|
On February 03 2017 17:10 Topdoller wrote:
Community has agreed this isnt an issue, please post this on the blizzard forums if you want the game changed. Blizzard do not have any representation on these forums
If you are having issues with Swarmhosts please post some examples of your games where you are losing to them on a persistent basis, a high level player may be able to offer some advice on tactics
Uh...most of the community that plays mech will tell you the swarmhost is a problem from firsthand experience. They'd equally tell you the raven is but that it's the only counter-measure you have versus swarmhosts.
I mean, does every single mech player need to get together and show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost vs mech for the community to come to agree that it's an issue?
Current swarmhost was put on the same patch as "mech viability" and it absolutely crushes mech and forces the game to a stall. Get 50 ravens or autolose to swarmhosts is not a fun nor really healthy gameplay for people that wanna play mech.
And saying "then don't play mech" is even more unhealthy because Terran should have more strategic options than only bio.
|
Ive never understood that "sh give free money" part. No they dont? They cant attack by themselfs, so the locust is their attack. The locust dont stay for very long, so the dmg output is limited. Lets say, a locust would deal 50 dmg in their lifespan, then the sh would basicly have an attack worth of 50 dmg, just not as direct damage, its indirect damage, because the sh itself dont attack.
Same goes for the raven. the auto turrect acts just like the locust. Or the carrier. The carrier itself dont attack, but the interceptors do. The difference here is, that the interceptors cost money, but if they arent killed, they last forever, unlike auto turrets or locust.
So where does the sh give you free money? Its just a unit with indirect attack. Its not called mule or something. If your opponent plays sh, try to predict, where he will fly in with locust and disturb him. And the "every 30 seconds" is completely bullshit. To be correct, its 43 seconds. Thats alsmost a 50% increase from "every 30 seconds", but i see what youre trying here. Wanna convince people with numbers more dramatic than they really are.
|
There are two problems with the Swarm Hosts.
1) They do not cost enough resources. This means you can get to many Swarm Hosts to early, before the mech player can get enough units to counter the Swarm Hosts.
2) The counterplay against Swarm Hosts is weak. Swarm Hosts are both very mobile, have high hitpoints and are cheap. If they were light you can at least use hellions to chase them down. This would be good for the game since it would encourage aggressive mech - being out on the map with hellions - instead of turtle mech.
If Zerg needs to be compensated for a Swarm Host nerf I suggest nerfing the Raven.
|
I kind of agree with Avilo on this. I really think Swarm Hosts are just a mistake of a unit. I mean, Z already has lurkers, and ravagers, AND broodlords, AND infestors (with Infested Terran Spam). There are plenty of immobile siege options for zerg as it is, and they're all more interesting than Swarm Hosts. Swarm hosts to not promote interesting or high-level gameplay, and I genuinely believe they should be removed from the game.
The closest analogy the Swarm Host has in Sc2 is the broodlord, which is more expensive in terms of supply, build time, minerals, and gas, AND more immobile and more vulnerable. The Brood Lord clearly has a better cost-benefit tradeoff.
With all that said, I don't think mech would be especially viable with or without the Swarm Host. Mech still needs reliable and consistent anti-air to be workable against zerg, and even then It will be a style that is very map-dependent. That isn't a bad thing, but the idea that the Swarm Host is the only thing standing between Terran and high-level consistent mech viability seems wrong to me.
The only Terran I see going mech at the pro level with any consistency at all is TY, and his builds that transition into mech generally rely on getting damage done with a widow mine drop, a hellbat drop, liberator harass, or early banshees. If he doesn't get -ahead- in the game, then he usually is unable to make mech work against high-level zerg players. Again, if mech is just a style that can only be played based on the outcome of a certain opener, then that is fine and not necessarily bad for the game. But it makes mech seem even more situational, so complaining about the swarm host preventing mech's viability obscures perhaps more deep-set problems with mech, or with slow, siege, control-centered play-styles in general.
|
Now this is just my opinion from personal anecdotal experience but I feel like rushing the Raven in TvZ is almost a free win against Zergs who open swarmhost. And then you can mech and it is almost unstoppable. It is funny how different players come up with different conclusions, but together we all enjoy the same game.
|
On February 03 2017 19:34 SCC-Faust wrote:
Now this is just my opinion from personal anecdotal experience but I feel like rushing the Raven in TvZ is almost a free win against Zergs who open swarmhost. And then you can mech and it is almost unstoppable. It is funny how different players come up with different conclusions, but together we all enjoy the same game.
Do you use the Raven to turret harass the Zerg mineral line or do you save up energy for pdd? In what way do you use the Raven to defeat Swarm Hosts?
I really doubt massing Ravens would work against a good Swarm Hosts player. And even if it did it is bad gameplay, which is why I think both Swarm Hosts and Ravens should be nerfed.
The last thing this game needs is mass Swarm Hosts vs mass Ravens. Which is why I support making Swarm Hosts light so that aggressive hellion use is the counterplay, instead of turtle mech.
|
The very idea to have an "anti turtle" unit is stupid by design.
That's not how you prevent turtle : you prevent turtle by giving zerg some late game way to deal with air deathball, meaning that if your economy is much worse than the zerg's and that you rush straight into ravens/BCs, you're gonna die.
Having a cheap, fast unit that summons minions for free without commiting is idiotic.
Raven vs swarmhost never was an interesting dynamic, and i'd like for blizz to acknowledge the issue.
|
It's obvious by now that Activision-Blizzard doesn't want mech to be viable. A mech that's used just as much as bio hurts their marketing presentation of the game, that being koreans microing marines.
It ain't happening, just wait for another RTS to come out and maybe that will have positional gameplay.
|
On February 03 2017 21:34 ihatevideogames wrote:
It's obvious by now that Activision-Blizzard doesn't want mech to be viable. A mech that's used just as much as bio hurts their marketing presentation of the game, that being koreans microing marines.
It ain't happening, just wait for another RTS to come out and maybe that will have positional gameplay.
Don't be paranoid. Blizzard made a real effort to make mech viable with the 3.8 patch. If they just correct a single mistake, the Swarm Hosts price reduction, mech will be viable or at least close to viable in TvZ.
|
After much consideration I believe I was wrong on my last point.
|
Mech is OP without taking into account the swarmhost ability to get extreme cost effieciency. (which is very much needed).
Try playing vs mech without the SH and you will lose most of the time, unless you get perfect counters in the early game and managaze to run roach hydra viper off 80 drones in the most cost efficienct way possible. In which case you may have a shot.
Which is far harder to pull off then throw down a couple of factories and start pumping the insanely cost efficient cyclone and then tanks later on.
Also @ MockHamill.
Terran needs better anti air you say? You've got Thors, which are insane vs mutas, and you have raven/bc/viking/ghost (potentially). Using mech to secure 4-5 bases and not having to fear at all that you will die anytime soon if swarmhost were nerfed would make it super easy to get up to this unbeatable army composition. Which is exactly what avilo wants. Camp till unbeatable deathball. Terran anti-air is very good.
|
You all must understand that by saying "mech viable vs Zerg" they mean "mech 100% winrate vs Zerg". Then you will realize that there is no point discussing with them. Problem solved.
|
On February 03 2017 23:57 hiroshOne wrote:
You all must understand that by saying "mech viable vs Zerg" they mean "mech 100% winrate vs Zerg". Then you will realize that there is no point discussing with them. Problem solved.
No. Viable means 45-55% winrate on pro level when a pro player plays against another pro player of similiar skill in a tournament setting. It also mean that the playstyle should be used consistently in that setting, not once every 40 games.
|
On February 03 2017 23:57 hiroshOne wrote:
You all must understand that by saying "mech viable vs Zerg" they mean "mech 100% winrate vs Zerg". Then you will realize that there is no point discussing with them. Problem solved.
I was just thinking... "No point in discussing. Problem solved" and still being in every single thread that is dedicated to mech? I don't know... Apparently either there is a problem with something or someone else, or just talking whithout thinking has become a normal thing.
|
Why do i have to be repetitive?
Why there is no progress in this discussion?
Its a non-issue. Mech is viable.
However, mech players advocating the SH nerf are turtle tank based mech players. This specific style is not viable against all builds (at a high level), and blizzard wants it to stay that way. Turtle mech, just like HotS Swarmhost style, is frustrating to play against and makes boring and long games.
Someone mentioned 2 base muta into 20 Swarmhosts on 2 bases. Takes a looooong time. Harass, take 4 bases, whatever, you shouldn't die to this against an even opponent unless you decide to turtle.
|
On February 04 2017 00:35 Superbanana wrote:
Why do i have to be repetitive?
Why there is no progress in this discussion?
Its a non-issue. Mech is viable.
However, mech players advocating the SH nerf are turtle tank based mech players. This specific style is not viable against all builds (at a high level), and blizzard wants it to stay that way. Turtle mech, just like HotS Swarmhost style, is frustrating to play against and makes boring and long games.
Someone mentioned 2 base muta into 20 Swarmhosts on 2 bases. Takes a looooong time. Harass, take 4 bases, whatever, you shouldn't die to this against an even opponent unless you decide to turtle.
That's just your opinion to be honest.
And no, mech is not viable. Sure, it's 'viable' for me in Diamond vs opponents who have no idea how to deal with it, but that's not a good indicator.
As someone else said, when we see mech used in the proscene as much as bio or at least something more than a cyclone all-in every 50 games, then it's gonna be considered so. Untill then, it remains unviable and the reason why has been so painfully obvious for so long, that's it's almost certain it's not being fixed on purpose.
|
On February 04 2017 00:10 MockHamill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 23:57 hiroshOne wrote:
You all must understand that by saying "mech viable vs Zerg" they mean "mech 100% winrate vs Zerg". Then you will realize that there is no point discussing with them. Problem solved. No. Viable means 45-55% winrate on pro level when a pro player plays against another pro player of similiar skill in a tournament setting. It also mean that the playstyle should be used consistently in that setting, not once every 40 games.
TY or Innovation win with mech with that percentage. Just because avilo cant win with mech against zerg, doesnt mean, that mech is unplayable. he has a under50% winquote against protoss and zerg. only his tvt is good, because he does mass ravens every game. if blizz would nerf the auto turret, he maybe wouldnt even be in gm. so avilo is not a good reference, if youre talking about mech play!
|
How do you convince the actual progamers who play T (byun, innovation, maru, TY, etc. ...) to consistently play mech in tournaments?
Switching completely gameplay (from bio to mech) requires a lot of training, and I don't really see a reason to do it, if both styles are fairly balanced (around 50% winrates) and you already play bio successfully.
IMHO is really fine if mech stays as an alternative playstyle which we see once every N games, maybe map dependent, or to catch an opponent off guard, I don't think it's really necessary to be possible to *only* play mech in high level tournaments.
|
On February 04 2017 00:57 ihatevideogames wrote:
And no, mech is not viable. Sure, it's 'viable' for me in Diamond vs opponents who have no idea how to deal with it, but that's not a good indicator.
Sure it's 'viable' for Maru and INnoVation at 7k mmr vs opponents who have no idea how to deal with it, but that's not a good indicator.
|
On February 04 2017 00:10 MockHamill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 23:57 hiroshOne wrote:
You all must understand that by saying "mech viable vs Zerg" they mean "mech 100% winrate vs Zerg". Then you will realize that there is no point discussing with them. Problem solved. No. Viable means 45-55% winrate on pro level when a pro player plays against another pro player of similiar skill in a tournament setting. It also mean that the playstyle should be used consistently in that setting, not once every 40 games.
And how well do you think non-pros would do against mech if it were that viable on the professional level?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
