Recent Test Map Update We released the three balance changes we discussed last week to the test map yesterday. Your feedback has been positive, and when we tested the changes internally, we thought that they were worth exploring with the public.
The changes were: • Banshee's "Research Hyperflight Rotors" upgrade time increased from 93 to 121. • Adept Shade vision reduced from 9 to 2. • Removed the Infestor's Deep Tunnel ability.
Other areas we’re exploring: 1. Health reduction to Warp Prism. 2. Mech is too strong right now. a. We’ve been hearing your feedback on this. b. We can approach this from many different angles, such as: the Siege Tank buff may have been slightly too much, or maybe we’ve touched too many units overall. c. While we’re still not certain that this is a big issue and we’d like to have more games played before making a call, it would be great to discuss this further.
Give us Automatchmaking for the testmap to make reliable test games on similar skill levels. There is no way mech is too strong, right now. Cyclones are not cost effective. Siege Tank Fire indeed is strong.
On September 03 2016 06:11 Zulu23 wrote: Give us Automatchmaking for the testmap to make reliable test games on similar skill levels. There is no way mech is too strong, right now. Cyclones are not cost effective. Siege Tank Fire indeed is strong.
vs zerg it's probably too strong right now because of tank buff + ravager nerf + broodlord range nerf which are all massive. 60 damage tanks should be tested instead of 70.
I guess the most weird thing is that they have already come to a conclusion that mech is too strong based on 2 weeks in a test map that pros don't even play and doesn't even have a matchmaking. Maybe, just maybe, they should try let it sink for a while? Or try to get pros to play it and only THEN provide conclusions on it?
I don't like the adept vision nerf because it makes shading quite coinflippy because you don't know if you're shading near banelings or something. HP nerf/shade cooldown change/DPS nerf would be better.
On September 03 2016 06:11 Zulu23 wrote: Give us Automatchmaking for the testmap to make reliable test games on similar skill levels. There is no way mech is too strong, right now. Cyclones are not cost effective. Siege Tank Fire indeed is strong.
vs zerg it's probably too strong right now because of tank buff + ravager nerf + broodlord range nerf which are all massive. 60 damage tanks should be tested instead of 70.
I don't think ravagers are supposed to be the composition to face mech in the test map. Hydras and infestors were buffed so maybe that's the new way to fight mech alongside vipers?
Part of the problem is that everything mech including tanks is buffed. Everything that counters mech is nerfed. Also bio is weakened in general since bio counters like banelings are also buffed. The original proposed balance changes just made no sense, so the probably had an idea of what changes they wanted and now they are just playing it out slowly, changing it to how they really wanted it, with disregard.
On September 03 2016 06:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Part of the problem is that everything mech including tanks is buffed. Everything that counters mech is nerfed. Also bio is weakened in general since bio counters like banelings are also buffed. The original proposed balance changes just made no sense, so the probably had an idea of what changes they wanted and now they are just playing it out slowly, changing it to how they really wanted it, with disregard.
Well, wasn't one point of the design changes trying to make mech viable? You do realize that mech isn't viable in the current version, right? So, logically, mech is buffed in the test map, and some of its strongest counters are nerfed. Maybe they overdid? Sure, but I think it's too soon to tell that.
Why (does Blizzard) don't organize a Test map tournament with a 1000$ prize pool to get Public attention and some pros playing it on competitive level....
I hate the nerf to shade vision because it removes the adept's scouting and doens't do that much for jumping adepts between mineral lines in the midgame. I'd prefer a shade cooldown nerf.
On September 03 2016 06:42 Teoita wrote: I hate the nerf to shade vision because it removes the adept's scouting and doens't do that much for jumping adepts between mineral lines in the midgame. I'd prefer a shade cooldown nerf.
Agreed. Blizzard tries too hard at preserving what they think is cool about the unit, instead of addressing the root problem. Same thing with the warp prism. It's the pick up range that's the problem, an hp nerf only makes the unit more coin-flippy.
On September 03 2016 06:25 Charoisaur wrote: I don't like the adept vision nerf because it makes shading quite coinflippy because you don't know if you're shading near banelings or something. HP nerf/shade cooldown change/DPS nerf would be better.
Doesn't that mean you need skill using the shade? With a vision of 2, you don't know if the base you are shading to will have reinforcements or not. The only way you will know is if you have an observer. And that is a good thing.
I personally think the vision change will make Adepts much less powerful in lesser players, but better players will still excel.
On September 03 2016 06:25 Charoisaur wrote: I don't like the adept vision nerf because it makes shading quite coinflippy because you don't know if you're shading near banelings or something. HP nerf/shade cooldown change/DPS nerf would be better.
Doesn't that mean you need skill using the shade? With a vision of 2, you don't know if the base you are shading to will have reinforcements or not. The only way you will know is if you have an observer. And that is a good thing.
I personally think the vision change will make Adepts much less powerful in lesser players, but better players will still excel.
I think it just makes things more gimicky tbh.
For example: PvZ you usually shade with your adept into their base to see if they're all inning but now you prob won't see their tech with the lower vision. Or the zerg just hides their units so when you shade in they surround them and they all die. I'm not sure what kind of skill will be added. Just more gimicky games. Banshee speed is silly too.
I'd like to see Siege Tanks' cooldown increased from 2.8 to 3.0 before a reduction in their damage. Also, either return Ravagers to unarmored, or restructure their health a bit. Personally, I like the idea of lowering their health slightly and giving them fairly beefy armor, like perhaps a default of 3. The combination of Ravager nerf and Siege Tank buff is a bit too much, but I still like it better overall than the current live version of LotV.
On September 03 2016 06:42 Teoita wrote: I hate the nerf to shade vision because it removes the adept's scouting and doens't do that much for jumping adepts between mineral lines in the midgame. I'd prefer a shade cooldown nerf.
Agreed. Blizzard tries too hard at preserving what they think is cool about the unit, instead of addressing the root problem. Same thing with the warp prism. It's the pick up range that's the problem, an hp nerf only makes the unit more coin-flippy.
Sure, like the mass liberator problem? but no terran see there a problem where mass liberator is viable vs protoss. Like polt build 5 liberator at 1 time.
On September 03 2016 06:25 Charoisaur wrote: I don't like the adept vision nerf because it makes shading quite coinflippy because you don't know if you're shading near banelings or something. HP nerf/shade cooldown change/DPS nerf would be better.
Doesn't that mean you need skill using the shade? With a vision of 2, you don't know if the base you are shading to will have reinforcements or not. The only way you will know is if you have an observer. And that is a good thing.
I personally think the vision change will make Adepts much less powerful in lesser players, but better players will still excel.
I think it just makes things more gimicky tbh.
For example: PvZ you usually shade with your adept into their base to see if they're all inning but now you prob won't see their tech with the lower vision. Or the zerg just hides their units so when you shade in they surround them and they all die. I'm not sure what kind of skill will be added. Just more gimicky games. Banshee speed is silly too.
So you're saying the Adept can't be used to scout? But Protoss never needed another scouting tool. They have observers (arguably the best scout) and hallucinate phoenix. Not to mention the Oracle and real pheonix are great scouts.
Are you also saying the Adept will be harder to use? Because if you are, than I view that as a very good thing.
I really don't see it as being gimmicky (whatever that really means). I think this change is a good thing. Honestly, maybe 2 vision is a bit much, and 3 would be a good number.
Blizzard once again shows lack of understanding. More scouting options is never bad in an RTS game. The more you have of it, the less luck there is. The problem they want to solve is free scouting. By introducing cooldown to adepts, they can solve this problem. Either way, balance changes so far don't make me come back to SC2 and play like before. I know it's too early to tell, but we'll see.
On September 03 2016 07:59 Shield wrote: Blizzard once again shows lack of understanding. More scouting options is never bad in an RTS game. The more you have of it, the less luck there is. The problem they want to solve is free scouting. By introducing cooldown to adepts, they can solve this problem. Either way, balance changes so far don't make me come back to SC2 and play like before. I know it's too early to tell, but we'll see.
Are you saying Protoss lacks scouting tools, so they need more? Because I will have to disagree. One of the problems with Adepts is they can safely complete the shade whenever and wherever they want to. By limiting the vision, it increases the risk of using the Adept's shade, and reducing the risk requires an observer.
This also makes Adept harassment more difficult, which again is a good thing.
a few Banshees can be a late game harrasser i guess.
On September 03 2016 07:59 Shield wrote: Blizzard once again shows lack of understanding. More scouting options is never bad in an RTS game. The more you have of it, the less luck there is.
On September 03 2016 07:59 Shield wrote: Blizzard once again shows lack of understanding. More scouting options is never bad in an RTS game. The more you have of it, the less luck there is.
let's just remove fog of war then eh?
And you come back to the 'free scouting' problem then. When did I say free scouting is a good idea?
On September 03 2016 06:25 Charoisaur wrote: I don't like the adept vision nerf because it makes shading quite coinflippy because you don't know if you're shading near banelings or something. HP nerf/shade cooldown change/DPS nerf would be better.
Doesn't that mean you need skill using the shade? With a vision of 2, you don't know if the base you are shading to will have reinforcements or not. The only way you will know is if you have an observer. And that is a good thing.
I personally think the vision change will make Adepts much less powerful in lesser players, but better players will still excel.
I think it just makes things more gimicky tbh.
For example: PvZ you usually shade with your adept into their base to see if they're all inning but now you prob won't see their tech with the lower vision. Or the zerg just hides their units so when you shade in they surround them and they all die. I'm not sure what kind of skill will be added. Just more gimicky games. Banshee speed is silly too.
So you're saying the Adept can't be used to scout? But Protoss never needed another scouting tool. They have observers (arguably the best scout) and hallucinate phoenix. Not to mention the Oracle and real pheonix are great scouts.
None of the scouting tools you list are available in the early game, which is when shading in for info is so crucial. With a lower vision range you will just hope that the one shade scout you get (because if a Zerg opens with a standard gas timing, you can only scout with the shade once before needing to retreat) magically reveals his drone count, gas mining AND tech, which is impossible unless the Zerg fucks up and builds anything he might be allining with next to his extractor.
On September 03 2016 08:06 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: This also makes Adept harassment more difficult, which again is a good thing.
No it doesn't. Adepts will still shade between mineral lines exactly like they do now, because if there are enough units closing in to be threatening to the adepts, you'll just gamble and hope there is less shit in the next mineral line. If there yes, yay, harassment continues, if there isn't, tough shit your adepts were dead anyway.
Other areas we’re exploring: 1. Health reduction to Warp Prism. 2. Mech is too strong right now. a. We’ve been hearing your feedback on this. b. We can approach this from many different angles, such as: the Siege Tank buff may have been slightly too much, or maybe we’ve touched too many units overall. c. While we’re still not certain that this is a big issue and we’d like to have more games played before making a call, it would be great to discuss this further.
On September 03 2016 06:57 yolteotl wrote: Why not reducing the shade vision constantly over the time, from 9 to 2?
I think this is going into the right direction, as it would still lets you scout to a certain degree and allows you to estimate if you want to continue the shading or if you want to abort it.
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.
On September 03 2016 06:25 Charoisaur wrote: I don't like the adept vision nerf because it makes shading quite coinflippy because you don't know if you're shading near banelings or something. HP nerf/shade cooldown change/DPS nerf would be better.
Doesn't that mean you need skill using the shade? With a vision of 2, you don't know if the base you are shading to will have reinforcements or not. The only way you will know is if you have an observer. And that is a good thing.
I personally think the vision change will make Adepts much less powerful in lesser players, but better players will still excel.
I think it just makes things more gimicky tbh.
For example: PvZ you usually shade with your adept into their base to see if they're all inning but now you prob won't see their tech with the lower vision. Or the zerg just hides their units so when you shade in they surround them and they all die. I'm not sure what kind of skill will be added. Just more gimicky games. Banshee speed is silly too.
So you're saying the Adept can't be used to scout? But Protoss never needed another scouting tool. They have observers (arguably the best scout) and hallucinate phoenix. Not to mention the Oracle and real pheonix are great scouts.
None of the scouting tools you list are available in the early game, which is when shading in for info is so crucial. With a lower vision range you will just hope that the one shade scout you get (because if a Zerg opens with a standard gas timing, you can only scout with the shade once before needing to retreat) magically reveals his drone count, gas mining AND tech, which is impossible unless the Zerg fucks up and builds anything he might be allining with next to his extractor.
On September 03 2016 08:06 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: This also makes Adept harassment more difficult, which again is a good thing.
No it doesn't. Adepts will still shade between mineral lines exactly like they do now, because if there are enough units closing in to be threatening to the adepts, you'll just gamble and hope there is less shit in the next mineral line. If there yes, yay, harassment continues, if there isn't, tough shit your adepts were dead anyway.
That's exactly my point, information is crucial. Reducing the vision will increase the difficulty of using them.
And if Protoss just starts gambling with the Adepts, they will reduce their chances of winning. Do you think Polt just drops anywhere by gambling? Do they decide to take engagements randomly without knowing if they will take a favourable fight? By reducing the vision, you force protoss to be more mindful of where they decide to shade. This will make Adept all in much more difficult.
It seems all those who were screaming that mech should never ever be viable were heard. Apparently mech is 'too strong' on the test map, for some reason.
Vision nerf is huge in early stage when you only have 1-2 adept but it doesn't change much in high number anyway. Protoss can split multiple adepts to gain almost same scout information so yeah vision nerf makes no sense. DKIM heavily implied that he won't touch tank's damage even its way tooo strong,no point to overreact about that.
How is mech possibly too strong when broodlord viper infestor only gets -1 range, mass broodlord viper or mass carrier completely shuts down mech
this was not tested with gm players let alone gsl level players, it is way too early to nerf tanks again, please david kim wait for the test map ladder before you make up your mind and start balancing
and one more thing, if mech was underpowered for an eternity and you finally balance it, doesnt that mean the mech players will get an artificial boost because of this, and so mech will SEEM to be overpowered?
try 200 army mech vs 200 army protoss/zerg and see how you fare before saying such things as "mech is too strong", it is demonstrably palpably obvious it is not...
Mech might even be too strong, I'm not saying it's impossible. But how do they conclude this from a test map that has seen very few games in 2 weeks is just mind blowing. Meanwhile, 8 armor ultras have been in the game for 1 year and they have been saying just wait and see if players can come up with solutions. Isn't that kinda nonsensical?
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.
On September 03 2016 09:01 petro1987 wrote: Mech might even be too strong, I'm not saying it's impossible. But how do they conclude this from a test map that has seen very few games in 2 weeks is just mind blowing. Meanwhile, 8 armor ultras have been in the game for 1 year and they have been saying just wait and see if players can come up with solutions. Isn't that kinda nonsensical?
To be fair. The Ultra upgrade makes sense. They hard counter marines. A tier 3 unit hard countering a tier 1 unit.....MADNESS, UTTER MADNESS!
Lets nerf Archons cuz they wreck Zerglings, or
Liberators because they smash Zealots.
Honestly the armor buff should have been there years ago, it should have always been a thing. That's what makes Ultralisks so ULTRA! Battlecruisers should also have sick armor as well. Just look at them. They lose to Marines. A CAPITAL SHIP, that should have whole garrisons on Marines in it, loses to just a handful in a straight up fight. Absolute madness. It would be ok if the BCs had sick range like Carriers, Tempests, or BroodLords, but they don't. SO give them sick ULTRALISK armor BLIZZARD! DO IT!
Here's sort of a messed up suggestion in terms of the game, which if you think about it will get rid of every single problem said on the last three pages of chat.
Scale the game better. Actively section units into tier 1,2,3 by giving each race two new buildings that they need to build to unlock tech. At tier one have marines/rauders, zealot/stalker, zergling/baneling/queen? Then have a building (like another twilight council) to unlock tier two units, which will include all more of the cheesy/splash units. Thus when cheesy/splash units come out players will have a baseline defense of tier one units, and will not be simply overwhelmed or one second killed by drops, adepts, oracles. However the cheesy/units won't really need to be nerfed into oblivion.
Note:this will also fix a lot of other problems the game is having. Including the unwelcomeness it presents to beginners. Give those noobs a few expansions and minutes on the map before you smash them. Also will prompt more back and forth battling, as opposed to back and forth raiding, which is main complaint of Korean pros.
It's simple, but its brilliant, and it doesn't remove any units or their complexity Blizz seems so set on.
On September 03 2016 09:01 petro1987 wrote: Mech might even be too strong, I'm not saying it's impossible. But how do they conclude this from a test map that has seen very few games in 2 weeks is just mind blowing. Meanwhile, 8 armor ultras have been in the game for 1 year and they have been saying just wait and see if players can come up with solutions. Isn't that kinda nonsensical?
To be fair. The Ultra upgrade makes sense. They hard counter marines. A tier 3 unit hard countering a tier 1 unit.....MADNESS, UTTER MADNESS!
Lets nerf Archons cuz they wreck Zerglings, or
Liberators because they smash Zealots.
Honestly the armor buff should have been there years ago, it should have always been a thing. That's what makes Ultralisks so ULTRA! Battlecruisers should also have sick armor as well. Just look at them. They lose to Marines. A CAPITAL SHIP, that should have whole garrisons on Marines in it, loses to just a handful in a straight up fight. Absolute madness. It would be ok if the BCs had sick range like Carriers, Tempests, or BroodLords, but they don't. SO give them sick ULTRALISK armor BLIZZARD! DO IT!
P.S. I play Protoss.
You forget: ultras are not made individually from buildings, but enmass via larva.... Thus the transition to ultras for zerg tends to be game ending rather than say a build up of tempests or BCs, which is done slowly or with great infrastructure costs
On September 03 2016 06:42 Zulu23 wrote: Why (does Blizzard) don't organize a Test map tournament with a 1000$ prize pool to get Public attention and some pros playing it on competitive level....
Soooo.... You want to put up $1000?
People keep acting like Blizzard is there mama and has to do everything for them. Go ask your friends to meet online and play the test map. Otherwise save your complaints for your ACTUAL mamas.
On September 03 2016 06:11 Zulu23 wrote: Give us Automatchmaking for the testmap to make reliable test games on similar skill levels. There is no way mech is too strong, right now. Cyclones are not cost effective. Siege Tank Fire indeed is strong.
vs zerg it's probably too strong right now because of tank buff + ravager nerf + broodlord range nerf which are all massive. 60 damage tanks should be tested instead of 70.
I don't think ravagers are supposed to be the composition to face mech in the test map. Hydras and infestors were buffed so maybe that's the new way to fight mech alongside vipers?
I play Zerg vs Mech on the live game and most games i don't even build a single ravager.
Just all roach/hydra/viper with nydus etc.
It's ludicrous for blizzard to think mech is too strong 2 weeks on the test map when i've played it myself as Zerg and did not have any problem at all versus mech.
The problem is no one in the SC2 community has massive experience vs mech because it's played 1% of games at masters+ and pro level...
They buffed all the mech counters - burrowed infestors, hydras, vipers, etc etc...but wait tanks are too strong? ROFL give me a break.
Kinda depressing they're already backtracking as usual. This happens every single time. I knew not to believe anything about blizzard ever fixing mech.
On September 03 2016 09:01 petro1987 wrote: Mech might even be too strong, I'm not saying it's impossible. But how do they conclude this from a test map that has seen very few games in 2 weeks is just mind blowing. Meanwhile, 8 armor ultras have been in the game for 1 year and they have been saying just wait and see if players can come up with solutions. Isn't that kinda nonsensical?
To be fair. The Ultra upgrade makes sense. They hard counter marines. A tier 3 unit hard countering a tier 1 unit.....MADNESS, UTTER MADNESS!
Lets nerf Archons cuz they wreck Zerglings, or
Liberators because they smash Zealots.
Honestly the armor buff should have been there years ago, it should have always been a thing. That's what makes Ultralisks so ULTRA! Battlecruisers should also have sick armor as well. Just look at them. They lose to Marines. A CAPITAL SHIP, that should have whole garrisons on Marines in it, loses to just a handful in a straight up fight. Absolute madness. It would be ok if the BCs had sick range like Carriers, Tempests, or BroodLords, but they don't. SO give them sick ULTRALISK armor BLIZZARD! DO IT!
P.S. I play Protoss.
Now you can see why saying mech is too strong makes no sense, expensive powerful units like tanks, thors, BCs being countered by almost every damn thing in the game.
Even roaches, lings, adepts, blinkstalkers, fucking counter siege tanks with the shit damage tanks deal.
I feel like when people read something they disagree with, they immediately stop reading everything else.
2. Mech is too strong right now. a. We’ve been hearing your feedback on this. b. We can approach this from many different angles, such as: the Siege Tank buff may have been slightly too much, or maybe we’ve touched too many units overall. c. While we’re still not certain that this is a big issue and we’d like to have more games played before making a call, it would be great to discuss this further.
I've just bolded, italicized, AND underlined something that everyone jumping down DK's throat should probably read. I won't go into a lot of discussion, and I think this should speak for itself.
On September 03 2016 12:12 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: I feel like when people read something they disagree with, they immediately stop reading everything else.
2. Mech is too strong right now. a. We’ve been hearing your feedback on this. b. We can approach this from many different angles, such as: the Siege Tank buff may have been slightly too much, or maybe we’ve touched too many units overall. c. While we’re still not certain that this is a big issue and we’d like to have more games played before making a call, it would be great to discuss this further.
I've just bolded, italicized, AND underlined something that everyone jumping down DK's throat should probably read. I won't go into a lot of discussion, and I think this should speak for itself.
Isn't that what we are doing here? Discussing it further by stating that it makes no sense to make such a hasty call about mech being too strong already? There was virtually no input from DK's post to discuss anyway. Why does he state that mech is too strong now? Which situations? What matchup? Versus what compositions? What games between pros support that notion? It's all just out of thin air and theorycraft or maybe they did "internal testing"?
On September 03 2016 12:12 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: I feel like when people read something they disagree with, they immediately stop reading everything else.
2. Mech is too strong right now. a. We’ve been hearing your feedback on this. b. We can approach this from many different angles, such as: the Siege Tank buff may have been slightly too much, or maybe we’ve touched too many units overall. c. While we’re still not certain that this is a big issue and we’d like to have more games played before making a call, it would be great to discuss this further.
I've just bolded, italicized, AND underlined something that everyone jumping down DK's throat should probably read. I won't go into a lot of discussion, and I think this should speak for itself.
People including myself are probably reacting the way we are because we've heard "mech will be viable" since early 2010 or what not.
And then every change after that point has systematically made mech worse and worse over the last few years @_@
So then finally when blizzard seems to be waking up and making it so tanks can hold a position on the map...they are almost instantly and immediately backtracking or preparing to.
It's natural a lot of people are going to be reacting the way they are. When you factor in on top of this, just as i described, there are even more mech counters added onto the test map which will make mech worse/easier to play vs (burrow infestor, extra range hydra, etc) yet they suddenly again say mech is strong and ignore literally every other variable and don't acknowledge that they also added a ton of mech counters on the test mod.
The main problem is - a sample size of games of 2 weeks on a test mod that very few people play, and on top of that very few of those players are actually good versus mech or playing mech.
Players like myself have had 5+ years practicing mech play on a game that has done everything to try to make it impossible to play. A huge portion of the people that play SC2 right now are 100% used to playing against ONLY bio play. Playing versus mech requires an entirely different unit comp in most of the match-ups.
But is "mech too strong?" HELL NO. I mean if you want the best in-game example i can give of the difference of playing against bio versus mech take this example:
A Zerg player plays a bio Terran. Almost 99% of games the Zerg is building ZERO vipers and almost forgets entirely about the units existence.
A Zerg player plays a mech Terran. Almost 99% of the games the Zerg is building 10+ vipers and spamming abduct+blinding cloud to play versus mech.
That is a tiny unit compositional example of how Zergs play differently vs bio and vs mech. It's obvious after you've played countless games against mech but 2 weeks of games a lot of players will be clueless and simply say "tanks too stronk plz nerf." Or "mech is too strong."
It's also mind boggling to me how after 2 weeks with virtually no sample size blizzard can come out and say "mech is too strong" when it's blatantly incorrect and an overreaction. But at the same time leave 8 armor ultras, invincible nydus worm, mass adepts in the game for almost a year now @_@
p.s. tanks are so bad on the live version of the game that for example against protoss it's actually better to mass banshees/vikings/ravens and mines than it is to make any siege tanks at all past the 5 min mark
Now let the terran whine begin!! I guess as usual this community news topic will become a list of - terran is too weak - nerf photos, it's gimmicky - nerf ultras - unless you are avilo you cannot comment on mech
When maybe the only change they are thinking about is to lower a bit the tank damage, without coming close to what it was before.. Every time blizzard posts these feedback topics I just hope more and more that they won't listen to a community of crying babies..
5/9/2012 - Queen anti-ground weapon attack range increased from 3 to 5
3/12/13 - Heart of the Swarm release
8/18/16 - Mech buffed
9/2/16 - Mech fucking nerfed
Does anyone else see the fucking problem here? I'm pretty fucking sick of this shit already, Blizz. You let Broodlord/Winfestor DESTROY the game and its community for a year and didn't do shit about it, but it takes you all of two weeks to decide that you're probably gonna nerf mech? When nobody any fucking good at all is testing these changes?
I'm almost at the end of the rope here, honestly. I love SC2 for what it is, and it makes me angry to think of just how much more I could love it if you made the slight changes it needs. I'm fucking sick of playing Bio everytime I login if I want a CHANCE to win, I'm fucking SICK of Terran being so fucking one dimensional and boring unlike the other two races.
On September 03 2016 13:28 royalroadweed wrote: I hope when they mean mech they mean cyclones. I don't want tank damage to be touched though I think siege mode should be an upgrade again.
I agree, if tank siege damage is going to be that high then it should be an upgrade. I'm happy with no tankivac if it means that a siege tank does what it's supposed to do, which is SIEGE.
With the units being what they are now, having no tankivac and the siege being on an upgrade scale akin to the banshee speed upgrade (having to research it from a tech lab again) I think mech might, maybe, become viable again. Especially with swarmhost being essentially worthless. (Also Blizzard, just remove the swarm host and let it die a dignified death, PLEASE)
How that ends up working in actual play, I have no idea.
On September 03 2016 14:02 Lunareste wrote: 5/9/2012 - Queen anti-ground weapon attack range increased from 3 to 5
3/12/13 - Heart of the Swarm release
8/18/16 - Mech buffed
9/2/16 - Mech fucking nerfed
Does anyone else see the fucking problem here? I'm pretty fucking sick of this shit already, Blizz. You let Broodlord/Winfestor DESTROY the game and its community for a year and didn't do shit about it, but it takes you all of two weeks to decide that you're probably gonna nerf mech? When nobody any fucking good at all is testing these changes?
I'm almost at the end of the rope here, honestly. I love SC2 for what it is, and it makes me angry to think of just how much more I could love it if you made the slight changes it needs. I'm fucking sick of playing Bio everytime I login if I want a CHANCE to win, I'm fucking SICK of Terran being so fucking one dimensional and boring unlike the other two races.
They haven't decide that they're probably going to nerf Mech. Unless you're thinking of the banshee nerf, there isn't even a proposed nerf . . . It's just a statement of what they're seeing now, and that it's something they're looking into.
Coming out and saying 'mech might be too strong', no matter how many disclaimers he writes underneath, is provocative to Terran players, to say the least. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read that. Even if there's evidence mech might be too strong on the test map (which I really doubt) you can't come out and say that when so little actual testing has been done, while other glaring issues have been left in the game untouched for so long. It's bound to piss people off.
For someone that was so good with words on his previous feedback updates that people were saying he sounds like a politician, this one was a complete PR disaster. It's like he's completely out of touch with the community.
On September 03 2016 14:47 ihatevideogames wrote: Are we really overreacting?
I don't think so, not with DK's track record.
Coming out and saying 'mech might be too strong', no matter how many disclaimers he writes underneath, is provocative to Terran players, to say the least. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read that. Even if there's evidence mech might be too strong on the test map (which I really doubt) you can't come out and say that when so little actual testing has been done, while other glaring issues have been left in the game untouched for so long. It's bound to piss people off.
For someone that was so good with words on his previous feedback updates that people were saying he sounds like a politician, this one was a complete PR disaster. It's like he's completely out of touch with the community.
So the only possible outcome of this test map is - mech is ok - buff mech
?
Don't forget that they are buffing many terran mech units, but this doesn't mean that they will force players to play turtle-mech-lategame style, you have to balance the new tanks also thinking about early pushes with bio, rushes, etc....
I really really really don't see how this statement can be a PR disaster (so dramatic..) he's saying mech *might* be to strong (this is a MAYBE) and they may be changing something (which I'M SURE it doesn't mean they will revert all changes.. come on..)
On September 03 2016 06:42 Teoita wrote: I hate the nerf to shade vision because it removes the adept's scouting and doens't do that much for jumping adepts between mineral lines in the midgame. I'd prefer a shade cooldown nerf.
Ye but protoss scouting is way too strong throughout whole game so it's a good direction
The most important thing is that those changes must change tvp in all aspects, the mu is not intersting to play as a terran, neither to watch pro play. Completly imba imo. Free B3, no need anymore splash damage to beat bio, to many harass/all in options, prism + shade + front attack way too strong to defend.
I realy hope they don't Nerf mech to early while letting the other changes go through. With things like baneling and zelot buffs along with a lib nerf and removal of tankivac bio is going to be hurting alot. Terran is getting only changes to mech in the patch so if they tune those changes to hard so that mech remains nonviable than Terran will be forced to play with heavily nerfed bio.blizzard has a history of buffing mech in expansions and then preemptively buffing the other races against mech so that mech remains nonviable. I relay hope they take a wait and see approach for awhile and let the dust settle.
On September 03 2016 06:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Part of the problem is that everything mech including tanks is buffed. Everything that counters mech is nerfed. Also bio is weakened in general since bio counters like banelings are also buffed. The original proposed balance changes just made no sense, so the probably had an idea of what changes they wanted and now they are just playing it out slowly, changing it to how they really wanted it, with disregard.
Vipers are not nerfed. So saying everything that counters mech is nerfed is wrong. Vipers are probably the most efficient counter to Mech.
On September 03 2016 13:03 VHbb wrote: - nerf photos, it's gimmicky
Yeah photos suck.
Also remember at Dreamhack when Dayvie said "If the tank buff turns out too strong, we won't lower the damage but change something else like the rate of fire", and now lowering damage is literally the first thing he proposes?
On September 03 2016 17:45 Elentos wrote: Also remember at Dreamhack when Dayvie said "If the tank buff turns out too strong, we won't lower the damage but change something else like the rate of fire", and now lowering damage is literally the first thing he proposes?
On September 03 2016 06:25 Charoisaur wrote: I don't like the adept vision nerf because it makes shading quite coinflippy because you don't know if you're shading near banelings or something. HP nerf/shade cooldown change/DPS nerf would be better.
Doesn't that mean you need skill using the shade? With a vision of 2, you don't know if the base you are shading to will have reinforcements or not. The only way you will know is if you have an observer. And that is a good thing.
I personally think the vision change will make Adepts much less powerful in lesser players, but better players will still excel.
I think it just makes things more gimicky tbh.
For example: PvZ you usually shade with your adept into their base to see if they're all inning but now you prob won't see their tech with the lower vision. Or the zerg just hides their units so when you shade in they surround them and they all die. I'm not sure what kind of skill will be added. Just more gimicky games. Banshee speed is silly too.
So you're saying the Adept can't be used to scout? But Protoss never needed another scouting tool. They have observers (arguably the best scout) and hallucinate phoenix. Not to mention the Oracle and real pheonix are great scouts.
Are you also saying the Adept will be harder to use? Because if you are, than I view that as a very good thing.
I really don't see it as being gimmicky (whatever that really means). I think this change is a good thing. Honestly, maybe 2 vision is a bit much, and 3 would be a good number.
you cant see that as zerg because u have only lings and a click
with the adept nerf there would not be any commitment possible, on the other side zerg has 1000 allins and harass options. nice blizzard. u have to gamble if u let shade finish or not, because u cant see anything.
On September 03 2016 14:47 ihatevideogames wrote: Are we really overreacting?
I don't think so, not with DK's track record.
Coming out and saying 'mech might be too strong', no matter how many disclaimers he writes underneath, is provocative to Terran players, to say the least. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read that. Even if there's evidence mech might be too strong on the test map (which I really doubt) you can't come out and say that when so little actual testing has been done, while other glaring issues have been left in the game untouched for so long. It's bound to piss people off.
For someone that was so good with words on his previous feedback updates that people were saying he sounds like a politician, this one was a complete PR disaster. It's like he's completely out of touch with the community.
So the only possible outcome of this test map is - mech is ok - buff mech
?
Don't forget that they are buffing many terran mech units, but this doesn't mean that they will force players to play turtle-mech-lategame style, you have to balance the new tanks also thinking about early pushes with bio, rushes, etc....
I really really really don't see how this statement can be a PR disaster (so dramatic..) he's saying mech *might* be to strong (this is a MAYBE) and they may be changing something (which I'M SURE it doesn't mean they will revert all changes.. come on..)
So, the Blizzard balance team for SC2 came to the conclusion that mech *might* be a bit too strong with 2 weeks of a test map that a few people only played for 2 days and then everyone stopped playing. Do I need to remind you of BL/Festor? How long was that, a year and a half or something? Terran after mine nerf in HOTS? How long was that? How fast they nerfed mass liberator?
So, in the case of Terran, they nerf mass liberator to non-existence in a matter of days, mech 'might be OP' with 2 weeks of a balance test map few people play, but in the case of 8 armor Ultra and Adepts their idea is 'let the meta settle', 'let's see how the community finds new ways to deal with it', etc etc. Where was our 'let the meta settle' when Skyterran was viable a few months ago?
Alot of Terrans are just pissed off they've let the game like this for so long while completely shutting down instead of slightly tunning the only viable lategame comp that arose for terran in lotv. Coming out and saying something like this when alot of terrans are already so alienated shows DK is either completely disconnected with the community or doing it on purpose.
On September 03 2016 20:12 Pugfarmer wrote: Cyclones are certainly too strong against Zerg. I quit playing the test match because cyclone/hellion is impossible to hold early game.
I have to agree. I beat an master zerg with this (note I'm platinum) I think cyclones either need a armory requirement, > so that this can not hit too early and is scoutable
An alternative could be decreasing the initial attack speed and introduce an upgrade that brings it back to the current lvl.
Blizzard, why always nerf that hard? I mean, its not the first time. In hots, u made timewarp nerf, reducing from 60 secs to 10, now u reduce the vision from 9 to 2 (shade adept). Why dont start trying 4,5,6 vision, instead of hammering the unit down, u just kill units making that, while u are not even trying to fix the antiground dmg of the liberator.. what's next, no warpgate? protoss is like 20% of our community and its going down.. dont kill the race, give back timewarp, and collossus if u are gonna buff hidras that hard.
On September 03 2016 13:03 VHbb wrote: - nerf photos, it's gimmicky
Yeah photos suck.
Also remember at Dreamhack when Dayvie said "If the tank buff turns out too strong, we won't lower the damage but change something else like the rate of fire", and now lowering damage is literally the first thing he proposes?
It'd take a little work, but a "balance change test" 1v1 matchmaking mode with the current proposed changes listed in bullet form would be killer. Even if there was only like one or two maps and no displayed ranking.
On August 24 2016 09:44 Jaedrik wrote: Prediction: Mech becomes OP, but not because things can't beat it head on, but rather because powerful harassment at the same time as powerful defense and space control breaks so many backs. In such a case, they should nerf harassment (remove afterburners, and more, hopefully nerf all harassment options by all races across the board. Game ending harassment is not fun) and not mech.
I think my prediction is correct. That being said, I haven't played the test map or seen any matches of it, so... :3
[T]he natural / organic counter to mech / heavy positional space control play is out-expanding an opponent. If harassment is too powerful, it becomes non-viable and mech will rule over all.
i dont think chaneging tanks is good we shall keep them as they are now i mean with damage buff, i dont like that much adept shade nerf ,i f we have to change its vision lets do so but not nerf it to the ground for example vision to 6 or 5, alsi as i replied times before i think we should focus more on buffing toss zerg than heavy nerfing terran ( pls dont kill the tempest ,its skill is kina useless againt anything else han tanks, it cant kill running through ling... also lets lets dont nerf its range to crap 6 its awful maby we should stick to something like 9 or 10?).
On September 03 2016 12:12 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: I feel like when people read something they disagree with, they immediately stop reading everything else.
2. Mech is too strong right now. a. We’ve been hearing your feedback on this. b. We can approach this from many different angles, such as: the Siege Tank buff may have been slightly too much, or maybe we’ve touched too many units overall. c. While we’re still not certain that this is a big issue and we’d like to have more games played before making a call, it would be great to discuss this further.
I've just bolded, italicized, AND underlined something that everyone jumping down DK's throat should probably read. I won't go into a lot of discussion, and I think this should speak for itself.
People including myself are probably reacting the way we are because we've heard "mech will be viable" since early 2010 or what not.
And then every change after that point has systematically made mech worse and worse over the last few years @_@
So then finally when blizzard seems to be waking up and making it so tanks can hold a position on the map...they are almost instantly and immediately backtracking or preparing to.
It's natural a lot of people are going to be reacting the way they are. When you factor in on top of this, just as i described, there are even more mech counters added onto the test map which will make mech worse/easier to play vs (burrow infestor, extra range hydra, etc) yet they suddenly again say mech is strong and ignore literally every other variable and don't acknowledge that they also added a ton of mech counters on the test mod.
The main problem is - a sample size of games of 2 weeks on a test mod that very few people play, and on top of that very few of those players are actually good versus mech or playing mech.
Players like myself have had 5+ years practicing mech play on a game that has done everything to try to make it impossible to play. A huge portion of the people that play SC2 right now are 100% used to playing against ONLY bio play. Playing versus mech requires an entirely different unit comp in most of the match-ups.
But is "mech too strong?" HELL NO. I mean if you want the best in-game example i can give of the difference of playing against bio versus mech take this example:
A Zerg player plays a bio Terran. Almost 99% of games the Zerg is building ZERO vipers and almost forgets entirely about the units existence.
A Zerg player plays a mech Terran. Almost 99% of the games the Zerg is building 10+ vipers and spamming abduct+blinding cloud to play versus mech.
That is a tiny unit compositional example of how Zergs play differently vs bio and vs mech. It's obvious after you've played countless games against mech but 2 weeks of games a lot of players will be clueless and simply say "tanks too stronk plz nerf." Or "mech is too strong."
It's also mind boggling to me how after 2 weeks with virtually no sample size blizzard can come out and say "mech is too strong" when it's blatantly incorrect and an overreaction. But at the same time leave 8 armor ultras, invincible nydus worm, mass adepts in the game for almost a year now @_@
p.s. tanks are so bad on the live version of the game that for example against protoss it's actually better to mass banshees/vikings/ravens and mines than it is to make any siege tanks at all past the 5 min mark
They said they wanted to give T "options" for tech - but it was obvious even before the test map came out this would happen. You won't see any bio terrans with this patch - it makes no sense to even try to play bio with mech like this. I play T at mid master level and bio in all 3 m.u. - mech sometimes tvt if I'm feeling slow. All I can say is that code S has shown absolutely incredible games from a viewers perspective - every round has had epic games - imo we've seen players play the best they have ever played in their careers. SSL has been awesome as well - Dark vs Classic was incredible to watch even from someone who has no knowledge of the match-up. I'm all for creating diverse play-style - but killing off bio to make mech "viable" in my opinion is a horrible move. Taking away the Tankivac alone is enough to make bio super difficult - forget the bane buffs - do we really want to kill ling/bling vs bio off for good?
For me personally - the premise of watching the top korean terrans mech vs eachother as a standard and also vs P and Z is horrid. It's just my opinion - but I honestly don't see it helping viewership at all - you are talking about such a long period of time in the game where almost no fighting is happening - map will split and then it's just whoever takes the better max engage. End of HOTS etc. If they make mech this strong - they will have to buff P and Z to the point where bio won't be viable - unless they also buff bio? I don't know - like I said I think having diversity in tech for T would be a cool thing for the game - but this patch is not getting us there - not even close. Hypothetical - take a guy like Maru or Byun who have god like multi/micro and overall mechanics and put them in control of mech - throw in a reality and a foreign T - have them play a couple TvT series and then some games vs P and Z - I would struggle to tell you without having the names visible who was playing the games - the higher the skill ceiling the better imo - please don't take away the players ability to literally brain brute force wins with harder better faster apm.
I'm not saying scrap everything and leave the game alone - it has it's problems imo (Z too strong late-game - forces both the Z and T to basically play cookie-cutter - which gets stale - but I'll take stale action over stale turtle games all day).
I would love to hear someone from Blizz address this concern - even if they do find a way to balance the game with all these changes - I hope they really won't be satisfied if they kill off bio in the process.
I think the vision nerf is a bit too much. protoss at least should be able to see if they can commit or not. Also i would love to see a shade cooldown increase as well, so it would balance out and not make the adept gambling with shading in or not.
On September 04 2016 02:55 ShamanElemental1 wrote: So like most people and streamars said.
Mech is to strong because you buffed mech while also nerfing its counters.... you really whent full retard as usual.
Balance needs baby steps.
Im still in favor of buffing Zerg and Protoss instead of nerfing Terran.
Revert the nerf to Ravager and BroodLord Lower cost for Hydra and a give a bit more HP Lower cost and supply for Vipers
Revert nerf for Tempest but back to 6 supply Adepts Shade nerfed , longer cooldown Immortals Barrier nerfed Buff to Zealot vs armored
How about we start from that ?
so glad you fixed starcraft with a single post hope blizzard just hired you and fire all the rest of his staff, after all they are "full retard as usual"
Infestor and Adept change is the right direction. Adept change is maybe too extreme and should be shades duration or cooldown. Balance the defense and harassment options against mech in other ways.
On September 04 2016 02:55 ShamanElemental1 wrote: So like most people and streamars said.
Mech is to strong because you buffed mech while also nerfing its counters.... you really whent full retard as usual.
Balance needs baby steps.
Im still in favor of buffing Zerg and Protoss instead of nerfing Terran.
Revert the nerf to Ravager and BroodLord Lower cost for Hydra and a give a bit more HP Lower cost and supply for Vipers
Revert nerf for Tempest but back to 6 supply Adepts Shade nerfed , longer cooldown Immortals Barrier nerfed Buff to Zealot vs armored
How about we start from that ?
so glad you fixed starcraft with a single post hope blizzard just hired you and fire all the rest of his staff, after all they are "full retard as usual"
.....
While my coment was very offensive.
You got to admit , buffing a unit and nerfing its counters at the same time is the dumbest thing possible.
Bah I trust blizzard on this matter I think they over-buff mech (or over-nerf its counters) to have it more tested on the balance map
Also reading TL you see everything and the opposite: people complain about mech OP, zerg lategame OP, adepts OP, etc.etc. basically in these community news threads everybody try to whine about the other 2 races to get some buffs for its own. I really would like more if Blizzard didn't release these kind of statements and just proceeded to balance the game as they see fit, maybe talking with pros to get some feedback
well I mean if they could just ban all the stream snipers and maphackers that build their careers on playing vs avilo, he probably would be one of the GSL code S contenders
On September 04 2016 07:23 VHbb wrote: Bah I trust blizzard on this matter I think they over-buff mech (or over-nerf its counters) to have it more tested on the balance map
Also reading TL you see everything and the opposite: people complain about mech OP, zerg lategame OP, adepts OP, etc.etc. basically in these community news threads everybody try to whine about the other 2 races to get some buffs for its own. I really would like more if Blizzard didn't release these kind of statements and just proceeded to balance the game as they see fit, maybe talking with pros to get some feedback
Yeah... i wouldnt trust the balance team with anything. Most of the time they fail very hard... this is why the community always complains. They never fix the design problems, they just band aid forever.
Son should i remeind you that the kespa pros said specificaly that zerg sucks and needs 4 larva back because the new economy kills their natural advantage in the early to mid game...
And Blizzard stopped because the community was screaming Nooo ultras OP, i cant micro fuck the koreans... its the korean zerfs who are bad, eu is great...
So yeah... what can i say the balance team mirrors the whining community perfectly.
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.
On September 04 2016 02:55 ShamanElemental1 wrote:
Balance needs baby steps.
1.- This is a patch that is supposed to change design not balance, by making different styles and change the way they play, not to try to solve balance problems.
2.- The whole thing is supposed to be a big patch that changes a lot of stuff, taking baby steps is literaly what they DONT want to do.
On September 04 2016 07:23 VHbb wrote: Bah I trust blizzard on this matter I think they over-buff mech (or over-nerf its counters) to have it more tested on the balance map
Also reading TL you see everything and the opposite: people complain about mech OP, zerg lategame OP, adepts OP, etc.etc. basically in these community news threads everybody try to whine about the other 2 races to get some buffs for its own. I really would like more if Blizzard didn't release these kind of statements and just proceeded to balance the game as they see fit, maybe talking with pros to get some feedback
Yeah... i wouldnt trust the balance team with anything. Most of the time they fail very hard... this is why the community always complains. They never fix the design problems, they just band aid forever.
Son should i remeind you that the kespa pros said specificaly that zerg sucks and needs 4 larva back because the new economy kills their natural advantage in the early to mid game...
And Blizzard stopped because the community was screaming Nooo ultras OP, i cant micro fuck the koreans... its the korean zerfs who are bad, eu is great...
So yeah... what can i say the balance team mirrors the whining community perfectly.
Did you just call me son? Is it some patronising way of feeling superior in the discussion? Man people talk different on forums vs in reality.. :D
I guess we have different opinions, I enjoy sc2 very much so I trust the people who made it to keep doing a good job I will give my feedback but I'm sure someone who works in sc2 daily knows more than me, random ladder player ..
"Son" is kind of complicated...like usually it's a term of endearment, especially if it's "son son", but it's a verb as well and that doesn't have a good connotation. Like, if you were to be "sonned" that'd mean like publically humiliated. This is extremely location-specific and only something I've ever heard in the U.S. so that might not even be what happened.
On September 03 2016 06:25 Charoisaur wrote: I don't like the adept vision nerf because it makes shading quite coinflippy because you don't know if you're shading near banelings or something. HP nerf/shade cooldown change/DPS nerf would be better.
Completely agree.
Amazing we still see changes like this suggested. David Kim has no clue.
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.
pfftt, it is way too early to say mech is too strong. for protoss players, mech is a completely new style to play against and will take a LOT of time to figure out.
A bit background. I am a diamond terran. I mech in pretty much all my games since HOTS. I am not a fast player, so going mech is just more suitable personally.
Here are my thoughts on mech TvZ from the past 2 weeks.
I hope blizzard just wait it out a bit longer and let the players figure out the game a bit more before jumping to nerf and buffs.Currently I think swarm host/hydras is a great answer to the new mech. Swarmhost combine with Hydras is a really great composition to go for.
While not saying any balance problems, here is my thought process.
Swarmhost is actually quite a fast unit. So on the hands of a good player, it can deal massive damage and it can retreat. I have tried many options, and found putting pressure on the zerg with Cyclone and Hellions are a great way to pin the swarmhost down. (Force the zerg to spawn locusts to defend instead at you.) As mech player, it will not work anymore like in HOTS, if you just turtle home with tanks. The swarmhost will deal massive damage to a turtle Terran. Eventually you will lose.
This balance patch is really exciting. I have to constantly use Cyclone Hellions to gain map presences to pin down the swarmhosts. While trying to build up a mech army for the late game.
(To those saying Cyclone Hellion is too strong) On the zerg side, I think lurkers are great for base defense. While going hydras+infestors to fungal the hellion cyclones is a great way to shut it down.
But seriously, I don't think anyone at this point can really make the call on what is strong.
You can see that I am trying to adapt in each game. So far I think Cyclone Hellion Liberator would be a strong mid-game composition for me. You can even see my regular season TvZ mech games. I just sit home and mass up. The new TvZ mech is really exciting to play.
Again, really hope blizzard just wait it out longer before nerfing anything. Be it Zerg OP or Terran OP. I think the players need to find the right balance first with the coming match making system. We need more VODs and guides before the unit gets nerfed.
TLDR 1) Don't do balance change too fast. 2) Swarmhost hydras Infestors is great vs Mech. 3) Let players find solutions and figure out the meta. 4) New TvZ mech meta is very exciting. 5) I have VODs that shows huge comparison.
These are suppose to be design changes get the design right first then balance. They keep trying to do both at the same time and then you never get anywhere. You have to make the game fun and dynamic through design, then balance it after that. Who cares if mech is OP right now, focus on making it viable and not broken then you can balance it.
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?
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.
On September 04 2016 09:14 ShamanElemental1 wrote:
On September 04 2016 07:23 VHbb wrote: Bah I trust blizzard on this matter I think they over-buff mech (or over-nerf its counters) to have it more tested on the balance map
Also reading TL you see everything and the opposite: people complain about mech OP, zerg lategame OP, adepts OP, etc.etc. basically in these community news threads everybody try to whine about the other 2 races to get some buffs for its own. I really would like more if Blizzard didn't release these kind of statements and just proceeded to balance the game as they see fit, maybe talking with pros to get some feedback
Yeah... i wouldnt trust the balance team with anything. Most of the time they fail very hard... this is why the community always complains. They never fix the design problems, they just band aid forever.
Son should i remeind you that the kespa pros said specificaly that zerg sucks and needs 4 larva back because the new economy kills their natural advantage in the early to mid game...
And Blizzard stopped because the community was screaming Nooo ultras OP, i cant micro fuck the koreans... its the korean zerfs who are bad, eu is great...
So yeah... what can i say the balance team mirrors the whining community perfectly.
Did you just call me son? Is it some patronising way of feeling superior in the discussion? Man people talk different on forums vs in reality.. :D
I guess we have different opinions, I enjoy sc2 very much so I trust the people who made it to keep doing a good job I will give my feedback but I'm sure someone who works in sc2 daily knows more than me, random ladder player ..
I called you son because im pretty old. If i wanted to feel superior i would just hammer you with things like " you really didtn answer my qustion "
On September 04 2016 02:55 ShamanElemental1 wrote:
Balance needs baby steps.
1.- This is a patch that is supposed to change design not balance, by making different styles and change the way they play, not to try to solve balance problems.
2.- The whole thing is supposed to be a big patch that changes a lot of stuff, taking baby steps is literaly what they DONT want to do.
1. Its more of a tweak in numbers then actual design, and i think they want to solve balance to.
2. Yeah rushing a big change instead of doing baby steps faster and sooner is way better..... yeah no dude.
On September 03 2016 06:19 petro1987 wrote: I guess the most weird thing is that they have already come to a conclusion that mech is too strong based on 2 weeks in a test map that pros don't even play and doesn't even have a matchmaking. Maybe, just maybe, they should try let it sink for a while? Or try to get pros to play it and only THEN provide conclusions on it?
I agree. They let us find a solution during some months with blink stalkers mother ship core all ins, with broodlords infestors with warp prism adepts with immortals all ins on 2 base, At the beginning of hots oracles were imba, at the beginning of lot ultras were.
Mech is strong now because nobody play mech for months so nobody knows how to play vs mech.
And regarding siege tank, that's ridiculous to remove tankivacs if they don't get a good upgrade to compensate this big nerf.
Why I have the feeling when something is good in terran, that's immediately nerfed or removed, but when it is something terrans have difficulties to deal with, that's ok and let's see what happens...
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.
The problem is tank come very early, and you can't say : it's ok, SH/viper/broodlords are fine to counter tanks... Yeah and before ? Aslo mech, has hellions/cyclon that are very strong.
there is a toon of things that could be done to balance that : overkilling on tanks, or nerf dmg but give + shield, or increase attack period, add an upgrade that make dmg buff come later on the game, etc...
But if Terran deny "mech is too strong" just for " i want my race OP", we can't advance
What surprises me the most is not DK stating mech is too strong, but that it wasn't obvious for him when he decided to buff tanks damage by 40%. Along with buffing cyclone. Along with nerfing shit out of ravagers, nerfing BL. lol. According to you guys we played a broken game for 6 years. Where tanks dealt half the damage they were intended to deal. And no core mech unit which cyclone was intended to be. And still terrans got the same winrate compared to other races. And all of a sudden DK decided to double the efficiency of a certain terran composition and hoped it wont be op. Cool. Buff stalkers damage by 40% next, we are not seeing them a lot.
On September 05 2016 17:27 insitelol wrote: What surprises me the most is not DK stating mech is too strong, but that it wasn't obvious for him when he decided to buff tanks damage by 40%. Along with buffing cyclone. Along with nerfing shit out of ravagers, nerfing BL. lol. According to you guys we played a broken game for 6 years. Where tanks dealt half the damage they were intended to deal. And no core mech unit which cyclone was intended to be. And still terrans got the same winrate compared to other races. And all of a sudden DK decided to double the efficiency of a certain terran composition and hoped it wont be op. Cool. Buff stalkers damage by 40% next, we are not seeing them a lot.
Well, tanks were basicaly terrible since the WoL patch when they were heavily nerfed. After that, people would only build a couple tanks in TvZ and TvT. In HoTS, tanks were just replaced by mines in TvZ, so they were barely used at all. Tanks only started being used again in LoTV, when they got tankivacs. Now, they wanna remove tankivacs, so tanks must be buffed in order to remain viable. Besides, tanks got 40% dmg only vs armored. Most are not saying that mech isn't OP at all. Most are just saying to give it time, at least try to get pro players to test it, so we can actually draw conclusions based on real games. There was a small tournament on 09/03 (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-tournaments/513270-balance-test-mod-tournament) and guess what 4 zergs on semifinals. There is another tournament going on today (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-tournaments/513520-sc2replaystats-test-map-koth). Let's actually watch some games between pros and see what happens before we conclude that mech is OP.
On September 03 2016 06:42 Teoita wrote: I hate the nerf to shade vision because it removes the adept's scouting and doens't do that much for jumping adepts between mineral lines in the midgame. I'd prefer a shade cooldown nerf.
After about 50 testgames at master level I can report some of my observations:
-bio still feels very viable in TvT, strong tanks help zone giant mech armies from freely getting up close and sieging up so the buff somewhat works for the bio player too, along with the big bio buff that was lotv econ changes. Bio vs mech tvt is sadly showing a tendancy to go into mass air games later on.
-a noticable improvment in TvP mech viability tho not quite there yet. You can now use cyclones to control the earlygame and prevent the P player from securing a super fast 3rd base (cyclones could be OP vs protoss if paired with bio play)
-I have no idea how to manage mass swarmhost armies as a mech player, this alone makes me feel like TvZ mech is the farthest away from true viability out of all 3 matchups
And a sidenote: It's very obvious that the people constantly going on and on about Avilo's character and trying to discredit him based on personality have no real arguments or seemingly even the capacity to think critically for themselves.
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.
The problem is tank come very early, and you can't say : it's ok, SH/viper/broodlords are fine to counter tanks... Yeah and before ? Aslo mech, has hellions/cyclon that are very strong.
there is a toon of things that could be done to balance that : overkilling on tanks, or nerf dmg but give + shield, or increase attack period, add an upgrade that make dmg buff come later on the game, etc...
But if Terran deny "mech is too strong" just for " i want my race OP", we can't advance
Don't put words on other peoples mouth, you said "there is a reason WoL tanks were nerfed" as if they shouldn't buff them at all.
I'm all for balancing the tanks if they are too strong but if people say "mech is too OP" or "terran is too OP" without enough testing we can't advance.
On September 05 2016 13:30 ShamanElemental1 wrote:
On September 04 2016 09:14 ShamanElemental1 wrote:
On September 04 2016 07:23 VHbb wrote: Bah I trust blizzard on this matter I think they over-buff mech (or over-nerf its counters) to have it more tested on the balance map
Also reading TL you see everything and the opposite: people complain about mech OP, zerg lategame OP, adepts OP, etc.etc. basically in these community news threads everybody try to whine about the other 2 races to get some buffs for its own. I really would like more if Blizzard didn't release these kind of statements and just proceeded to balance the game as they see fit, maybe talking with pros to get some feedback
Yeah... i wouldnt trust the balance team with anything. Most of the time they fail very hard... this is why the community always complains. They never fix the design problems, they just band aid forever.
Son should i remeind you that the kespa pros said specificaly that zerg sucks and needs 4 larva back because the new economy kills their natural advantage in the early to mid game...
And Blizzard stopped because the community was screaming Nooo ultras OP, i cant micro fuck the koreans... its the korean zerfs who are bad, eu is great...
So yeah... what can i say the balance team mirrors the whining community perfectly.
Did you just call me son? Is it some patronising way of feeling superior in the discussion? Man people talk different on forums vs in reality.. :D
I guess we have different opinions, I enjoy sc2 very much so I trust the people who made it to keep doing a good job I will give my feedback but I'm sure someone who works in sc2 daily knows more than me, random ladder player ..
I called you son because im pretty old. If i wanted to feel superior i would just hammer you with things like " you really didtn answer my qustion "
On September 04 2016 02:55 ShamanElemental1 wrote:
Balance needs baby steps.
1.- This is a patch that is supposed to change design not balance, by making different styles and change the way they play, not to try to solve balance problems.
2.- The whole thing is supposed to be a big patch that changes a lot of stuff, taking baby steps is literaly what they DONT want to do.
1. Its more of a tweak in numbers then actual design, and i think they want to solve balance to.
2. Yeah rushing a big change instead of doing baby steps faster and sooner is way better..... yeah no dude.
1.- Removal of tankivac with tank buff is not a tweak in numbers, no ground lock on and a diferent attack of cyclone either, the new tempest ability, DT blink, the capacity to use all abilities while burrowed for infestors, etc. They are all design changes and not tweaks in numbers.
2.- It doesn't matter whats better, thats not whay they wan't, they wan't to shake the meta in a big way and baby steps don't acomplish that.
Tanks were always fine without medivac pickup, and they were fine before the damage buff. Sure you couldn't mass them and faceroll your enemy like BW days but that's not how they are supposed to be used. They were meant to play a niche role in strategic locations on the map where enemies couldn't reach you easily - and they still do this job well before and after the buff.
Stop with the "I want my race OP" type of thinking, or else you'll kill SC2 faster
It's going to be a tough slog for DK to make mech viable in all 3 matchups while keeping mixed bio/mech play still balanced IMO. Glad they are trying at least though. Shade nerf is ironic... I mean one of its original intentions was to allow early scouting options for Protoss and most folks complain about the low CD rather than the vision it provides.
On September 03 2016 06:11 Zulu23 wrote: Give us Automatchmaking for the testmap to make reliable test games on similar skill levels. There is no way mech is too strong, right now. Cyclones are not cost effective. Siege Tank Fire indeed is strong.
vs zerg it's probably too strong right now because of tank buff + ravager nerf + broodlord range nerf which are all massive. 60 damage tanks should be tested instead of 70.
I don't think ravagers are supposed to be the composition to face mech in the test map. Hydras and infestors were buffed so maybe that's the new way to fight mech alongside vipers?
I play Zerg vs Mech on the live game and most games i don't even build a single ravager.
Just all roach/hydra/viper with nydus etc.
It's ludicrous for blizzard to think mech is too strong 2 weeks on the test map when i've played it myself as Zerg and did not have any problem at all versus mech.
The problem is no one in the SC2 community has massive experience vs mech because it's played 1% of games at masters+ and pro level...
They buffed all the mech counters - burrowed infestors, hydras, vipers, etc etc...but wait tanks are too strong? ROFL give me a break.
Kinda depressing they're already backtracking as usual. This happens every single time. I knew not to believe anything about blizzard ever fixing mech.
Just had to go a few pages in the thread to find Avilo complaining about potential mech nerf, what a nice labor day.
On September 03 2016 06:11 Zulu23 wrote: Give us Automatchmaking for the testmap to make reliable test games on similar skill levels. There is no way mech is too strong, right now. Cyclones are not cost effective. Siege Tank Fire indeed is strong.
vs zerg it's probably too strong right now because of tank buff + ravager nerf + broodlord range nerf which are all massive. 60 damage tanks should be tested instead of 70.
I don't think ravagers are supposed to be the composition to face mech in the test map. Hydras and infestors were buffed so maybe that's the new way to fight mech alongside vipers?
I play Zerg vs Mech on the live game and most games i don't even build a single ravager.
Just all roach/hydra/viper with nydus etc.
It's ludicrous for blizzard to think mech is too strong 2 weeks on the test map when i've played it myself as Zerg and did not have any problem at all versus mech.
The problem is no one in the SC2 community has massive experience vs mech because it's played 1% of games at masters+ and pro level...
They buffed all the mech counters - burrowed infestors, hydras, vipers, etc etc...but wait tanks are too strong? ROFL give me a break.
Kinda depressing they're already backtracking as usual. This happens every single time. I knew not to believe anything about blizzard ever fixing mech.
Just had to go a few pages in the thread to find Avilo complaining about potential mech nerf, what a nice labor day.
The sad part was that he successfully trolled some TLers by stating he understands game design better than most players and some game designers.
I don't know if he was truly sincere, or even partially, but his comment certainly got a few people to reply.
On September 03 2016 06:42 Teoita wrote: I hate the nerf to shade vision because it removes the adept's scouting and doens't do that much for jumping adepts between mineral lines in the midgame. I'd prefer a shade cooldown nerf.
i would love to see, that you cannot cancle the shade. this would solve a lot of issues with the adept. it might loose its scouting ability, but i think with oracle / helo phoenix and so on, there are enough possibilitys.
btw.:if avilo would be responsible for the balance, sc2 would become a 1 race, 1 playstyle game.
On September 06 2016 05:06 Skyro wrote: It's going to be a tough slog for DK to make mech viable in all 3 matchups while keeping mixed bio/mech play still balanced IMO. Glad they are trying at least though. Shade nerf is ironic... I mean one of its original intentions was to allow early scouting options for Protoss and most folks complain about the low CD rather than the vision it provides.
For the last time, there's ZERO reason why mech needs to viable in 3 matchups, or viable at all. You Terrans are so spoiled, you already have the most units in the game. Even in BW, mech wasn't really viable vs. Zerg until much later when Fantasy developed modern mech builds against Zerg.
It is not about one unit it is about an entire playstyle. Again everey other race can do completly different styles Terran can only play bio +x competitive.
Swarmhost is a completly different Story (you had to build ravens because terran could not counter it with mech only Units). This was a stupid turtle fest.
When we have our mech buffs terran can play agressive mech!
Blizzard said that they will buff terran mech units in some way. The only question is how strong the buffs have to be.
On September 06 2016 01:26 VonComet wrote: After about 50 testgames at master level I can report some of my observations:
-bio still feels very viable in TvT, strong tanks help zone giant mech armies from freely getting up close and sieging up so the buff somewhat works for the bio player too, along with the big bio buff that was lotv econ changes. Bio vs mech tvt is sadly showing a tendancy to go into mass air games later on.
-a noticable improvment in TvP mech viability tho not quite there yet. You can now use cyclones to control the earlygame and prevent the P player from securing a super fast 3rd base (cyclones could be OP vs protoss if paired with bio play)
-I have no idea how to manage mass swarmhost armies as a mech player, this alone makes me feel like TvZ mech is the farthest away from true viability out of all 3 matchups
And a sidenote: It's very obvious that the people constantly going on and on about Avilo's character and trying to discredit him based on personality have no real arguments or seemingly even the capacity to think critically for themselves.
i think the general consensus was that we welcome anyone we argues with data and specific things that others can also try to verify. If Avilo does so, then we welcome and thank him, otherwise, no. This works with anyone and everyone, it's just that Avilo's one of those people with an image that does not really correlate with what TL wants in its forums.
On September 07 2016 17:58 AlphaAeffchen wrote: @ Vandiel
It is not about one unit it is about an entire playstyle. Again everey other race can do completly different styles Terran can only play bio +x competitive.
Swarmhost is a completly different Story (you had to build ravens because terran could not counter it with mech only Units). This was a stupid turtle fest.
When we have our mech buffs terran can play agressive mech!
Blizzard said that they will buff terran mech units in some way. The only question is how strong the buffs have to be.
We will get a viable mech style deal with it!
When? You already have big buff for mech in this patch, up to the point where it's might already be way too strong, but it's never enough for mech player. It's not even mechanical -based units they want, it's even more limited to factory units, and even more specifically, it has to be massing tank. They have one specific playstyle they want to play, that has to be viable across all levels of the ladder, against all races and the whole game has to be adjusted specifically for this. You don't see Zerg player requesting big buff on the lurker ( also it fits the "amazing positional play" argument) to be viable against terrans, or protoss players saying that they can't do robot tech only composition.
Yes, SwarmHost was boring to play against (and, at least for me, to play with it). Yet, it was a completely different playstyle, showing that diversity for the sake of diversity is not necessary a good thing when the playstyle is boring. And you have to acknowledge that mech IS boring and frustrating to play against for a lot of people. And it's not because "they don't understand real mech", or haven't watched enough BroodWar to understand how amazing mech in BW was" (and it was). It's a legit criticism based on personal experience on the ladder and as a spectator.
Ok now i go into detail (but pls then be open for a discussion).
I give you an example for terran gameplay at the moment.
Everey style is bio +x. This means mmm+liberator or stupid tankivacs or widowmines. Terran has no lategame options. Terran has to win in midgame or he is dead (well tat least in 95% of the games)!
TvT is only about Tankivacs no positional play. TvT was way better in hots and wol because you had more playstyles.
Do you think that it is ok. Mech is not playable at pro Level. Everey game looks nearly the same.
Blizzard said also that Terran has not many Options (we have no lategame!)
Diversity is important for the game and for viewership (yes swarmhosts were a problem but than they have to redesign the unit). So give terrans a playstyle that is more positional based. Its only boring to play against because you cant push out with mech because its to weak. And stop saying all the time that mech players only want to play with factory units. The most units come from factory yes but you still need raven support or viking support. Also you drop sometimes with a dropship and so on. The most Units from bio come from the barracks. So stop this stupid Argument its completly wrong.
We could achieve the glorious days of broodwar mech in someway if we get mech to a viable playstyle.
Here are the zerg styles:
Ling baneling Muta
Roach Ravager
Hydra Lurker roach
Sky zerg
Ultra Ling
Here are the toss styles
Many different Gateway centric syles like Blink Stalker mass Adept into Templar.
Robo centric styles many immortals collossi.with Gateway Support.
Sky toss.
Here are the Terran styles at the moment.
80 % Bio Units +x. In everey game the same playstyle. Boring to watch and to play!
Many players stopped to play the game because of this and this will change.
Again its no the question if mech gets buffs. The question is how strong the mech buffs will have to be! We will get a patch and this stupid meta will change!
On September 07 2016 18:59 AlphaAeffchen wrote: @Vanadiel
Ok now i go into detail (but pls then be open for a discussion).
Oh I am open for discussion, and to be honest I'd love to be wrong about mech and so on, because Starcraft is a game that I love playing so I hope it won't be as I fear it will be because it will definitely drive me away from it.
I give you an example for terran gameplay at the moment.
Everey style is bio +x. This means mmm+liberator or stupid tankivacs or widowmines. Terran has no lategame options. Terran has to win in midgame or he is dead (well tat least in 95% of the games)!
TvT is only about Tankivacs no positional play. TvT was way better in hots and wol because you had more playstyles.
Do you think that it is ok. Mech is not playable at pro Level. Everey game looks nearly the same.
Okay first of, I do not fully agree with it. Mech seems viable in TvT, at least in Korea you see more and more mech play nowadays. For TvZ and TvP, I agree, it's almost only bio + X. But the "+X" is always miss leading and does not represent, to me, the full variety of terran's strategy which is underappreciated. Bio+tanks, bio liberator, bio mines (and to some extent, the new bio cyclone opening / or all-in in TvP) are all three in TvP and TvZ, and they have all their own rhythm, their own strategy and interaction with your opponent army. Further, the strategy in the game is not limited to the composition: I'm really amazed, specifically in TvP I'd say, how sometimes the same composition (says bio liberator) leads to very different games because the timings of their key units and their usage has been different. I mean, when I see Byun vs Dear series, except the banshee opening all the games have been with the same sets of units, but it was a very strategically diverse series of games in my opinion.
If any, I'd say that Zerg is the more limited strategically in the game, especially in ZvT. There are very few all-in or timings that you can do, you may have two main different composition (ling bane muta and roach ravager) but the choices you can do with are fairly limited. In both case, the main strategy is just to survive until ultralisk.
Blizzard said also that Terran has not many Options (we have no lategame!)
Diversity is important for the game and for viewership (yes swarmhosts were a problem but than they have to redesign the unit). So give terrans a playstyle that is more positional based. Its only boring to play against because you cant push out with mech because its to weak. And stop saying all the time that mech players only want to play with factory units. The most units come from factory yes but you still need raven support or viking support. Also you drop sometimes with a dropship and so on. The most Units from bio come from the barracks. So stop this stupid Argument its completly wrong.
Swarmhost were a problem because they were badly design and lead to boring play. But their redesign/removal from the game also was problematic at it has leads to a lot of mech (i.e. tank) securing a transition to skymech which were also extremely boring in my opnition. That's what I meant that diversity in composition is not an end in itself when it leads to uninteresting playstyle. As for positional play, I do believe and feel that the liberator has fulfil this role much more interestingly than the tank. I agree that mech player use viking and raven support, but what I often read on TL from mech players (even in this particular topic from the-one-which-should-not-be-named) is that they don't want that and want better AA so they don't have to build starport units. So please keep it civilized and don't call it stupid.
We could achieve the glorious days of broodwar mech in someway if we get mech to a viable playstyle.
That's the main point I disagree. I do not believe mech as BW is ever going to happen in Starcraft 2 (and I'll repeat, but I'd love to be wrong), because :
1/ the tanks in SC2 are just too "smart" and reliable. There are no room to play against it with ground army (if they are strong obviously, not the current weak version). This has been heavilly discussed so nothing new, but the "stupidity" of BW tank was exploitable by its opponent and it was much more demanding for the terran player. There was a much more interesting dynamics. That's mainly why I consider the Liberator as a much better unit to fullfil this role : it's extremely strong, but it's much more difficult to position correctly for the terran players and can be better circumvented by the opponent. 2/ The economy: while it's better with LoTV as it forces to expand regularly, it's still fondamently different from BroodWar, because it gives you no economical advantage if you spread your 60-70 drones/VCS across 5 bases or 3, meaning you can't swarm with superior economy a defensive opponent.
So to be, it's not a question about wether the tank is weak or strong itself, but the way it is design does not fit in how the game is fondamentaly design. That's why I actually liked, even though it was far from perfect, the tankivacs, because it gave it a role which fits in the game, even though it was not the one which was initially design.
Here are the zerg styles:
Ling baneling Muta
Roach Ravager
Hydra Lurker roach
Sky zerg
Ultra Ling
Here are the toss styles
Many different Gateway centric syles like Blink Stalker mass Adept into Templar.
Robo centric styles many immortals collossi.with Gateway Support.
Sky toss.
Here are the Terran styles at the moment.
80 % Bio Units +x. In everey game the same playstyle. Boring to watch and to play!
I think I already answered these ! But the way you described protoss playstyle could be done exactly the same way as you described terran playstyle: Gateways units + X. You'd agree that is really reductive and simplified, right?
Many players stopped to play the game because of this and this will change.
Again its no the question if mech gets buffs. The question is how strong the mech buffs will have to be! We will get a patch and this stupid meta will change!
The question about how many people stop playing, why, is vast and I think it's a jump to conclusion exactly why it is like this. The only thing I can say for sure, however, is that at least one player will stop playing if I hit turtle mech player on the ladder, but I might not be the only one too.
ps : very short story about what it means to play against mech in late HoTS for me : I was mid master at the time, played against a 50 apm mech player on the three players map (don't remember the name). I alt tabbed, watched a tv show, and it took him something like 20 minutes to realize there was no opponent in the game. That's the kind of "active" player I was hitting regularly at the time, and if not for the LoTV beta I would have leave Starcraft 2.
Pls read this i posted this in an another thread this explains why Terran gameplay is so boring at the Moment and needs changes.
The cyclone problem
We got a new unit the cyclone which made agressive mech play viable. It was fun to play and to watch. I agree that this unit was to strong in beta but then the balance team made the unit complete useless. The cyclone at the moment is not playable (i know 1 for defense thats it). This unit needs drastic changes to be viable. The patch changed the cost (and the supply rofl) but thats not the change the unit needed! The cyclone needs more health!
If this unit is to strong and it doesnt work bring back the Goliath thats was what many players suggestet! And give us a real option against air units from the factory!
The Liberator problem
The second new unit for terrans is way to strong because it overshines everey other terran unit. I know terran needs them or they cant win against protoss or zerg in 90% of the games played. The problem is that this leeds to mass air battles in lategame which are cancer for the game. Sometimes i feel that i play legacey of the liberators. The ground attack mode of the liberator needs to be turned down to make more room for other units in the terran arsenal like the siegetank. Also i think its not fun for the other races to play against this unit in nearly everey matchup against terran.
The Tankivac problem
Its not fun to play in everey TvT against marine tank. In many TvTs the only question is who can doomdrop the other faster with his army. Also this mechanic blocks development for mech mechanics because the tank cant be buffed or changed. We said many many times that we want changes for the siegetank and we got nothing! Also i think its not fun for the other races to play against siegetank drops!
The Bio problem in general
Terran gameplay is designed around Bio. You have to build marines and medivacs in everey matchup if you want to play competitive. In broodwar terran had the option to go mech in everey matchup. Now its not possible to play it in any matchup. I know there are terrans who like to play bio. Thats absolutly ok but there has to be room for other playstyles for terrans in competitive gaming. Everey other race has different playstyles here a the examples:
Protoss: Many different Gateway styles, Robo centric styles, Skytoss
Terran: 90% Bio + X. This is a big problem its not fun to play and to watch in everey game where terran is involved to see the same bio style again and again and again! W
The Tempest problem
Protoss needs the tempest to beat liberators i know that but its nearly impossible to beat protoss in lategame because of this unit. Terran cant engage in the perfect protoss army (and no ghosts are not the solution). If protoss gets to the point where he has mass tempest+x its nearly impossible for terran to win the game. Also its not fun to play against mass tempest for all races!
The Adept
I like this unit in general but if there is a warp prism and you have to run after the adepts and they shade away its realyl fustrating. The shades should have a higher cooldown at least. So the protoss has to think when to use the shade ability and not spam it all the time!
The Pylon cannon
Its really fustrating to play against this. I know that protoss needs this unit to survive the earlygame (which is also stupid design by the way). But if he plays an agressive push in early game its terrible to play against this garbage. Its not fun to see that pylons shoot at your base. At least allow protoss this unit only for defense and not for offense, This is cannon rush 2.0 and has nothing to do with strategy in any form. Pylon cannon for defense ok but not for offense.
Protoss in general
Protoss should get a complete redesign. Look at the protoss from broodwar there were so much fun interacting with the other races and micro involved. Now in most games the protss defends and trys to get his deathbaal ready for the final blow unfun to play and to watch!
The Nydus warm problem
I know that nydus worms where not viable before Lotv. But to play against the invincible nyduswarms is not fun and its gimmicky. Perhaps there can be other oprions to make this strategy viable (cost reduction).
Terran has no lategame and many useless units
As Terran you have to win against Zerg or Protoss in midgame. Its nearly impossible for terran to win in lategame.
I know that protoss and zerg have a hard mid game (which is also a problem). But its not ok that terran has absolutly no really options in lategame.
Battlecruiser: Complete garbage (even not usable in TvT)
Cyclone: Complete garbage (i know 1 for defense lol)
Thor: Garbage (is only really viable against mutas and a boring unit)
Widow mine Playable but got nerved can only used most times for harrassment
Viking: Playable but does nothing against tempest or carriers (should be a factory unit).
Siegetank: Playable but only with stupid bio (blizzard nerved this unit into the ground)!
Terran has absolutly no lategame units.
The swarm host problem
This unit needs a complete redesign. And not just stat changes. Its not fun for any race to have a unit which you can not use like the cyclone.
The map pool
There are maps which favor allins and are terrible designed! Its interesting League of Legends has only 1 map and is the number 1 game on twitch. Just give us simple macro maps thats it. The focus should be on more important things (gamebalance and gameplay in general). Maps need to be simple and clear designed. If you want you can give us one different map per season which allows gimmicky playstyles but not 6 of eight maps!
Game is to much designed around air units
There are air units which are ok. Thesee are the light units like banshee viking, Mutas and phoenix.
Units like liberators Tempest Broodlords corrupter are to good. This leeds to mass air battles which are not fun to play and to watch. The focus should be on ground units for all races (ground battles are more strategical and more fun to watch). Air units should be more niche!
The game is not fun to watch and game is dying problem
Make the game fun to play (for all races). Than people will come back and we will get more viewers. We dont need to be number one on twitch but at least starcraft should be in the top ten games on twitch! Starcraft is the best RTS but it needs some love and more updates (balance patches and updates).
Only Korrean Pros are asked about Balance
Thisn is a farce. Starcraft has a European scene and an American scene which has also good progamers they should be asked about the game and not only the Korrean scene (i know they are the best but the gab to the other pro gamers is closing). Its not ok to ask only Korrean pro gamers to make balance decisions.
The biggest problem: A balance team which only makes minor changes and is afraid to change gameplay and doesnt want to patch the game more often
After the release of Legacey of the Void we got 1 balance patch with minor changes! This stands for itself! Everey other E-sport title gets many many balance patches very often (look at LoL, look at Dota look at heroes of the storm). I know that its harder to balance an RTS game than a Moba but this is not the excuse to make only minor changes and patch the game six months after release only one time and ignore the community which makes good suggestions.
Its not always about balance its also about gameplay. The gameplay in Lotv is fustrating and the game needs help. We need constant changes and many patches to achieve good gameplay for all races.
Blizzard to something and patch your game more often and try constant Change.
Everey lategame unit like Broodlord Viper and Ultralisk are viable.
Terran hast to win the midgame or gets doomed. Only playstyle bio as core Units with 10 to 20 percent Support Units. Everey other race has more strategic Options.
Sorry but your also wrong about protoss playstyle. Protoss can play diffrent core units like adepts or blinkstalker into many different styles like robo centric styles or skytoss.
Terran can only play bio as corestyle. Everey other race has more core Units and completly different playtyles thats a Problem.
Also you cant turtle with mech against good players because of the new economey. So if you buff Tanks and cylcones we can play agressive. Turtle style would be Auto loss any way against decent players.
And pls yes i know that there are about 5-10 games in TvT in Korea which involves mech but Tankivac destroyed the beauty of TvT in general because you can correct your positioning of tanks and correct everey wrong choice. Starcaft is not only about APM its also about strategy it should be amix of both = Real Time Strategy
On September 07 2016 22:10 AlphaAeffchen wrote: @ Vandadiel
Also your Argument about economey is wrong.
If your oponent palyxs mech and turtles you have 3 Options as zerg.
Attack him evereywhere on different Points.
Turtle inalso into lategame Units and win.
Take the whole map and deny Terran to spread out!
The economey is better than in broodwar because you have to expand agressive because your bases mine out faster. 3 base cap doesnt matter here!
Just for the sake of argument, and for your 3 previous post. Mech in bw was a bit like bio now. There is only one choice in tvp and it s mech. Bio, aside from proxy and all ins cannot be used. In the same way, tvt quickly turns to mech. So you could argue T didnt have diversity yet it was fun (ok, that may not be universally shared for tvt). I stopped lotv because zerg was boring. I felt i didnt have many options but mostly the problem was it wasnt fun.
Now i d like to see mech too, but for instance, air play should be changed (i m talking about VR, carriers and banshees to a lesser extent, not mutas/oracles/libs), and perhaps maps should be adjusted. But withouth things like the defiler, it ll be hard. Viper is too easily stopped
On September 07 2016 22:22 AlphaAeffchen wrote: @ Vanadiel
Sorry but your also wrong about protoss playstyle. Protoss can play diffrent core units like adepts or blinkstalker into many different styles like robo centric styles or skytoss.
Terran can only play bio as corestyle. Everey other race has more core Units and completly different playtyles thats a Problem.
Also you cant turtle with mech against good players because of the new economey. So if you buff Tanks and cylcones we can play agressive. Turtle style would be Auto loss any way against decent players.
And pls yes i know that there are about 5-10 games in TvT in Korea which involves mech but Tankivac destroyed the beauty of TvT in general because you can correct your positioning of tanks and correct everey wrong choice. Starcaft is not only about APM its also about strategy it should be amix of both = Real Time Strategy
Honestly I feel comparing P and T in regard of variety of units composition is not correct Protoss doesn't have two (or three, or more) completely different units composition, like it could be for bio vs mech: you always start from a gatway heavy early-to-midgame, and transition to teach-heavy compositions where the main difference is the central tech unit you choose (archon+immortal, immortal+disruptor, templars, etc.) and finally you go with air in the lategame. I'm not saying P has less options, just that the variety of options P has is not comparable to terran: there are many different "styles" which are however more similar to each other. One good example is the fact that for P you share upgrades for all ground units, while for T you have different upgrade paths for bio and mech (and this makes the 2 composition really really opposite, it's almost impossible to switch).
(this is not at all a complaint! I'm just saying that a direct comparison is, imho, not really fair - they are different races with different features..)
I'm absolutely in favor of having mech as a viable strong option, however I would not like to see it replace bio completely. I feel this is the most tricky and difficult part: to have bio and mech equally strong and internally balanced. If you quote BW as a "glorious example", in BW bio was not really viable as a lategame composition vs protoss, so you have the same issue.. As a P player I would love to face both bio and mech (it's much more fun to have to scout, determine what your opponent is doing, prepare different counters, etc.) - right now I agree that when I play vs Terran, *if I manage to survive the very early game (I'm pretty bad so I often loose to early cyclone-tank-lib pushes)* I already know what I'm going to face: bio + liberators.. so I always go heavy gateway into tempests, with templar support
Very good post. Your absolutly right bio should be viable too.
But in BW w it was possible to Play Bio against zerg even in lategame (with support units).
Well about protoss i feel that he can Play more diverse getway styles. Yes i know that terran can mix many Units into bio but it feels always like the same strategy. I think thats different when you Play protoss because your core Units change.
You are absolutly right about air play. And yes BW was more mech centric but it was more strategic and deverse gameplay. Also we didnt have the cancer mass air battles we have know in many games.
On September 07 2016 23:28 AlphaAeffchen wrote: @ VHbb
Very good post. Your absolutly right bio should be viable too.
But in BW w it was possible to Play Bio against zerg even in lategame (with support units).
Well about protoss i feel that he can Play more diverse getway styles. Yes i know that terran can mix many Units into bio but it feels always like the same strategy. I think thats different when you Play protoss because your core Units change.
I admit I'm not very expert on BW, my comment was coming mainly from hearing tastosis' cast of the recent ASL tournament where they talked a bit about the different styles good to know bio was somewhat viable as well, this gives hope that it can be achieved for sc2 as well!
I agree (at least from P point of view) that the styles P has feels more diverse, though I also feel that (unless you go air) P doesn't have the possibility to choose between 2 opposite gameplay / styles - you always start from a core of GW units (but I think it's fair - different races different designs)
On September 07 2016 23:31 AlphaAeffchen wrote: @WGT-Baal
You are absolutly right about air play. And yes BW was more mech centric but it was more strategic and deverse gameplay. Also we didnt have the cancer mass air battles we have know in many games.
Then we agree air should be fixed before mech van ve tweaked
On September 07 2016 16:52 AlphaAeffchen wrote: Hi,
Terran has only one viable playstyle which is mass bio +x. Mech has to be viable. It makes the game more strategic and fun to play for all races!
Everey other race is more fun at the Moment because they have more viable unit compositions to play.
The terran mech play style is important for starcraft and has to be vibale. Also this will bring Players back to the game like HTO Mario.
Blizzard pls dont nerf the tank let the meta settle and patch the game!
Lol, always that stupid same argument "it makes for more variety." I'm sick of hearing it. You don't see Protoss players complaining they can't do pure Robo builds. If they could, it would also "make the game more strategic and fun to play for all races!"
It's only fun for you because you have more variety of openers while the other races suffer having to spend more resources to guess what you're doing and react accordingly.
For the last time, Terran mech does NOT have to be viable, AT ALL. It will actually kill the game faster because making Terran openers more possible and giving them more choices (which makes the other races suffer) will make one race superior to another in the long-run, which leads to an unbalanced game.
Many different Gateway centric syles like Blink Stalker mass Adept into Templar.
Robo centric styles many immortals collossi.with Gateway Support.
Sky toss.
Here are the Terran styles at the moment.
80 % Bio Units +x. In everey game the same playstyle. Boring to watch and to play!
Many players stopped to play the game because of this and this will change.
Again its no the question if mech gets buffs. The question is how strong the mech buffs will have to be! We will get a patch and this stupid meta will change!
I think you messed up your explanation for how the various styles are categorized.
On September 03 2016 07:38 NutriaKaiN wrote: wow that adept change makes harassment so useless and scouting as well, u see always nothing and have to gamble to let the shade finish or not.
Blizzard knows how to roll the dice when it comes to game design. Too bad they are playing against the house.
Before listening to WinterSC about his opinions about Mech(being too strong) its worth to take in consideration that he mostly plays balance test mod vs bronze to gold league viewers of his own.
Mech will be viable Blizzard posted it that they will Change the game the only question is how strong mech will be. You have no clue of the game because Terran is very onesided to Play at the Moment. Even Blizzard noticed it.
Guys deal with it Mech will be a viable style because Terran has a lag of strategies compared to the other races!
Well yes zerg Plays 80% hatcherey Units but hats not the point the strategies and playstyles are more diverde then Terran because zerg has more different possible core Units.
And yes also Protoss has 80% Gateway Units very often but he has more Options for core Units also sky terran has no Chance against sky toss.......
And pls remember that there is a different design for all races so a factory based mech style for Terran should be possible and Blizzard tries to achieve this to create more diversity.
Sorry , but i can't take you seriously guys when you flood these forums with things like "omg make mech viable", "terran needs more working compositions" while "backing this up" with "complex analysis". "It's not fun to play bio every MU" or "i'm not playing this game only because of that". I tell you what, all these proposed changes, either they make mech viable or not, are not gonna change shit in terms of SC2 popularity nor attract any new players, including most "vocal" mech lobbyists here. Let me remind you, the last time big changes happened to the game (lotv) (and even thought, lets be honest, that changes were positive) the playersbase shrinked by 50%. Now you are promoting another major patch all acting like you've got years of gamedesign under the belt (avilo is ofc the most talented one). All i want to ask: are you doing this for lulz? Or you are going to actually play the fcking game after the patch? Cause statistics makes me doubt you will. The reasoning beyond this is hilarious as well. BW Terrans have the only working composition in most MUs, their whole arsenal is limited to 7-8 units. Same for other races. Do they complain about the game not being fun? Are they bored playing the same comp every single game for 17 years? I guess we just got different understanding of "fun". For me fun is pushing my limits in RTS, accumulating experience and knowledge, while for some people, it looks like, fun is an everlasting search for an excuse of them not willing to play the game/being bad at it. But the truth is "mech viability" won't solve their problems but instead will again drive off people who actually spent thousands of hours learning the game only to realise they need to start once again from scratch (it's an obvious over exaggeration, the changes are not that crucial but still the idea is there).
Tldr: Leave this game alone. Stop redesigning it. Play it.
On September 08 2016 20:23 insitelol wrote: Sorry , but i can't take you seriously guys when you flood these forums with things like "omg make mech viable", "terran needs more working compositions" while "backing this up" with "complex analysis". "It's not fun to play bio every MU" or "i'm not playing this game only because of that". I tell you what, all these proposed changes, either they make mech viable or not, are not gonna change shit in terms of SC2 popularity nor attract any new players, including most "vocal" mech lobbyists here. Let me remind you, the last time big changes happened to the game (lotv) (and even thought, lets be honest, that changes were positive) the playersbase shrinked by 50%. Now you are promoting another major patch all acting like you've got years of gamedesign under the belt (avilo is ofc the most talented one). All i want to ask: are you doing this for lulz? Or you are going to actually play the fcking game after the patch? Cause statistics makes me doubt you will. The reasoning beyond this is hilarious as well. BW Terrans have the only working composition in most MUs, their whole arsenal is limited to 7-8 units. Same for other races. Do they complain about the game not being fun? Are they bored playing the same comp every single game for 17 years? I guess we just got different understanding of "fun". For me fun is pushing my limits in RTS, accumulating experience and knowledge, while for some people, it looks like, fun is an everlasting search for an excuse of them not willing to play the game/being bad at it. But the truth is "mech viability" won't solve their problems but instead will again drive off people who actually spent thousands of hours learning the game only to realise they need to start once again from scratch (it's an obvious over exaggeration, the changes are not that crucial but still the idea is there).
Tldr: Leave this game alone. Stop redesigning it. Play it.
Well, in BW we had bio in TvZ and Mech in TvP/TvT. So, it was more diverse as a whole. What I don't understand though is why are some people so invested in making sure MECH IS NOT VIABLE. Did you guys hate mech in BW? What is it really? Why is it so important that a composition is not viable to another race? They are also trying to make hydra/lings/infestors viable in this new patch, do you see anyone here crying that hydras should be kept bad?
On September 08 2016 20:43 petro1987 wrote: Well, in BW we had bio in TvZ and Mech in TvP/TvT. So, it was more diverse as a whole. What I don't understand though is why are some people so invested in making sure MECH IS NOT VIABLE. Did you guys hate mech in BW? What is it really? Why is it so important that a composition is not viable to another race? They are also trying to make hydra/lings/infestors viable in this new patch, do you see anyone here crying that hydras should be kept bad?
I'm not against mech, i'm against unreasoned, absolutely unnecessary drastic changes to gameplay. It scares off dedicated players. That's my point. But what's even worse, it seems that blizzard is driven by panic these days as the state of SC2 is getting worse with every month. Thier actions got no logic/consistency or masterplan behind them. They are random. Few months ago there was a constant weekly discussion about the current state of the game, there were lots of proposals (coming from blizzard) on how to fix the balance, tweaking liberator/muta/adept etc. But then all of a sudden blizzard stopped any communtication. Then DK jumps out of nowhere and is like: "We are gonna change the shit out this game again!!!". And everyone is like: "Hooray!!! It's so much fun!".
And speaking about mech, well can't you understand why people don't wana play against a ground/air untouchable deathball slowly approaching your bases? Because that's how mech is supposed to work in SC2. There is no other way. And you call this fun? And skill? Broodlord infestor not fun. SH not fun. Protoss deathballs not fun. But if its Terran its fun!
You are wrong. The gameplay of Lotv is very poor for Terran. The game Needs Major changes to be inproved. We had a good beta but Blizzard nerved mech into the ground (it wa mobile mech cylcone hellion not deathball).
If you buff mech it is not a Deatball it can be played agressive because you dont have to turtle. Sorry but you have no clue about what you are talking.
I say it again we will get mech as a playstyle it is good for diversity and fun for palying the game for all races. Deal with it mech will be a viable playstyle so terran has more options!
On September 08 2016 20:43 petro1987 wrote: Well, in BW we had bio in TvZ and Mech in TvP/TvT. So, it was more diverse as a whole. What I don't understand though is why are some people so invested in making sure MECH IS NOT VIABLE. Did you guys hate mech in BW? What is it really? Why is it so important that a composition is not viable to another race? They are also trying to make hydra/lings/infestors viable in this new patch, do you see anyone here crying that hydras should be kept bad?
I'm not against mech, i'm against unreasoned, absolutely unnecessary drastic changes to gameplay. It scares off dedicated players. That's my point. But what's even worse, it seems that blizzard is driven by panic these days as the state of SC2 is getting worse with every month. Thier actions got no logic/consistency or masterplan behind them. They are random. Few months ago there was a constant weekly discussion about the current state of the game, there were lots of proposals (coming from blizzard) on how to fix the balance, tweaking liberator/muta/adept etc. But then all of a sudden blizzard stopped any communtication. Then DK jumps out of nowhere and is like: "We are gonna change the shit out this game again!!!". And everyone is like: "Hooray!!! It's so much fun!".
And speaking about mech, well can't you understand why people don't wana play against a ground/air untouchable deathball slowly approaching your bases? Because that's how mech is supposed to work in SC2. There is no other way. And you call this fun? And skill? Broodlord infestor not fun. SH not fun. Protoss deathballs not fun. But if its Terran its fun!
Why do you think mech is supposed to be a "ground/air untouchable deathball"? Do you think it was like that in BW? Why can't mech in SC2 be more like mech in BW? Isn't that what people have been wanting for years now? Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? Now, if you said you hate mech in BW, I would understand why you wouldn't want mech in SC2. But it seems you are OK with that in BW, so I just don't understand.
Hey and i play SC II nearly everey day on ladder. And many terran Players left because Blizzard didnt do a redisign as they promised. Look HTO Mario Ruff and so on are verey unhapppy with the game.
It is not fun to paly biostyle in everey fucking matchup.
TvT is a mess because of stupid Tankivacs
Zerg and protss have way more playstyles core units and lategame Options
Terran design is very verry poor at the moment.
And dont tell me that i dont know anything about gamedesign i play starcraft since i was 14 yeas old now im 35. At least i know what is fun to play and what not (i play only Terran on ladder). And by the way im Diamond 2 with mech only so at least i have a bit skill.
Lotv did good changes economey wise but Terran gameplay is so bad if you compare it to the other episodes of starcraft.
Believe we will get our changes. Blizzard wont step back gameplay for terran will change because its a broken mess and Blizzard relized it.
This games Needs Major and drastic changes to stay fresh. Also some Players will comeback. Many left because Blizzard didnt hold theri promise foe mech viability. Now this will Change and some Players will comeback.
On September 08 2016 21:12 AlphaAeffchen wrote: If you buff mech it is not a Deatball it can be played agressive because you dont have to turtle. Sorry but you have no clue about what you are talking.
I guess you know what are talking about. With tank's damage being buffed by 40% and removal of tankivacs. For sure these changes do not promote turtling. They are meant for agressive play.
On September 08 2016 21:12 AlphaAeffchen wrote: I say it again we will get mech as a playstyle it is good for diversity and fun for palying the game for all races.
Undeniable arguments. "I think "X" is good. and fun. "Y" is not. You don't know what are you talking about". And add something about diversity. It always works. Why would people do not like diversity.
On September 08 2016 21:24 AlphaAeffchen wrote: And dont tell me that i dont know anything about gamedesign
How did i dare? I beg my apologies!
On September 08 2016 21:24 AlphaAeffchen wrote: At least i know what is fun to play and what not (i play only Terran on ladder).
That explains a lot. You play only terran on ladder. You got a masters degree in "FUN" (or is it diamond?) .
On September 08 2016 21:24 AlphaAeffchen wrote: Lotv did good changes economey wise
Lotv changes were so good half of the players left.
On September 08 2016 21:24 AlphaAeffchen wrote: but Terran gameplay is so bad if you compare it to the other episodes of starcraft.
Also considering nothing really changed for Terran comparing to previous explansions.
On September 08 2016 21:24 AlphaAeffchen wrote: This games Needs Major and drastic changes to stay fresh. Also some Players will comeback. Many left because Blizzard didnt hold theri promise foe mech viability. Now this will Change and some Players will comeback.
~150k players left. Assuming they are equally distributed among races what's the chance these people left because of (your) broken promises? (also considering there were no such promises).
On September 08 2016 21:19 petro1987 wrote: Why do you think mech is supposed to be a "ground/air untouchable deathball"? Do you think it was like that in BW? Why can't mech in SC2 be more like mech in BW? Isn't that what people have been wanting for years now? Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? Now, if you said you hate mech in BW, I would understand why you wouldn't want mech in SC2. But it seems you are OK with that in BW, so I just don't understand.
Because BW is a different game. Units occupy more terrain (compared to SC2). They are clunky and hard to control. Playing a deathball in BW is counterproductive as you cant make you units attack all together due terrain and pathfinding/selection restrictions. While in SC2 units pile up on each other occupying much less space, move all together in a perfect formation and open fire simultaneously. I garantee protoss colosi compositions won't be as effective if stalkers couldnt rest under them. While the proposed changes promote the exact deathball play i described. Tanks and Thors clumped on each other oneshoting any other unit (what could never happen in BW).
On September 08 2016 21:19 petro1987 wrote: Why do you think mech is supposed to be a "ground/air untouchable deathball"? Do you think it was like that in BW? Why can't mech in SC2 be more like mech in BW? Isn't that what people have been wanting for years now? Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? Now, if you said you hate mech in BW, I would understand why you wouldn't want mech in SC2. But it seems you are OK with that in BW, so I just don't understand.
Because BW is a different game. Units occupy more terrain (compared to SC2). They are clunky and hard to control. Playing a deathball in BW is counterproductive as you cant make you units attack all together due terrain and pathfinding/selection restrictions. While in SC2 units pile up on each other occupying much less space, move all together in a perfect formation and open fire simultaneously. I garantee protoss colosi compositions won't be as effective if stalkers couldnt rest under them. While the proposed changes promote the exact deathball play i described. Tanks and Thors clumped on each other oneshoting any other unit (what could never happen in BW).
What's your level of knowledge in BW? Are you familiar with Flash's double armory 2/1 build in TvP? He pushes around 170 supply with what you would call a "deathball". It's harder to control, of course, due to the 12 unit grouping. Mech units do clump a lot in BW, not as much as in SC2, but they do clump. In fact, you have to babysit your units a lot, splitting them, otherwise a good stasis will wreck you. The reason people are OK with mech in BW is not really about the raw power that it brings in a deathball. It's because mech has several weaknesses that can be exploited. Recalls, stasis, zealot bombs, caughting them badly sieged, flanking, etc. I think introducing overkill in tanks is something they should explore in SC2. It would open up a lot possibilities to fighting a mech army.
On September 08 2016 21:19 petro1987 wrote: Why do you think mech is supposed to be a "ground/air untouchable deathball"? Do you think it was like that in BW? Why can't mech in SC2 be more like mech in BW? Isn't that what people have been wanting for years now? Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? Now, if you said you hate mech in BW, I would understand why you wouldn't want mech in SC2. But it seems you are OK with that in BW, so I just don't understand.
Because BW is a different game. Units occupy more terrain (compared to SC2). They are clunky and hard to control. Playing a deathball in BW is counterproductive as you cant make you units attack all together due terrain and pathfinding/selection restrictions. While in SC2 units pile up on each other occupying much less space, move all together in a perfect formation and open fire simultaneously. I garantee protoss colosi compositions won't be as effective if stalkers couldnt rest under them. While the proposed changes promote the exact deathball play i described. Tanks and Thors clumped on each other oneshoting any other unit (what could never happen in BW).
What's your level of knowledge in BW? Are you familiar with Flash's double armory 2/1 build in TvP? He pushes around 170 supply with what you would call a "deathball". It's harder to control, of course, due to the 12 unit grouping. Mech units do clump a lot in BW, not as much as in SC2, but they do clump. In fact, you have to babysit your units a lot, splitting them, otherwise a good stasis will wreck you. The reason people are OK with mech in BW is not really about the raw power that it brings in a deathball. It's because mech has several weaknesses that can be exploited. Recalls, stasis, zealot bombs, caughting them badly sieged, flanking, etc. I think introducing overkill in tanks is something they should explore in SC2. It would open up a lot possibilities to fighting a mech army.
Ok, may be, whatever. I don't really want to go into details and i admit i lack bw knowledge (it's common sense mostly i'm not into exact builds or w/e). But i know how units interact in SC2 pretty well, and i see no real counter to Cyclone/Tank/Thor/Liberator/Raven bullcrap. This comp just seems invincible to me, and no option from BW you mentioned is available to SC2 protoss and zerg. Exept for may be drops. But again i may be wrong here. Hard to predict how gameplay will turn out. My original post was not about mech being good/bad etc. All i'm saying im strongly against inconsistant drastic game changes. Whether it's mech. or anything else. SC2 constantly changed through years, and changed a lot (new units/redesign of old ones, even economy overhaul). Did they have a positive effect on SC2 popularity/playerbase? No they got the exact opposite effect. Until the core of the game/major design directions remains the same nothing will change. So may be blizzard should focus on something else.
Well first of all many People left because SC is a hardcore game and a 1v1 game and not a Team game like mobas thats the main reason.
Drastic gameplay changes will at least bring back some players like frustrated terrans who only can Play bio Units +x10% other units and have only one core unit. Which is stupid and boring game design for terran.
You can say what you want but your Argument that cylone/Tank/Thor/libearator/Raven is invincible shows that you dont know about what your talking!
First of all you have to get there (oh by the way sky toss with tempest is unbetable at the moment look the match Neeb vs snute really awfull game design by the way). But more important Toss has immortals strong air or can outplay the terran. Zerg has vipers other strong air Units or can outplay Terran (Drops) on ground because mech is very immobile so stop arguing about points you dont know!
Also a tank buff will give Terran Players the possibility to push earlier because you do more damage. This is called timing pushes/attacks. Oh by the way they were also possible in BW because of tank damage! And you cant tutle because of the economey and also tutteling depends on maps!
And for the last time Terran gameplay is very very poor if you compare it to BW. Blizzard will change it lwith mech viability.
Again Mech viability will come! The only question is about how strong the buffs for mech will be. Deal with it :-)
As a zerg player, I fall into the camp of thinking that mech should be a viable option for terrans, if not in all three matchups, then in at least two of the three matchups. For one, I would enjoy ZvT more if I knew that my opponent could be going one of two drastically different styles (and yes, with lots of more subtle variation of builds within each style).
I see a lot of people using the analogous argument that protoss players don't have "pure robo builds". I think this if flawed, and a false analogy for two reasons.
The first reason is that protoss doesn't have the same upgrade structure as terran. Gateway and robo units all share the same upgrades, so you're not "determining" your path by picking which upgrades you go as protoss. That makes mixed gateway + robo builds much more viable than mixed bio + mech builds.
The second is that the distribution of variety between gateway and robo is very different from that of barracks and factory. Terran only have two viable tier 1 barracks units, the marine and marauder. (Viable meaning able to compose your army in the mid-game, unlike reaper who is meant for early game scouting or all in.) Contrast this to protoss who can go a myriad of different styles from pure gateway tech alone, like zealot sentry, blink stalkers, mass adepts, adept sentry. On the other hand, there's much more variety in T2 (or T2.5) factory tech than there is in robo tech. Protoss have only 3 combat units from the robo (two of which I would argue have overlapping roles) while terran has 5 (6 if you count hellion/hellbat as different units) which can give room for a myriad of different mid-game styles.
I don't think anyone would argue that a terran should get away with only ever making factory units in every game. Of course you have to make vikings in some situations, or ghosts in another, etc. But I think they still have virtually no diversity when it comes to what their core units should be in the mid game. Sure there is diversity within that choice of core units (you can supplement marines with tanks, or liberators, or widow mines, etc) but that's just not as good as it is with the other two races. Zerg can actually choose what their mid-game core will be (roach vs zergling) and can get away with never researching zergling speed in some games. Protoss can easily choose what their core units are (zealots, adepts, or stalkers, or a near-even mix). In both cases that choice of core units can lead to drastically different play styles, whereas with terran it seems like you only really get similar playstyles with some variety.
I don't think it's a balance issue (I honestly don't know where exactly I stand in balance but I lean towards the balance being pretty good right now) but it's a diversity of gameplay issue. I think I would enjoy ZvT a lot more if I got to play vs mech or bio in different games.
On September 08 2016 20:43 petro1987 wrote: Well, in BW we had bio in TvZ and Mech in TvP/TvT. So, it was more diverse as a whole. What I don't understand though is why are some people so invested in making sure MECH IS NOT VIABLE. Did you guys hate mech in BW? What is it really? Why is it so important that a composition is not viable to another race? They are also trying to make hydra/lings/infestors viable in this new patch, do you see anyone here crying that hydras should be kept bad?
I'm not against mech, i'm against unreasoned, absolutely unnecessary drastic changes to gameplay. It scares off dedicated players. That's my point. But what's even worse, it seems that blizzard is driven by panic these days as the state of SC2 is getting worse with every month. Thier actions got no logic/consistency or masterplan behind them. They are random. Few months ago there was a constant weekly discussion about the current state of the game, there were lots of proposals (coming from blizzard) on how to fix the balance, tweaking liberator/muta/adept etc. But then all of a sudden blizzard stopped any communtication. Then DK jumps out of nowhere and is like: "We are gonna change the shit out this game again!!!". And everyone is like: "Hooray!!! It's so much fun!".
And speaking about mech, well can't you understand why people don't wana play against a ground/air untouchable deathball slowly approaching your bases? Because that's how mech is supposed to work in SC2. There is no other way. And you call this fun? And skill? Broodlord infestor not fun. SH not fun. Protoss deathballs not fun. But if its Terran its fun!
i don't think its a state of panic. i think DK was just throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. Its part of the "brainstorming" process and part of product development.
On September 08 2016 21:24 AlphaAeffchen wrote: This games Needs Major and drastic changes to stay fresh. Also some Players will comeback. Many left because Blizzard didnt hold theri promise foe mech viability. Now this will Change and some Players will comeback.
Jerry Seinfeld move over. Thanks for the laugh guy. i don't want the game to "stay fresh". i want the game to mature in 2017; i want it to solidify and deepen strategically due to players exploring the game in a comprehensive way because of the game's stability.
Hey very good post. You are absolutly right and this is what many Terrans try to tell the community.
I would like to explain 2 more things.
Only Factory Units based game: This usually never happens. I dont like this argument because you build always support units like you do for bio, Ravens, Vikings Dropships sometimes a few marines at the beginning.....or ghosts for lategame or some liberators. Sometimes you do a transition to skyterran.
Balance: The Problem at the Moment is skytoss with mass Tempest is nearly unbetable for Terran or Zerg if the protoss does eveeything right. Also Terran has to win the midgame or he will be at a very hard disadvantage in lategame...
Thx for your good explaining of the different playstyles for protoss and Zerg vs Terran gameplay. This is exactly what i mean :-)
On September 09 2016 00:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i don't think its a state of panic. i think DK was just throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. Its part of the "brainstorming" process and part of product development.
Well actually that was what i meant, w/o over exaggeration. The question is: would a developer of a successfull product do such a risky thing? I just think they are "brainstorming" ideas in the "wrong field". For me its obvious that unit balance is the least problem of this game.
Its not only Balance ist boring gameplay for terran which is onediminsional. Believe me Blizzard will Change many things an we get a new fresh meta. Which is good for the game.
Its good because we wont seee Mass Bio +x10% Support unit and the same Basic strategy for Terran in everey game.
TvT will be better because Tnkivacs will go and we have amore positional gameplay and you have to think whre to engage and postion your tanks right.
Guys there will be changes for mech the only question is how the numbers will be tweakred!
Hey man i know we have different opinions. But we both love the game. Perhaps we can meet in the middle. I also dont want that mech gets to strong. But Terran really needs more diverse playstyles and mech was really fun to play in the Lotv beta.
Man the game really needs changes ot it goes down the hill look at the twitch numbers and look at the broodwar numbers on this page....Pls accept at least some gameplay changes for terran.
I have a question do you like that everey Terran game is always 80%Bio +x. No mech Play. No possible other strategies. Always the same core Units.....
Sorry this makes me rage. You cant explore the game depth if there is only one major playstyle for your race. Look Avilos stream look at HTO Mario or look at Ruff they also say the same.
Blizzard will do big changes and Lotv needs it, because the multiplayers garbage at the moment for Terrans. Look at Hero Marine he also says it.
Man at least be open to test changes. The game needs it or we have a poor Starcraft in 2017.
On September 08 2016 21:19 petro1987 wrote: Why do you think mech is supposed to be a "ground/air untouchable deathball"? Do you think it was like that in BW? Why can't mech in SC2 be more like mech in BW? Isn't that what people have been wanting for years now? Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? Now, if you said you hate mech in BW, I would understand why you wouldn't want mech in SC2. But it seems you are OK with that in BW, so I just don't understand.
Because BW is a different game. Units occupy more terrain (compared to SC2). They are clunky and hard to control. Playing a deathball in BW is counterproductive as you cant make you units attack all together due terrain and pathfinding/selection restrictions. While in SC2 units pile up on each other occupying much less space, move all together in a perfect formation and open fire simultaneously. I garantee protoss colosi compositions won't be as effective if stalkers couldnt rest under them. While the proposed changes promote the exact deathball play i described. Tanks and Thors clumped on each other oneshoting any other unit (what could never happen in BW).
What's your level of knowledge in BW? Are you familiar with Flash's double armory 2/1 build in TvP? He pushes around 170 supply with what you would call a "deathball". It's harder to control, of course, due to the 12 unit grouping. Mech units do clump a lot in BW, not as much as in SC2, but they do clump. In fact, you have to babysit your units a lot, splitting them, otherwise a good stasis will wreck you. The reason people are OK with mech in BW is not really about the raw power that it brings in a deathball. It's because mech has several weaknesses that can be exploited. Recalls, stasis, zealot bombs, caughting them badly sieged, flanking, etc. I think introducing overkill in tanks is something they should explore in SC2. It would open up a lot possibilities to fighting a mech army.
That's kind of the point isn't it? Compared to BroodWar turtling with mech is very easy in itself and then controlling said deathball is also much more easier. I think I have developed some points in page 9 about why I believe (and I might be wrong, I can accept that!) mech in SC2 cannot leads to similar mech games as BroodWar, which I believe is due to some core design of SC2 (its economy, units interactions, pathing, tanks too "reliable" ). I have limited knowledge of BroodWar but I did really enjoyed the mech game on it, but I have never enjoyed mech in any of starcraft2 iteration except very few TvT games against bio. I feel like mech in sc2 can only be 1/ turtle-ish cancer style or 2/ 1 big (but unique) strong timing attack. Not a big fan of option 2, but that's okay in my book, I can live with that. Option 1 is just plain awful to me, as dumb in design as SwarmHost was, and I don't see a way to make agressive/mobile/active mech viable without making the much easier way of playing with turtling at least as much valid, if not stronger.
I believe it was a philosophy of designing a game which was say by Liquid.Ret a few times ago on Twitter with which I agree :
" @LiquidRet 14 août The idealogy of being fun to play/watch makes sense but I feel like 'what is fun to play against' is a stronger starting point in SC. "
I completely agree with that. And turtling mech is for me the most boring and frustrating playstyle in whole Starcraft 2.
i'm lousy with Bio because my APM is ~125. early game i rely on air harass. I react to my opponent and sometimes go blue flame hellion/tank/thor/marineORmarauder in TvZ games. i employ Mines and Tanks in TvP games. In TvT games again i employ early air harass and then go either Mech or Bio or Bio/Mech in reaction to my opponent. I feel i have a variety of tactical options at my disposal as a Terran player.
i play 40% of my games as Terran and 60% of my games as Random. I"m at a diamond level with both accounts. i'm happy with the game. i can't speak for other levels of players and i don't think they should speak for me; nor should they claim they speak for the entire community. Despite playing more games as Terran its my worst race. I like playing as Terran the most even though my rank is the lowest with the race.
I play with people who are substantially worse than I am and we have fun with 2v2s and other game variations and i try to help them with their 1v1 game. Generally speaking, the people I know who range from Silver to Diamond are happy with the game.
my concern when LotV was released was that Terran air was too strong and Terran ground was too weak. over the course of several patches Blizzard addressed this concern. I'd say right now Terran air is very slightly too strong. But, that's being really nit-picky. Over all, i'm happy.
DISCLAIMER: my complaint about Terran air still being slightly too strong could be due to the fact that low APM players are more comfortable with air units. for all i know.. .Terran air is exactly where it should be.
On September 09 2016 00:36 AlphaAeffchen wrote: @insitelol
Hey man i know we have different opinions. But we both love the game. Perhaps we can meet in the middle. I also dont want that mech gets to strong. But Terran really needs more diverse playstyles and mech was really fun to play in the Lotv beta.
Man the game really needs changes ot it goes down the hill look at the twitch numbers and look at the broodwar numbers on this page....Pls accept at least some gameplay changes for terran.
Im not accepting anything you say cause its just constant repeating of one false statement that changing something always equals good. You just want to believe in this because this idea is so attractive and simple. But it's just a cheap trick to gain ones attention with something shiny, especially if it comes in the form "good ol' BW mech". This is called specualtion. I stated numerous times in this thread that i strongly believe balance changes will only scare dedicated players off, not attract new ones, like it was historically with all changes to SC2. So no, we DO NOT need more diversity, DO NOT need more playstyles. These things ARE NOT what makes an RTS gameplay. And we can't meet in the middle.
Guys believe it we will get changes and there will be more mech in the game. Terran gameplay is really bad if you compare it to zerg or protoss because you always have to play the same core units gain and again. Therfore we have the test map and there will be changes. David Kim said it and they will do something.
On September 09 2016 00:53 AlphaAeffchen wrote: @Jimmy Raynor
I have a question do you like that everey Terran game is always 80%Bio +x. No mech Play. No possible other strategies. Always the same core Units.....
Sorry this makes me rage. You cant explore the game depth if there is only one major playstyle for your race. Look Avilos stream look at HTO Mario or look at Ruff they also say the same.
Blizzard will do big changes and Lotv needs it, because the multiplayers garbage at the moment for Terrans. Look at Hero Marine he also says it.
Man at least be open to test changes. The game needs it or we have a poor Starcraft in 2017.
It's funny you say : mech isn't viable, and you quote some players that manage to get GM with mech ! Aslo it's important to note that these players who are used to play mech for years, have shown nothing during the period where mech was very strong and played on GSL/best tournament. Then these players don't have special skill at all. It's perfectly possible to any T to play mech and reach GM : Avilo &co just prove it !
Unless you want to be progamer, you can play mech right now. If you loose you can fix that with more train, and you don't need any patch to play mech !
I think mech being mechanically easy is the point. If you think about the way Terran works right now the race is incredibly powerful but only in the hands of the most skilled players in the world. Only a handful of Terran can beat pros of other races but this handful of Terran often look dominant. In order to balance the game at the absolute highest level of play blizzad wants to do some nerfs to bio, Like giving banes 40 hp and buffing zealots, nerfing libs, removing tankivacs. at the same Time however I think Bliz is well aware that at anything but the highest skill level Terran feels a little week and definitely inflexible. The Bnet players who play terran would really suffer from nerfs to bio. This is why blizzard NEEDS to make mech viable if they want to nerf bio. Mech is mechanically easier than bio to play, That's the point both zerg and protoss have viable strategies that can take you all the way to masters without strong mechanics Terran really doesn't. As a result often casual terran players face alot of frustration, that's why you see constant complaints about 8 armor ultras, pylon cannon, protoss cheese, ect. These things are alot more fair at the highest level than they are with random joes on ladder. Improving mech will give non-pro terran a way to win that's more on par with their zerg and protoss counterparts and allow bliz to simultaneously make the changes they need to make to improve high level game balance without really hammering the laddering scrubs.
With that being said it is definitely possible that they overshoot the changes to mech, or the nerfs to bio. because of the way sc2 works often even a few tweeks can really change the game because of how it affects timings, possible builds, and defensive holds thats why a small queen range buff was able to lead directly to broodlord infestor. Mabye mech is jsut straight up to strong, mabey 40 hp bane busts will constrain a bio terran to hard in tvz, maybe terran is way to bad agianst cheese without tankivacs or to good with strong tanks and cylones who knows. That's why bliz is releasing these changes with a ladder to test them out. once they see some play if things seem out of whack they can dile it back just give it some time let it get tested let them make changes things will probably get worked out.
On September 12 2016 07:43 parkufarku wrote: Going by OP's logic, pure Nydus invasion should be viable because it "adds more gameplay"
Pure Robo, Pure Skytoss, Pure Missile Attack Zerg should be viable for variety.
Then go ahead,demand whatever you want,who's stopping you ? Mech players want mech become viable and blizzard aggree...hell they even promised us. Then why zerg/protoss players can't do the same ???? Go ahead,its it their decison not us and i glad they keep their promise even it may cause other players leave this game but i don't give a fuck anymore LUL. I just don't....I tried to argue about why mech must be viable,once but i realized you can't argue with other people if they like or hate something. I am tired of this, this dicussion about mech each year.... TLDR: Make mech viable,take the risk and of course make it more turtling.
So old SH back ? Terran decreted SH were boring, then the unit is more or less deleted. They say SH promote turtle play and boring games, but mech is exactly the same !
Tank is played on all terran MU as a support unit so why do you need 20 sieged tank/PF/autoturett turtle ?
If mech is cool so let's go back to the old SH : they promise zerg a new unit !
On September 12 2016 17:03 Tyrhanius wrote: So old SH back ? Terran decreted SH were boring, then the unit is more or less deleted. They say SH promote turtle play and boring games, but mech is exactly the same !
Tank is played on all terran MU as a support unit so why do you need 20 sieged tank/PF/autoturett turtle ?
If mech is cool so let's go back to the old SH : they promise zerg a new unit !
"it's for the amazing positional play of course ! "
On September 12 2016 17:03 Tyrhanius wrote: So old SH back ? Terran decreted SH were boring, then the unit is more or less deleted. They say SH promote turtle play and boring games, but mech is exactly the same !
Tank is played on all terran MU as a support unit so why do you need 20 sieged tank/PF/autoturett turtle ?
If mech is cool so let's go back to the old SH : they promise zerg a new unit !
god please not... i think most people dont wanna see 3 hour long stalemate games again...
On September 11 2016 04:44 Tyrhanius wrote: Then these players don't have special skill at all. It's perfectly possible to any T to play mech and reach GM : Avilo &co just prove it !
good point. i remember MVP going mech when his wrists/hands were fucked.
On September 11 2016 04:44 Tyrhanius wrote: Then these players don't have special skill at all. It's perfectly possible to any T to play mech and reach GM : Avilo &co just prove it !
good point. i remember MVP going mech when his wrists/hands were fucked.
It's perfectly possible to any P to play P and reach GM! It's perfectly possible to any Z to play Z and reach GM!
Has anyone actually ever seen a boring turtle mech game in Lotv? I don't think it's possible to turtle in LotV due to the new economy. Zerg is also really well equipped to fight against mech with vipers and strong T3 unis in general, regardless of possible mech buffs.
On September 12 2016 07:43 parkufarku wrote: Going by OP's logic, pure Nydus invasion should be viable because it "adds more gameplay"
Pure Robo, Pure Skytoss, Pure Missile Attack Zerg should be viable for variety.
every race has more viable options to play than Terran. Terran can only mix it up between mmm+tank, mmm+mines,mmm+ libs... u have some different openings (hellion openings, wm drops etc.) wich actually all lead into those comps.(viable late game options are ghosts, vikings, raven (not sure about the thor so far...)) Terran has the worst late game comps coz they kinda stuck in tier 1-2
as for zerg u have the option to go zergling based or roach based compositions, mid game options like roach ravenger or roach hydra or ling bane + mutas. with a wide variety of viable late game options (brutelords, infestors, corruptors, vipers and ultras)
protoss does have the widest variety of comps to go. from pure adepts + warp prism to blink stalker all ins, oracle or dt openings and so on, usually goes to gate + robo or gate + templar or gate + stargate (the least viable option) with the strongest late game comps vs T
+ Terran is usually behind economy wise, terrans need to get early dmg so they can be even or ahead of the enemies economy. another reason for mech beeing not that viable coz mech takes morf time to build up compared to bio.
I'm all in favor of having mech in the game (playable), I don't see big negative sides.. My only point is: the game is fairly balanced right now (win percentage wise, and we have all races represented in tournaments - T, P and Z), with a strong buff to mech units one has to consider how this would impact the rest of the game..
For instance, see Byun pushes with marines+tanks vs protoss, with a much much stronger tank they become more powerful (with the caveat that there is no medivac pick up), and this needs to be balanced. I'm not saying it won't be (since medivacs were a strong component to ferry the tanks) but it needs to be studied, and it's not trivial to conclude
EPT
