EPTCommunity Feedback Update: Matchmaking coming - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
leffedabaye
9 Posts
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15883 Posts
On September 14 2016 23:29 leffedabaye wrote: when are the changes going to be live in the actual game? That's cool to patch things up I guess we don't have the choice anyway but an ETA would be nice and I did some searching and found nothing announced. probably shortly after blizzcon. | ||
|
saalih416
19 Posts
| ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
| ||
|
petro1987
Brazil374 Posts
On September 15 2016 02:23 Everlong wrote: Wow, people are whining in the test map like crazy, rofl... They just 1a into the mech army with Roach/Ravager/Ling and claim it's impossible to deal with, ahaha, that's so funny from Terran perspective to read such comments! :D Yeah, but don't forget that they got mech nerfed into oblivion in previous opportunities exactly with the same reasoning. Maybe this time Blizzard will understand that mech isn't supposed to die to any composition 1A into it. | ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
On September 15 2016 02:44 petro1987 wrote: Yeah, but don't forget that they got mech nerfed into oblivion in previous opportunities exactly with the same reasoning. Maybe this time Blizzard will understand that mech isn't supposed to die to any composition 1A into it. Yeah, but something tells me they are determined this time, not once in a history of SC2 they were so focused on making mech viable, they just have to go throuhg with a set of changes that will ultimately make mech viable! | ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
Blizzard's idea of mech is positional play. Community's idea is tanks. Tanks and more tanks. The challenge/problem with strong positional play is it can lead to boring turtle matches where neither side wants to attack into a fortified position. It then becomes a game of chicken, but the first person to blink usually loses. I do like the changes Blizzard are doing in their attempt to make mech viable, but this will be a very delicate balancing game. What if Terrans can fortify their bases without investing into too much mech units? Than they will have the luxury of using small bio hit squads to fly around and harass while staying relatively safe at home. Mech play needs to have glaring weakness so that they can be punished somewhere on the map. I find it interesting that Blizzard is willing to make some major balance/redesign changes just to give terrans mech viability. However, they are pigeon holed into bio for majority of the match up, while zerg and protoss are flexible to use a variety of units and compositions. | ||
|
petro1987
Brazil374 Posts
On September 15 2016 03:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: they have always wanted mech to be viable, but their idea of mech and viability has been different than what some in the community have been lobbying for. Blizzard's idea of mech is positional play. Community's idea is tanks. Tanks and more tanks. The challenge/problem with strong positional play is it can lead to boring turtle matches where neither side wants to attack into a fortified position. It then becomes a game of chicken, but the first person to blink usually loses. I do like the changes Blizzard are doing in their attempt to make mech viable, but this will be a very delicate balancing game. What if Terrans can fortify their bases without investing into too much mech units? Than they will have the luxury of using small bio hit squads to fly around and harass while staying relatively safe at home. Mech play needs to have glaring weakness so that they can be punished somewhere on the map. I find it interesting that Blizzard is willing to make some major balance/redesign changes just to give terrans mech viability. However, they are pigeon holed into bio for majority of the match up, while zerg and protoss are flexible to use a variety of units and compositions. They always SAID they wanted mech to viable, while not doing anything to make it viable. The last time I remember them actually trying was when they tried the warhound. It was basicaly a terrible unit that was just too good and could 1A into everything. That was not mech (positional play) at all. Ever since the tank nerf in WoL, mech was not viable (outside TvT). I also cannot really understand when you say blizzard wants mech to be positional play, while the community wants tanks. Isn't tanks positional play? | ||
|
Jett.Jack.Alvir
Canada2250 Posts
Blizzard wants terran to have mech as a viable option, but they don't want to do it at the risk of disturbing the delicate balance they achieved so far. | ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
On September 15 2016 06:04 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Tanks are part of positional play, but Blizzard has avoided making it the core unit in positional play. That is why they introduced the widowmine and liberator. Both of those units are designed to be positional. So yes, they did try to give terrans that style. However, it wasn't as effective as expected, nor did it create a terran mech style. Blizzard wants terran to have mech as a viable option, but they don't want to do it at the risk of disturbing the delicate balance they achieved so far. Actually, positional play wasn't Blizzard's idea of mech. Otherwise they wouldn't have come up with the Warhound. Community's idea was positional play (well, the part that enjoys the strategy part of RTS, not the real-time) and so it wanted Tanks, Tanks and more Tanks, because Tanks mean positional play (you agree). It's hard to have a positional play when your core positional unit sucks and it can't even hold basic 1as. Blizzard was avoiding buffing tanks for the longest possible time because they had this paranoia that strong tanks makes for long, boring and turtly games. They took it step further adding numerous units/abilities to specifically deny siege lines (Vipers, invul Nydus, +1 range BL, Tempets, Tankivacks, etc...). Then they tried to add "positional" units like Mine and the Liberator, still avoiding buffing Tanks. They were left wondering why still everyone playes Bio and Mech is not viable. Now they are finally buffing Tanks and mech is finally viable and interesting for Terrans to play and for others to play against it if we cut the lazy Tosses and Zergs who can't stand they can't collect their freewins vs mech anymore and have to actually change something in their play. If they pussy out on the Tank buff, we are back at square one. | ||
|
VHbb
689 Posts
On September 15 2016 06:25 Everlong wrote: Actually, positional play wasn't Blizzard's idea of mech. Otherwise they wouldn't have come up with the Warhound. Community's idea was positional play (well, the part that enjoys the strategy part of RTS, not the real-time) and so it wanted Tanks, Tanks and more Tanks, because Tanks mean positional play (you agree). It's hard to have a positional play when your core positional unit sucks and it can't even hold basic 1as. Blizzard was avoiding buffing tanks for the longest possible time because they had this paranoia that strong tanks makes for long, boring and turtly games. They took it step further adding numerous units/abilities to specifically deny siege lines (Vipers, invul Nydus, +1 range BL, Tempets, Tankivacks, etc...). Then they tried to add "positional" units like Mine and the Liberator, still avoiding buffing Tanks. They were left wondering why still everyone playes Bio and Mech is not viable. Now they are finally buffing Tanks and mech is finally viable and interesting for Terrans to play and for others to play against it if we cut the lazy Tosses and Zergs who can't stand they can't collect their freewins vs mech anymore and have to actually change something in their play. If they pussy out on the Tank buff, we are back at square one. This sums up all the comments you read on these balance topics: - mech players knew from the beginning what was the right way to fix everything - blizzard is dumb and slow in realizing what mech players already knew, and don't listen to the brilliant minds of mech players - protoss and zerg players are lazy, mech players uber alles I will never never never understand why people that keep blizzard in such low consideration play SC2 to begin with.. | ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
On September 15 2016 06:34 VHbb wrote: This sums up all the comments you read on these balance topics: - mech players knew from the beginning what was the right way to fix everything - blizzard is dumb and slow in realizing what mech players already knew, and don't listen to the brilliant minds of mech players - protoss and zerg players are lazy, mech players uber alles I will never never never understand why people that keep blizzard in such low consideration play SC2 to begin with.. Yeah, your quote pretty much tells the story... | ||
|
Vanadiel
France961 Posts
On September 15 2016 06:25 Everlong wrote: Community's idea was positional play (well, the part that enjoys the strategy part of RTS, not the real-time) and so it wanted Lurkers, Lurker and more Lurkers, because Lurkers mean positional play (you agree). It's hard to have a positional play when your core positional unit sucks and it can't even hold basic 1as. I'm glad to see terran agreeing to a big buff to the Lurkers, it is, in its current state for ZvT, way too weak to hold basic 1as, wether from bio or mech. So, for a start, I think we can all agree to give it 13 range, and obviously a damage buff. Of course it might be problematic for protoss, but hey, let's first test it to be sure ! | ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
On September 15 2016 07:27 Vanadiel wrote: I'm glad to see terran agreeing to a big buff to the Lurkers, it is, in its current state for ZvT, way too weak to hold basic 1as, wether from bio or mech. So, for a start, I think we can all agree to give it 13 range, and obviously a damage buff. Of course it might be problematic for protoss, but hey, let's first test it to be sure ! Oh, you want to play this game? Ok, let's make Lurkers same as Tanks, but give me Broodlords and Vipers, deal? Also, why can't my Marines run 250 km/h off creep? While we're at it, make sure Tanks are able to burrow and shoot while invisible like Lurkers to make it fair, right? Come on... Each race has it's own pros and cons. You can't have Zerg's mobility, production, creep and capability of tech switch and on top of that you'd also want to have T2 ground artillery unit of similar range and other properties as Siege Tank (skipping SH)? Am I asking for asking for T3 spellcaster (Viper) with abilities that counter whole part of a race (Mech)? No. | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2623 Posts
On September 15 2016 07:27 Vanadiel wrote: I'm glad to see terran agreeing to a big buff to the Lurkers, it is, in its current state for ZvT, way too weak to hold basic 1as, wether from bio or mech. So, for a start, I think we can all agree to give it 13 range, and obviously a damage buff. Of course it might be problematic for protoss, but hey, let's first test it to be sure ! I know you are just being a smartass, but lurkers could use some love, they are barely used nowadays. | ||
|
MaxTa
61 Posts
| ||
|
Vanadiel
France961 Posts
On September 15 2016 07:42 Everlong wrote: Oh, you want to play this game? Ok, let's make Lurkers same as Tanks, but give me Broodlords and Vipers, deal? Also, why can't my Marines run 250 km/h off creep? While we're at it, make sure Tanks are able to burrow and shoot while invisible like Lurkers to make it fair, right? Come on... Each race has it's own pros and cons. You can't have Zerg's mobility, production, creep and capability of tech switch and on top of that you'd also want to have T2 ground artillery unit of similar range and other properties as Siege Tank (skipping SH)? Am I asking for asking for T3 spellcaster (Viper) with abilities that counter whole part of a race (Mech)? No. Hey, I just have been swayed by your argument, how positional play and your opponent not being able to attack you is amazing for the game so my guess was that every race should have this option, that's all. I'll give you Brood lord and Viper gladly, that way we can be sure we don't attack each other in the late game either, which will provides hours of slow and positional play we all hold so dearly. As for marine, 250 km/h would be a nerf compared to their speed in the medivacs, I'm not sure why you want to nerf it? Unless it is because, as you said it every race need pros and cons, so since you want mech slow and strong bio need a nerf on mobility? | ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
On September 15 2016 15:48 Vanadiel wrote: Hey, I just have been swayed by your argument, how positional play and your opponent not being able to attack you is amazing for the game so my guess was that every race should have this option, that's all. I'll give you Brood lord and Viper gladly, that way we can be sure we don't attack each other in the late game either, which will provides hours of slow and positional play we all hold so dearly. As for marine, 250 km/h would be a nerf compared to their speed in the medivacs, I'm not sure why you want to nerf it? Unless it is because, as you said it every race need pros and cons, so since you want mech slow and strong bio need a nerf on mobility? Haha, ok, I'll take this as a linguistic exercise then.. :-) Did I say that every race should have an option to play slowly/positional? No. So stop putting words into my mouth. We were talking about how community wants Terran mech to be viable and how it should be done (by buffing Tanks). The beauty of positional play comes also from the other player actually trying to break it. But it needs to be balanced, of course. Nobody wants it to be like Broodlord/Corruptor era, or current Ultra 8 armor freewin vs. bio. There are so many counters to mech in the game that it's very unlikely it's going to be the same case. Nobody wants to play against the clock and nobody wants to play the "kill them before they get there" game. Should mech ever become so powerful that it feels like current Ultras vs Bio, or Corruptor/Broodlord era, it should be nerfed indeed. I'm just going to point out I was talking about Marines off creep, not about Marines in Medivacs, so once again, stop putting words into my mouth, thanks. :-) | ||
|
JackONeill
861 Posts
Vikings now can be landed to SHRED mech units. Liberators aren't countered by cyclones any more. Raven are massable very early and turrets massacre everything. And banshees are way better because they're not shutdown by the cyclone anymore. That's the only issue right now with mech on the test map. TvZ mech is lots of fun because 7 range hydra actually gives zerg a mid game against mech. TvP looks fun too but protosses don't play much on the test map so it's hard to know. Cyclone's focus needs to go back to AA to make TvT more dynamic. Raven's turret needs to be 75 energy and deal less damage, but last a little longer. | ||
|
Edowyth
United States183 Posts
On September 16 2016 01:30 JackONeill wrote: but protosses don't play much on the test map For me, at least, it's because there's still nothing that I'm terribly excited about playing around with on the test map. Better hydras / tanks sounds great (and quite fun to play around with) for Zerg / Terran ... but for Toss it seems like only Carriers are more interesting than previously. The zealot / DT changes are nice, but they don't fundamentally change the way the units are used. Altogether bleh. I'd rather have just about any other set of design changes for Toss than the ones proposed (except for the carrier changes which could be interesting). | ||
| ||
