be rude, but you're really out there in terms of personality. However, I will go back on my words that you're not the person to listen to in terms of design. Yet, it should still be more than one guy's opinion to make people think about it seriously.
"I know more about the balance/design of this game more than 99% of the players/progamers that play this game, prob more than some designers themselves."
On September 04 2016 07:38 emc wrote: mech is too strong? and here I'm reading about Avilo complaining it's too weak still
Well avilo's avilo. From my impression of him, he really is not your go-to gamer for design choices
I know more about the balance/design of this game more than 99% of the players/progamers that play this game, prob more than some designers themselves.
Don't buy into the image a few haters perpetuate of me. I also can play all 3 races/random at GM level (yep, i have on my main account many times).
For example, the guy i quoted just wrote that i am complaining mech is too weak still which is completely incorrect and out of context.
I have complained, along with other people, that for years mech has no anti-air unit capable of trading with carriers, tempests, BCS, etc. This in turn forces mech games to end up being turtle/stalemate games because it forces another 10+ minutes of the Terran accumulating mass viking+ravens (which are barely effective against parabomb/fungal/storm in the first place).
Do you see the difference in some random forum poster/hater posting "avilo is complaining mech weak" versus the analysis and description of a game design/balance issue that i just elaborated upon here? I hope you can see the difference.
As for my opinion on "Mech is too strong" just made a video about it and to summarize - just as many people have posted here...very few people have experience playing against mech, which is the only reason it would ever appear to be "too strong" when in fact it's probably just right atm on the test mod.
This is true, and in order to judge mechs viability you would have to find someone who can play it at gm level, some people hate Avilo and dismiss what he says because they are insane, but what he is saying is what every other gm mech player is saying right now so he is right about what he is saying!
On September 04 2016 09:22 ShamanElemental1 wrote: Also just to not sound hypocitical.
There is a problem on the Zerg side to.... You can now 2 base nydus with 4 queens and pure roach.
The tankivac and the liberator where the things that stopped it... but now if they dont open liberator ( and most terrans stopped doing that ) their dead.
Nice to hear the game is already figured out again! Who needs Koreans when you have ShamanElemental1?
First you have to know a 2 base nydus is coming fairly easily, not that hard to scout.
Second, you can easily change nydus by making it less powerful in some way if it's an issue. It's dumb to keep something like tankivac to stop an all in vs. fixing the tank and then correcting balance accordingly. The positional play of the tank and the way it should work has way more value to the overall health of the game than needing it as an anti nydus flying car.
On September 04 2016 07:38 emc wrote: mech is too strong? and here I'm reading about Avilo complaining it's too weak still
Well avilo's avilo. From my impression of him, he really is not your go-to gamer for design choices
I know more about the balance/design of this game more than 99% of the players/progamers that play this game, prob more than some designers themselves.
your non stop trashing of DK decreases your credibility. I'll never forget you trashing Greg Black and telling all those fat jokes about the guy on GR.Org. He gave a slight nerf to Vindicators in RA3 and you were yelling and screaming constantly about how the Vindicator would become a "suicide bomber". Greg Black even had to answer live questions about the Vindi becoming a suicide bomber and he stared down the questions and was dead-on correct about how the nerf would affect the Vindicator in the future. you were incorrect.
you never apologized or acknowledged your incorrect projection of what would become of the Vindicator. you acted like it never happened. I always thought Greg Black was an excellent game designer and he did a great job of facing down EALA management, head-on in a polite, first-class, constructive truthful and hard-hitting criticism published by cncsaga.
Greg Black showed you how to properly criticize a large software development shop. I suggest you follow his lead rather than the stream of non-sensical vulgarity you broadcast weekly.
its no surprise to me that Greg Black got hired by Blizzard as a Game Designer. The way you described GB during his RA3 days people would think he'd never get another job in the industry. And its no surprise to me that your non-stop never-ending criticism of the SC2 team in particular and the Blizzard game making company in general continues as the company releases title after title that breaks their own PC Sales records.
If SC2 were garbage the way you say it is then Blizzard would notice it in their next title's sales. Or the title after that. D3 and Heathstone have been absolute unbelievable LONG TERM successes. OW is another smash success.
I will take guys like Jeff Kaplan , DK , DB, and Greg Black over you 1000 times. Don't bother comparing yourself to the Blizzard game designers because when you do you lose credibility and become a caricature of yourself. Of course, you regularly throw your hands up in the air and claim "just trolling guys". So maybe you want to be a caricature. That of course also diminishes your credibility.
Blizzard's long term success with every franchise they make is due to their ability to hire very smart and talented game designers and nurture that talent. Let's not focus on who knows more than whom. Its no contest man. Let's focus on Gameplay First! Not rhetoric or emotional ramblings or character assassinations. None of that matters.. its Gameplay First!
On September 04 2016 07:38 emc wrote: mech is too strong? and here I'm reading about Avilo complaining it's too weak still
Well avilo's avilo. From my impression of him, he really is not your go-to gamer for design choices
I know more about the balance/design of this game more than 99% of the players/progamers that play this game, prob more than some designers themselves.
your non stop trashing of DK decreases your credibility. I'll never forget you trashing Greg Black and telling all those fat jokes about the guy on GR.Org. He gave a slight nerf to Vindicators in RA3 and you were yelling and screaming constantly about how the Vindicator would become a "suicide bomber". Greg Black even had to answer live questions about the Vindi becoming a suicide bomber and he stared down the questions and was dead-on correct about how the nerf would affect the Vindicator in the future. you were incorrect.
you never apologized or acknowledged your incorrect projection of what would become of the Vindicator. you acted like it never happened. I always thought Greg Black was an excellent game designer and he did a great job of facing down EALA management, head-on in a polite, first-class, constructive truthful and hard-hitting criticism published by cncsaga.
Greg Black showed you how to properly criticize a large software development shop. I suggest you follow his lead rather than the stream of non-sensical vulgarity you broadcast weekly.
its no surprise to me that Greg Black got hired by Blizzard as a Game Designer. The way you described GB during his RA3 days people would think he'd never get another job in the industry. And its no surprise to me that your non-stop never-ending criticism of the SC2 team in particular and the Blizzard game making company in general continues as the company releases title after title that breaks their own PC Sales records.
If SC2 were garbage the way you say it is then Blizzard would notice it in their next title's sales. Or the title after that. D3 and Heathstone have been absolute unbelievable LONG TERM successes. OW is another smash success.
I will take guys like Jeff Kaplan , DK , DB, and Greg Black over you 1000 times. Don't bother comparing yourself to the Blizzard game designers because when you do you lose credibility and become a caricature of yourself. Of course, you regularly throw your hands up in the air and claim "just trolling guys". So maybe you want to be a caricature. That of course also diminishes your credibility.
Blizzard's long term success with every franchise they make is due to their ability to hire very smart and talented game designers and nurture that talent. Let's not focus on who knows more than whom. Its no contest man. Let's focus on Gameplay First! Not rhetoric or emotional ramblings or character assassinations. None of that matters.. its Gameplay First!
You've stalked me for quite a long time rofl. RA3/CnC3 never were successful past a very tiny community exactly because the game was poorly balanced, and SC2 seems to have fallen in those footsteps sadly going from the premiere #1 e-sport to taking a backseat to other games less worthy (imo).
I wouldn't doubt a few cnc devs were absorbed into SC2's dev team that were also pretty bad at game balance. Best example i can give if you wanna go back in time is the nerf to CnC3 zone raiders+hammerheads.
For those of you that never played CnC3:Kane's Wrath, there was a unit you could load into a very nimble-like helicoptor and it would allow you to kite enemy units just barely out of range exactly like you can with mutalisks in SC1. Yes you read that correctly - you could kite like SC1 mutas, which is better than SC2 mutalisk kiting.
So what did the developers do? They decided they didn't want that in the game because it scared them having something that required skill/finesse and they nerfed the speed on the hammerhead so it was no longer possible to do that kiting, essentially killing the unit and that entire tactic in favor of the "make more tanks than your opponent."
It's just a tiny example i can give you SC1/SC2 forum goers of terrible balance/design decisions made by designers that don't play their own game at the highest level or don't understand the intricacies of such things.
Anyways, that has little to do with SC2, just funny this jimmyraynor guy wants to bring up an old game that died exactly because of poor balancing/lack of patches which is quite analogous to what has happened with SC2 over the years - lack of balance patches/poor balancing =/
I also don't think you can compare Kaplan/Dkim/Greg Black etc. Because all of these guys while may be at blizzard seem to go about balancing/development differently. From what i've seen, Blizzard should literally just clone Jeff Kaplan to all of their dev teams and then developers might intrinsically learn what the word iteration means through action rather than talking about it
The main problem with the test map is that there is no automated match making for it so it's impossible to crank out reasonable games (like games where as a diamond I don't murder half the people and get murdered by the other half) first and foremost.
Secondary problems are (from what I can tell)
Ravens are once again a super mass cancer unit, I don't care if cancer is an emotionally charged word to describe it, it's straight up cancer, mass planetary with mass turrets while massing Ravens and Liberators? Yea, that will make this a dead game for sure. Easy to mass energy based units are not good for the game. Tune the Raven to be more about utility and less about offensive spells.
Tanks are great, but with Liberators they are too much ground control, the Liberator ground attack needs to be nerfed heavily if the tanks are going to be this powerful. Not only is it overpowered, but it also overlaps completely. Oh look, now Terran has powerful sky tanks AND powerful ground tanks.
Zealots are fucking terrifying but I think I like it, the only thing that makes it frustrating to play is with mega overpowered Warp Prisms right now dropping deathlots into your base and picking them up from range, that shit needs to go, or the Prisms themselves need to be far more brittle. In WoL and HoTS Prisms were too weak, now they are just retard overpowered.
Tempest changes are good but the duration on the stasis thing makes it hilariously broken especially vs Lurker lines and mineral lines.
Hydralisks are fucking fabulous now but I worry if these changes just makes them OP vs Protoss while they still remain utterly useless vs Terran (I understand now every unit has to be viable in every match up though) but that power dynamic could probably be toned down a bit.
On September 05 2016 02:16 avilo wrote: You've stalked me for quite a long time rofl. RA3/CnC3 never were successful past a very tiny community exactly
stalked? umm no, i've play RA3 and SC2. My SC playing started with SC64 in 2000 long before GR.Org existed. Other than that you don't play any of the games i play. my primary playing partner through RA3 and SC2 has been Keyamoon. we play those 2 games because we like them.
EA NHL '94? no. Fire Pro Wrestling ? no. Borderlands? no. Super Mario 3? no.
not only do Blizzard's game designers know far more than you do about game design they have access to the best minds in the business on a monthly basis. it is not just their own individual knowledge but the sum total of knowledge and experience of their professional social network that dwarfs yours.
Not only does DK know more about game design than you do.. he has access to the best minds in the business when dealing with tough game design issues. you have none of that.
as i said.. discuss gameplay not all the other BS you try to bring into it because claiming you are a better designer with more knowledge than any of the top Blizzard guys just becomes reductio ad absurdum.
On September 05 2016 02:16 avilo wrote: You've stalked me for quite a long time rofl. RA3/CnC3 never were successful past a very tiny community exactly
stalked? umm no, i've play RA3 and SC2. My SC playing started with SC64 in 2000 long before GR.Org existed. Other than that you don't play any of the games i play. my primary playing partner through RA3 and SC2 has been Keyamoon. we play those 2 games because we like them.
EA NHL '94? no. Fire Pro Wrestling ? no. Borderlands? no. Super Mario 3? no.
not only do Blizzard's game designers know far more than you do about game design they have access to the best minds in the business on a monthly basis. it is not just their own individual knowledge but the sum total of knowledge and experience of their professional social network that dwarfs yours.
Not only does DK know more about game design than you do.. he has access to the best minds in the business when dealing with tough game design issues. you have none of that.
as i said.. discuss gameplay not all the other BS you try to bring into it because claiming you are a better designer with more knowledge than any of the top Blizzard guys just becomes reductio ad absurdum.
I mean I agree Avilo is arrogant and being GM in North America doesn't make you some automatic authority on balance or anything (I mean even alot of Korean pro's who would trash Avilo handily have radical views on balance some of the time) but overpraising David Kim also isn't entirely correct.
This is the same David Kim who balanced.....Dawn of War D:
Not hard to understand that if the tank of wol was nerfed because he was too strong : If you add a tank stronger than the wol tank with no more siege upgrade requierement, yeah mech will become too strong...
Sure there is new unit, but with armor tag 100/100 3 ravager become weaker than a simple roach...
But of course there are players that don't want a better and more balanced game but only they want their race stronger than the other...
On September 04 2016 07:38 emc wrote: mech is too strong? and here I'm reading about Avilo complaining it's too weak still
Well avilo's avilo. From my impression of him, he really is not your go-to gamer for design choices
I know more about the balance/design of this game more than 99% of the players/progamers that play this game, prob more than some designers themselves.
Don't buy into the image a few haters perpetuate of me. I also can play all 3 races/random at GM level (yep, i have on my main account many times).
You may be a better player than most posters on this site, but that doesn't affect the fact that you're probably more biased and agenda-driven than most people here too. Most posters here take your words with a grain of salt because you're known to advocate things for Terran even when Terran is way stronger than the other races. Just because a player is good / high level doesn't mean they can't be biased. Which you are, to an extreme extreme level. We can make T start with 10 workers, P/Z start with 1 worker, and see T have 95% win rate vs. other races, and you'll still be complaining that SCVs can't build as efficiently without losing minerals lmao.
On September 03 2016 08:23 Qwyn wrote: Just make it so siege tanks don't one shot zerglings (30 + 40 should be good) and I think we're good. Also, please for the love of SC put the siege mode upgrade back into the game or something @@.
And I definitely don't think that ravagers should be armored, or else we're never going to see them at all in SC2 (the other races have great answers to armored units from Zerg, and with the rise of the turbo tank an armored ravager will be virtually unusable).
Tanks definitely shouldn't go live with this kind of strength without some sort of penalty. Zerg are just not going to be able to fight around that kind of mech army without doing cheese strats, broodlord deathballs, or dumb, awkward feeling anti-mech play. So please Blizzard tune them appropriately so we can do some sort of swarm style play against mech instead of what we saw during the final days of HotS.
Warp prisms don't need ANOTHER HP reduction! Please just tone down their speed and pick up range...or just make the warp mode transformation take longer...
I think that adepts should not be allowed to cancel their shades once used. This vision change is going in the right direction, but is still not enough. It's not going to change whether or not Protoss shade around between mineral lines...it just makes it a complete gamble.
A change like preventing shade cancel would force Protoss players to think a bit more before committing their shades to harassment and would mean that adepts could keep their low shade cooldown.
Its pretty clear to me you don't understand how Tanks work. There is absolutely no problem with a Tank one-shoting a Zergling. In fact, logically it makes sense. But the change you are asking for will not solve the problem you stated. Technically Zerglings counter Tanks. Yes, COUNTER TANKS. The problem for Zerg comes in when splash gets applied. Clumping your Zerglings is what gets you wrecked, not the fact that a single Zergling gets one-shot. With perfect micro, Tanks are weak. Luckily, perfect micro is no where near possible.
This is what the battle would look like if you negated Siege Tank splash:
As you can see, your problem is not that Tanks one-shot Zerglings, Its the SPLASH that does the lings in. If Tanks are too strong as you suggest, its the splash that is causing it.
Your Adept statement is ludicrous. No other unit has the inability to cancel a shade, why would Adepts be the exception? Shading is hardly the best ability in the game. Why not give Adepts Mana and make a Shade cost 25-50 Mana per attempt. It would be a balance between both worlds. Newly warped in Adepts would have 1- 2 shades max, and a Protoss player can accrue additional shades for harassment tactics in the mid-late game. Would create an interesting advantage Ghosts, and Feedback would be a fringe counter at best.
For the people that are complaining about Warp Prisms. The problem is that Protoss does not gain enough utility by creating additional warp prisms past the first. The reason is because the Robo Facility is too important of a structure to be building several Warp Prisms. The other units are more useful. That is why the Warp Prism has an upgrade to make it the fastest unit in the game and the ability to constantly spawn units. This increases its survivability so it can constantly harass. This was no fluke. That's also why it was given as much health as an Overlord. AND SINCE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT....no one complains about Overlord health. So it would be intuitive that Warp Prism health is not the issue. Its either the speed or the pick up range. And the speed is arguably justified because its survivability is necessary for the reason I stated above. If they are going to nerf anything, it should be the pick up range. Reduce it by one if you want to be conservative, or by two if you want to be aggressive. But anything more than that is excessive and will defeat the utility of the new LotV ability.
Uhm?!
I have a pretty good idea of how tanks work dude...and in SC2 tanks don't have overkill which means 40 damage vs light makes tank splash absolutely shred zerglings...If the damage stays as is it means that 2 fac tank bio with fast +2 vehicle weapons will absolutely shred ling based armies...along with roaches...
It's not cool when a unit that will very clearly become a staple in every matchup along with another unit (the marine) are both able to effortlessly shred through zerglings along with destroying armored units (say bye bye to ultra rushes and roach play)!
This isn't SC1. Zerg can't play swarm style like they used to, the only unit good supply efficient enough is the ling.
And I see nothing wrong with my adept suggestion. "No other unit has the inability to cancel a shade..." WTF does that even mean? The adept completely warps vT and vZ because of the power of its shade ability in conjunction with the warp prism. It means that the opponent has to gamble on whether or not P will cancel or make a lot of extra units to compensate. Add that to the low cooldown and ability to pass through units (rendering hidden tech or partial simcity useless) and its clear the shade has a bit too much utility. The vision change just promotes calculated gambling by P players...it doesn't stop back and forth shading.
And to all the people complaining about mech nerfs...we saw what mech looks like near the end of HotS, and there's no reason to assume things will be any different now, especially with a 70 damage tank...cancer mech will be a thing again if you don't make the correct changes and it won't be pretty. I'm not suggesting a nerf into oblivion, but the damage on the tank should be adjusted just the teeniest bit so that mass tank based strategies don't just destroy everything on the ground...which is very composition limiting, especially for Zerg. If you don't give Zerg a ground based way to trade (not evenly!) against mass tank, then it means that Zerg is going to HAVE to do hella obnoxious strategies like mass broodlord or weird viper yank strategies just to be able to trade cost efficiently with mech. It is not very fun when you are forced to play around a staple unit because it is simply too strong, and DK sees this.
well Avilo is correct that terran mech need very strong anti air from ground units. Vikings as an AA vs armored unit is just straight up boring and leads to bad gameplay.
On September 04 2016 07:38 emc wrote: mech is too strong? and here I'm reading about Avilo complaining it's too weak still
Well avilo's avilo. From my impression of him, he really is not your go-to gamer for design choices
I know more about the balance/design of this game more than 99% of the players/progamers that play this game, prob more than some designers themselves.
Don't buy into the image a few haters perpetuate of me. I also can play all 3 races/random at GM level (yep, i have on my main account many times).
For example, the guy i quoted just wrote that i am complaining mech is too weak still which is completely incorrect and out of context.
I have complained, along with other people, that for years mech has no anti-air unit capable of trading with carriers, tempests, BCS, etc. This in turn forces mech games to end up being turtle/stalemate games because it forces another 10+ minutes of the Terran accumulating mass viking+ravens (which are barely effective against parabomb/fungal/storm in the first place).
Do you see the difference in some random forum poster/hater posting "avilo is complaining mech weak" versus the analysis and description of a game design/balance issue that i just elaborated upon here? I hope you can see the difference.
As for my opinion on "Mech is too strong" just made a video about it and to summarize - just as many people have posted here...very few people have experience playing against mech, which is the only reason it would ever appear to be "too strong" when in fact it's probably just right atm on the test mod.
Those few hater seem to be every big figure in TL forum. I don't mean to be rude, but you're really out there in terms of personality. However, I will go back on my words that you're not the person to listen to in terms of design. Yet, it should still be more than one guy's opinion to make people think about it seriously.
No you are correct, he's not the person to listen to when it comes to design. I can't believe I read his whole post, but LOL the fact that he honestly believes that he knows more about design/balance then 99% of the programers/designers/etc is hilarious. Avilo can barely get GM with Terran and then he claims he's GM level with all 3 races rofl. That's the most amount of BS I have seen.
To give perspective, even in the past when Terran was clearly the strongest race by a large margin, he would still complain and say Terran sucked. Unless Avilo himself can win 100% of his games, they are always UP.
On September 05 2016 08:11 Hider wrote: well Avilo is correct that terran mech need very strong anti air from ground units. Vikings as an AA vs armored unit is just straight up boring and leads to bad gameplay.
People are just dogpiling, they are SO lucky there isnt a ladder lock on the forums, not only is what they are doing wrong, but the reason they are doing it is wrong too!
On September 04 2016 07:38 emc wrote: mech is too strong? and here I'm reading about Avilo complaining it's too weak still
Well avilo's avilo. From my impression of him, he really is not your go-to gamer for design choices
I know more about the balance/design of this game more than 99% of the players/progamers that play this game, prob more than some designers themselves.
Don't buy into the image a few haters perpetuate of me. I also can play all 3 races/random at GM level (yep, i have on my main account many times).
For example, the guy i quoted just wrote that i am complaining mech is too weak still which is completely incorrect and out of context.
I have complained, along with other people, that for years mech has no anti-air unit capable of trading with carriers, tempests, BCS, etc. This in turn forces mech games to end up being turtle/stalemate games because it forces another 10+ minutes of the Terran accumulating mass viking+ravens (which are barely effective against parabomb/fungal/storm in the first place).
Do you see the difference in some random forum poster/hater posting "avilo is complaining mech weak" versus the analysis and description of a game design/balance issue that i just elaborated upon here? I hope you can see the difference.
As for my opinion on "Mech is too strong" just made a video about it and to summarize - just as many people have posted here...very few people have experience playing against mech, which is the only reason it would ever appear to be "too strong" when in fact it's probably just right atm on the test mod.
Those few hater seem to be every big figure in TL forum. I don't mean to be rude, but you're really out there in terms of personality. However, I will go back on my words that you're not the person to listen to in terms of design. Yet, it should still be more than one guy's opinion to make people think about it seriously.
No you are correct, he's not the person to listen to when it comes to design. I can't believe I read his whole post, but LOL the fact that he honestly believes that he knows more about design/balance then 99% of the programers/designers/etc is hilarious. Avilo can barely get GM with Terran and then he claims he's GM level with all 3 races rofl. That's the most amount of BS I have seen.
To give perspective, even in the past when Terran was clearly the strongest race by a large margin, he would still complain and say Terran sucked. Unless Avilo himself can win 100% of his games, they are always UP.
Yep I agree. I don't understand how could you listen someone talking about balance / game design, when every game lost he blames it either on Z-P being OP (if he plays terran) or on the opponent stream sniping / map hacking (if he offraces or plays a mirror). I mean I watched 3-4- games on his stream (then I couldn't listen to the continuous whine / vulgarities..) and it was a constant, every loss he took 2-3 minutes to complain about balance or stream sniping.....
On September 05 2016 06:03 Tyrhanius wrote: Not hard to understand that if the tank of wol was nerfed because he was too strong : If you add a tank stronger than the wol tank with no more siege upgrade requierement, yeah mech will become too strong...
Sure there is new unit, but with armor tag 100/100 3 ravager become weaker than a simple roach...
But of course there are players that don't want a better and more balanced game but only they want their race stronger than the other...
Theres more than just ravagers to counter tanks that weren't in WoL, like adepts shade, tempest (altough nerfed the deathball spell actually works on them) disruptors (they outrange tanks combined with no more tank pick ups), SH (they are actually good at drawing FF, if they do manage to land I) vipers, liberators, hellbat drops, etc.
Yeah I know some are better counter than other but my point is that a unit being X in WoL barely matter because of how much different the games are.
On September 04 2016 07:38 emc wrote: mech is too strong? and here I'm reading about Avilo complaining it's too weak still
Well avilo's avilo. From my impression of him, he really is not your go-to gamer for design choices
I know more about the balance/design of this game more than 99% of the players/progamers that play this game, prob more than some designers themselves.
Don't buy into the image a few haters perpetuate of me. I also can play all 3 races/random at GM level (yep, i have on my main account many times).
For example, the guy i quoted just wrote that i am complaining mech is too weak still which is completely incorrect and out of context.
I have complained, along with other people, that for years mech has no anti-air unit capable of trading with carriers, tempests, BCS, etc. This in turn forces mech games to end up being turtle/stalemate games because it forces another 10+ minutes of the Terran accumulating mass viking+ravens (which are barely effective against parabomb/fungal/storm in the first place).
Do you see the difference in some random forum poster/hater posting "avilo is complaining mech weak" versus the analysis and description of a game design/balance issue that i just elaborated upon here? I hope you can see the difference.
As for my opinion on "Mech is too strong" just made a video about it and to summarize - just as many people have posted here...very few people have experience playing against mech, which is the only reason it would ever appear to be "too strong" when in fact it's probably just right atm on the test mod.
Those few hater seem to be every big figure in TL forum. I don't mean to be rude, but you're really out there in terms of personality. However, I will go back on my words that you're not the person to listen to in terms of design. Yet, it should still be more than one guy's opinion to make people think about it seriously.
No you are correct, he's not the person to listen to when it comes to design. I can't believe I read his whole post, but LOL the fact that he honestly believes that he knows more about design/balance then 99% of the programers/designers/etc is hilarious. Avilo can barely get GM with Terran and then he claims he's GM level with all 3 races rofl. That's the most amount of BS I have seen.
To give perspective, even in the past when Terran was clearly the strongest race by a large margin, he would still complain and say Terran sucked. Unless Avilo himself can win 100% of his games, they are always UP.
Yep I agree. I don't understand how could you listen someone talking about balance / game design, when every game lost he blames it either on Z-P being OP (if he plays terran) or on the opponent stream sniping / map hacking (if he offraces or plays a mirror). I mean I watched 3-4- games on his stream (then I couldn't listen to the continuous whine / vulgarities..) and it was a constant, every loss he took 2-3 minutes to complain about balance or stream sniping.....
I have to admit I tune into his stream here and there and I actually kind of like the guy despite all the nonsense he talks. For me its just refreshing that somebody says negative things about balance/design whether its right or wrong doesnt even matter that much. Ofc a high percentage is exaggerated or just wrong, but sometimes there is some truth in what he says and I feel like almost no other person thats in the sc2 spotlight ever says anything negative about balance which I understand why but still... I personally sometimes just need someone to agree about certain "imbalance" in the game when Im mad myself through playing or watching and then I watch him and have a high chance hes gonna complain about what bothers me as well You just have to not take the guy to serious and then hes actually quite entertaining.
EPT
