|
On February 04 2017 03:25 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 00:10 MockHamill wrote: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?
Just as well as they do vs bio - which is viable on the professional level.
|
On February 04 2017 03:25 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 00:10 MockHamill wrote: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?
What kind of question is that? You can apply this to any build/ strat/ composition out there. "If this build is viable at pro level, how well do non-pros do against this build/ strat/ composition?"
|
On February 04 2017 03:49 Phaenoman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 03:25 Boggyb wrote:On February 04 2017 00:10 MockHamill wrote: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? What kind of question is that? You can apply this to any build/ strat/ composition out there. "If this build is viable at pro level, how well do non-pros do against this build/ strat/ composition?"
Do all compositions and strategies scale at the exact same rate based on player skill? Are there not some strategies that have a significant chunk of their power built into the units rather than micro?
Suppose:
Strategy A is weak at a low skill level but extremely good at a high skill level because the units scale extremely well with micro.
Strategy B is strong at a low skill level but only decent at a high skill level because the units don't scale amazingly with micro.
If at a professional level, Strategy A = Strategy B, then below the professional level, Strategy B > Strategy A. Depending on the coefficient to the scaling, Strategy B could be insanely strong below the professional level.
|
On February 04 2017 04:02 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 03:49 Phaenoman wrote:On February 04 2017 03:25 Boggyb wrote:On February 04 2017 00:10 MockHamill wrote: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? What kind of question is that? You can apply this to any build/ strat/ composition out there. "If this build is viable at pro level, how well do non-pros do against this build/ strat/ composition?" Do all compositions and strategies scale at the exact same rate based on player skill? Are there not some strategies that have a significant chunk of their power built into the units rather than micro? Suppose: Strategy A is weak at a low skill level but extremely good at a high skill level because the units scale extremely well with micro. Strategy B is strong at a low skill level but only decent at a high skill level because the units don't scale amazingly with micro. If at a professional level, Strategy A = Strategy B, then below the professional level, Strategy B > Strategy A. Depending on the coefficient to the scaling, Strategy B could be insanely strong below the professional level.
I see what you are trying to say, but you are just theorycrafting here. You have no statistics, no numbers, nothing. Just a really simple example: On high level people know how to split. Why are banelings not an issue then? The lower the league the worse the splitting is. Just an example.
|
On February 04 2017 04:15 Phaenoman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 04:02 Boggyb wrote:On February 04 2017 03:49 Phaenoman wrote:On February 04 2017 03:25 Boggyb wrote:On February 04 2017 00:10 MockHamill wrote: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? What kind of question is that? You can apply this to any build/ strat/ composition out there. "If this build is viable at pro level, how well do non-pros do against this build/ strat/ composition?" Do all compositions and strategies scale at the exact same rate based on player skill? Are there not some strategies that have a significant chunk of their power built into the units rather than micro? Suppose: Strategy A is weak at a low skill level but extremely good at a high skill level because the units scale extremely well with micro. Strategy B is strong at a low skill level but only decent at a high skill level because the units don't scale amazingly with micro. If at a professional level, Strategy A = Strategy B, then below the professional level, Strategy B > Strategy A. Depending on the coefficient to the scaling, Strategy B could be insanely strong below the professional level. I see what you are trying to say, but you are just theorycrafting here. You have no statistics, no numbers, nothing. Just a really simple example: On high level people know how to split. Why are banelings not an issue then? The lower the league the worse the splitting is. Just an example.
It is impossible to have statistics or numbers to back up a general idea like the effects of mech being viable and used regularly at the professional level. You can math out the impact of things like the liberator damage nerf and how it impacts certain unit interactions then guess as to what that means for balance, but how do you even begin to math out something that would likely require massive game play changes? That's not even considering that it is functionally impossible to accurately measure skill.
As for banelings, I'm not sure why you bring them up since they are exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Banelings are strong at lower levels because players aren't gods at splitting and focus fire, but weaker at higher level against players who are. Banelings benefit from micro, but not as much as the bio against which it fights. So when Blizzard attempted to make Banelings better against the best players by buffing their health via the upgrade, they made them even stronger against worse players who already struggled against them. If Blizzard had made banelings = bio at the professional level, then they'd have been absolutely unstoppable below that level.
|
thanks for the tip avilo, time to abuse SH
|
On February 03 2017 12:59 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 11:27 jpg06051992 wrote:On February 03 2017 09:23 Argonauta wrote:
The Comunity has spoken. SH are fine. Blizz has listen to us. SH are going to remain unchanged until the end of times.
This thread is sealed. I don't know if I agree with this entirely, I feel like SH are more like "balanced" against Terran in the sense that they are crap vs. bio so win rates won't be skewed too much in Zerg's favor to point out a unit imbalance, at the moment it seems like both Vipers and Swarm Hosts exist to beat down mech, where a more soft counter approach for the Viper would be ideal, the Host needs a redesign entirely to fit the role that Zerg needs, which is combating massing aerial armies (skytoss imba lol jk..) and not opposing mech which we have a variety of roles for. Swarm Host - Remove locust ground attack and movement entirely - Make locust aerial unit only that costs minerals, just like carriers - Make them suck vs easy to micro fast air units and powerful vs. massed up air deathballs - Make Swarm Hosts cost 150/150 and 3 supply, this way they are costly and don't invalidate air units entirely by being easily massed This way you effectively remove end game Sky army nonsense and you remove the cancer against mech units that is the Host in it's current form, hopefully mass Tempest and mass Carrier is super bad against the Swarm Hosts and nobody builds them therefore nobody builds Hosts therefore we can just remove all of those shitty units from the game in one fell swoop. You'd remove Sky armies as an option for Terran and Protoss, but Zerg players could still make Mutas and Broodlords. If your version of Swarmhosts were any good, they'd likely make broodlords godlike since it generally takes air to counter them.
Nerf them all in my opinion, I know it's foolish to say because it will never happen but Mutalisk regeneration was one of the dumbest buffs ever given out, requiring Protoss and Terran alike to have dedicated hard counters to it just added on to a problem that is already so prevalent in this game (hard counters galore).
All aerial units should be toned down or the races who have shitty anti air options needs them buffed, mass Sky armies are just going to kill whatever is even left of this player base if mech becoming the new meta and Swarm Host abuse doesn't do it first.
By the way, Ravens are total bullshit and so is mech, I understand Terrans want for diversity, but the way the balance team has shaped this up, mech is even more cancerous and not fun to play against then before, same thing for mech players going against Swarm Hosts, screw the balance, it's just flat out not fun unless your Avilo and your into mass turtle doom mech.
|
On February 04 2017 01:30 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Top of Korean ladder have no idea? How can you say that? Are you saying that the people players that avilo match with have more idea? Are you saying that you have more idea? Top Korean zergs haven't realised that sh is op vs mech, which is why Maru and innovation can win?
I think we kindof have to assume that the top of Korean ladder are the ones that knows best how to play the game, vs any composition. If you want to claim otherwise, I think you need very strong arguments.
|
On February 04 2017 04:39 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 04:15 Phaenoman wrote:On February 04 2017 04:02 Boggyb wrote:On February 04 2017 03:49 Phaenoman wrote:On February 04 2017 03:25 Boggyb wrote:On February 04 2017 00:10 MockHamill wrote: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? What kind of question is that? You can apply this to any build/ strat/ composition out there. "If this build is viable at pro level, how well do non-pros do against this build/ strat/ composition?" Do all compositions and strategies scale at the exact same rate based on player skill? Are there not some strategies that have a significant chunk of their power built into the units rather than micro? Suppose: Strategy A is weak at a low skill level but extremely good at a high skill level because the units scale extremely well with micro. Strategy B is strong at a low skill level but only decent at a high skill level because the units don't scale amazingly with micro. If at a professional level, Strategy A = Strategy B, then below the professional level, Strategy B > Strategy A. Depending on the coefficient to the scaling, Strategy B could be insanely strong below the professional level. I see what you are trying to say, but you are just theorycrafting here. You have no statistics, no numbers, nothing. Just a really simple example: On high level people know how to split. Why are banelings not an issue then? The lower the league the worse the splitting is. Just an example. It is impossible to have statistics or numbers to back up a general idea like the effects of mech being viable and used regularly at the professional level. You can math out the impact of things like the liberator damage nerf and how it impacts certain unit interactions then guess as to what that means for balance, but how do you even begin to math out something that would likely require massive game play changes? That's not even considering that it is functionally impossible to accurately measure skill. As for banelings, I'm not sure why you bring them up since they are exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Banelings are strong at lower levels because players aren't gods at splitting and focus fire, but weaker at higher level against players who are. Banelings benefit from micro, but not as much as the bio against which it fights. So when Blizzard attempted to make Banelings better against the best players by buffing their health via the upgrade, they made them even stronger against worse players who already struggled against them. If Blizzard had made banelings = bio at the professional level, then they'd have been absolutely unstoppable below that level.
If your thoughts are just ideas then I consider them as your own opinion on this matter. Fine by me. But you haven't answered my question yet.
|
On February 04 2017 09:43 Phaenoman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 04:39 Boggyb wrote:On February 04 2017 04:15 Phaenoman wrote:On February 04 2017 04:02 Boggyb wrote:On February 04 2017 03:49 Phaenoman wrote:On February 04 2017 03:25 Boggyb wrote:On February 04 2017 00:10 MockHamill wrote: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? What kind of question is that? You can apply this to any build/ strat/ composition out there. "If this build is viable at pro level, how well do non-pros do against this build/ strat/ composition?" Do all compositions and strategies scale at the exact same rate based on player skill? Are there not some strategies that have a significant chunk of their power built into the units rather than micro? Suppose: Strategy A is weak at a low skill level but extremely good at a high skill level because the units scale extremely well with micro. Strategy B is strong at a low skill level but only decent at a high skill level because the units don't scale amazingly with micro. If at a professional level, Strategy A = Strategy B, then below the professional level, Strategy B > Strategy A. Depending on the coefficient to the scaling, Strategy B could be insanely strong below the professional level. I see what you are trying to say, but you are just theorycrafting here. You have no statistics, no numbers, nothing. Just a really simple example: On high level people know how to split. Why are banelings not an issue then? The lower the league the worse the splitting is. Just an example. It is impossible to have statistics or numbers to back up a general idea like the effects of mech being viable and used regularly at the professional level. You can math out the impact of things like the liberator damage nerf and how it impacts certain unit interactions then guess as to what that means for balance, but how do you even begin to math out something that would likely require massive game play changes? That's not even considering that it is functionally impossible to accurately measure skill. As for banelings, I'm not sure why you bring them up since they are exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Banelings are strong at lower levels because players aren't gods at splitting and focus fire, but weaker at higher level against players who are. Banelings benefit from micro, but not as much as the bio against which it fights. So when Blizzard attempted to make Banelings better against the best players by buffing their health via the upgrade, they made them even stronger against worse players who already struggled against them. If Blizzard had made banelings = bio at the professional level, then they'd have been absolutely unstoppable below that level. If your thoughts are just ideas then I consider them as your own opinion on this matter. Fine by me. But you haven't answered my question yet.
Was that the question about banelings? The unit that was buffed because pros handled then them almost immediately saw it reverted because it was too strong everywhere else?
|
On February 04 2017 16:27 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 09:43 Phaenoman wrote:On February 04 2017 04:39 Boggyb wrote:On February 04 2017 04:15 Phaenoman wrote:On February 04 2017 04:02 Boggyb wrote:On February 04 2017 03:49 Phaenoman wrote:On February 04 2017 03:25 Boggyb wrote:On February 04 2017 00:10 MockHamill wrote: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? What kind of question is that? You can apply this to any build/ strat/ composition out there. "If this build is viable at pro level, how well do non-pros do against this build/ strat/ composition?" Do all compositions and strategies scale at the exact same rate based on player skill? Are there not some strategies that have a significant chunk of their power built into the units rather than micro? Suppose: Strategy A is weak at a low skill level but extremely good at a high skill level because the units scale extremely well with micro. Strategy B is strong at a low skill level but only decent at a high skill level because the units don't scale amazingly with micro. If at a professional level, Strategy A = Strategy B, then below the professional level, Strategy B > Strategy A. Depending on the coefficient to the scaling, Strategy B could be insanely strong below the professional level. I see what you are trying to say, but you are just theorycrafting here. You have no statistics, no numbers, nothing. Just a really simple example: On high level people know how to split. Why are banelings not an issue then? The lower the league the worse the splitting is. Just an example. It is impossible to have statistics or numbers to back up a general idea like the effects of mech being viable and used regularly at the professional level. You can math out the impact of things like the liberator damage nerf and how it impacts certain unit interactions then guess as to what that means for balance, but how do you even begin to math out something that would likely require massive game play changes? That's not even considering that it is functionally impossible to accurately measure skill. As for banelings, I'm not sure why you bring them up since they are exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Banelings are strong at lower levels because players aren't gods at splitting and focus fire, but weaker at higher level against players who are. Banelings benefit from micro, but not as much as the bio against which it fights. So when Blizzard attempted to make Banelings better against the best players by buffing their health via the upgrade, they made them even stronger against worse players who already struggled against them. If Blizzard had made banelings = bio at the professional level, then they'd have been absolutely unstoppable below that level. If your thoughts are just ideas then I consider them as your own opinion on this matter. Fine by me. But you haven't answered my question yet. Was that the question about banelings? The unit that was buffed because pros handled then them almost immediately saw it reverted because it was too strong everywhere else?
1. Did you even read my post? There is only one question.
2. The baneling buff has been reverted bcuz it was too strong everywhere else? Where did you get that from? Blizzard does not balance things just becuz the lower casual layer is complaining.
|
On February 04 2017 09:17 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 01:30 Ej_ wrote: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. Top of Korean ladder have no idea? How can you say that? Are you saying that the people players that avilo match with have more idea? Are you saying that you have more idea? Top Korean zergs haven't realised that sh is op vs mech, which is why Maru and innovation can win? I think we kindof have to assume that the top of Korean ladder are the ones that knows best how to play the game, vs any composition. If you want to claim otherwise, I think you need very strong arguments.
He is being sarcastic and mocking ihatevideogames
|
On February 04 2017 21:19 EatingBomber wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 09:17 Cascade wrote:On February 04 2017 01:30 Ej_ wrote: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. Top of Korean ladder have no idea? How can you say that? Are you saying that the people players that avilo match with have more idea? Are you saying that you have more idea? Top Korean zergs haven't realised that sh is op vs mech, which is why Maru and innovation can win? I think we kindof have to assume that the top of Korean ladder are the ones that knows best how to play the game, vs any composition. If you want to claim otherwise, I think you need very strong arguments. He is being sarcastic and mocking ihatevideogames
Oh... Sorry. I can't even tell anymore in this thread. I should probably stop posting.
|
One thing that has to be taken into account is that mech isn't about mechanics, it's about strategy. Bio gives a terran player the ability to force the opponent into similar mechanical prowesses.
Mech is very different, because it relies much more on positionning, hard counters and composition. That's you'll often see mech build at the pro level look either extremely powerfull, either completely terrible.
That's also why some terrans suck playing mech and why some zerg players have no idea how to play against it. But that's also why a very reactive and adaptative zerg player will completely crush mech if it's not viable : because he'll be able to build the right composition, take the right positions against what he's facing, and destroy it.
In that sense, looking too much at what top terrans are doing is kind of silly when talking about mech. Because what i explained also applies to pro players. Overall, what we can see is that mech isn't really played in the pro scene when you look at all the pros, and that's why blizz should look at the SH.
|
On February 04 2017 22:06 JackONeill wrote:
One thing that has to be taken into account is that mech isn't about mechanics, it's about strategy. Bio gives a terran player the ability to force the opponent into similar mechanical prowesses.
Mech is very different, because it relies much more on positionning, hard counters and composition. That's you'll often see mech build at the pro level look either extremely powerfull, either completely terrible.
That's also why some terrans suck playing mech and why some zerg players have no idea how to play against it. But that's also why a very reactive and adaptative zerg player will completely crush mech if it's not viable : because he'll be able to build the right composition, take the right positions against what he's facing, and destroy it.
In that sense, looking too much at what top terrans are doing is kind of silly when talking about mech. Because what i explained also applies to pro players. Overall, what we can see is that mech isn't really played in the pro scene when you look at all the pros, and that's why blizz should look at the SH.
SH are also not really played at the pro scene, what's your point?
Do we also need to nerf everything else to make SH a viable playstyle?
|
On February 05 2017 02:44 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2017 22:06 JackONeill wrote:
One thing that has to be taken into account is that mech isn't about mechanics, it's about strategy. Bio gives a terran player the ability to force the opponent into similar mechanical prowesses.
Mech is very different, because it relies much more on positionning, hard counters and composition. That's you'll often see mech build at the pro level look either extremely powerfull, either completely terrible.
That's also why some terrans suck playing mech and why some zerg players have no idea how to play against it. But that's also why a very reactive and adaptative zerg player will completely crush mech if it's not viable : because he'll be able to build the right composition, take the right positions against what he's facing, and destroy it.
In that sense, looking too much at what top terrans are doing is kind of silly when talking about mech. Because what i explained also applies to pro players. Overall, what we can see is that mech isn't really played in the pro scene when you look at all the pros, and that's why blizz should look at the SH. SH are also not really played at the pro scene, what's your point? Do we also need to nerf everything else to make SH a viable playstyle?
Thors and Battlecruisers are not really played at the pro scene, what's your point?
Do we also need to nerf everything else to make them a viable playstye?
See how retarded your argument sounds? Mech refers to a playstyle that relies on positioning, not a single unit. When a whole playstyle is shut down because of a single unit, then yes, that unit should be looked into.
|
On February 05 2017 03:50 ihatevideogames wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 02:44 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:On February 04 2017 22:06 JackONeill wrote:
One thing that has to be taken into account is that mech isn't about mechanics, it's about strategy. Bio gives a terran player the ability to force the opponent into similar mechanical prowesses.
Mech is very different, because it relies much more on positionning, hard counters and composition. That's you'll often see mech build at the pro level look either extremely powerfull, either completely terrible.
That's also why some terrans suck playing mech and why some zerg players have no idea how to play against it. But that's also why a very reactive and adaptative zerg player will completely crush mech if it's not viable : because he'll be able to build the right composition, take the right positions against what he's facing, and destroy it.
In that sense, looking too much at what top terrans are doing is kind of silly when talking about mech. Because what i explained also applies to pro players. Overall, what we can see is that mech isn't really played in the pro scene when you look at all the pros, and that's why blizz should look at the SH. SH are also not really played at the pro scene, what's your point? Do we also need to nerf everything else to make SH a viable playstyle? Thors and Battlecruisers are not really played at the pro scene, what's your point? Do we also need to nerf everything else to make them a viable playstye? See how retarded your argument sounds? Mech refers to a playstyle that relies on positioning, not a single unit. When a whole playstyle is shut down because of a single unit, then yes, that unit should be looked into.
Applying that very same logic, why cant a Zerg player play SH against a Bio player. Bio slaughters this unit so hard its not viable. Therefor bio needs to be nerferd to allow Zergs to build SH if we apply your logic to that particular situation. I am sure there are many Zerg players who want to build SH and Lurkers against Terran but cant because they know its an auto lose
The game is all about counters, just because you want to build 2 units all day long and nothing else, why should the game changed because of a few players with limited skillset ?
|
On February 03 2017 17:22 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's crazy how people can demand evidence when you continue to make threads about the same topic for years, right? I mean, let's be real, it can't be YOUR fault that YOUR Mech play isn't working; it's that Mech is just straight up bad. Wouldn't it be great if we could go back in time, when you could wall Python diagonally with Depots and Turrets, have a 3-Turret-thick ring around your main and the 5th base you spend the better half of 30 minutes turtle-crawling to? Man, those were the days.
In other news, in order to make broad generalizations about the viability of a strategy, and then scoff at the thought of producing "some examples of your games where you are losing to them" because you find it laughable that "every single mech player need to get together to show our 100+ games of Zerg going mass swarmhost," you've essentially proven that you have no intention of proving anything. You took a reasonable request from someone who wanted to find out more about your standpoint, you exaggerated it to the point of hyperbole, phrased it as a rhetorical question, and then without blinking kept spitting the same exact narrative that you've been pushing for 10 pages. Come the fuck on.
It's the blind leading the blind. You're begging the question while simultaneously providing proof by assertion. Onus probandi.
|
On February 05 2017 04:41 Topdoller wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 03:50 ihatevideogames wrote:On February 05 2017 02:44 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:On February 04 2017 22:06 JackONeill wrote:
One thing that has to be taken into account is that mech isn't about mechanics, it's about strategy. Bio gives a terran player the ability to force the opponent into similar mechanical prowesses.
Mech is very different, because it relies much more on positionning, hard counters and composition. That's you'll often see mech build at the pro level look either extremely powerfull, either completely terrible.
That's also why some terrans suck playing mech and why some zerg players have no idea how to play against it. But that's also why a very reactive and adaptative zerg player will completely crush mech if it's not viable : because he'll be able to build the right composition, take the right positions against what he's facing, and destroy it.
In that sense, looking too much at what top terrans are doing is kind of silly when talking about mech. Because what i explained also applies to pro players. Overall, what we can see is that mech isn't really played in the pro scene when you look at all the pros, and that's why blizz should look at the SH. SH are also not really played at the pro scene, what's your point? Do we also need to nerf everything else to make SH a viable playstyle? Thors and Battlecruisers are not really played at the pro scene, what's your point? Do we also need to nerf everything else to make them a viable playstye? See how retarded your argument sounds? Mech refers to a playstyle that relies on positioning, not a single unit. When a whole playstyle is shut down because of a single unit, then yes, that unit should be looked into. Applying that very same logic, why cant a Zerg player play SH against a Bio player. Bio slaughters this unit so hard its not viable. Therefor bio needs to be nerferd to allow Zergs to build SH if we apply your logic to that particular situation. I am sure there are many Zerg players who want to build SH and Lurkers against Terran but cant because they know its an auto lose The game is all about counters, just because you want to build 2 units all day long and nothing else, why should the game changed because of a few players with limited skillset ?
Its different because in your Zerg example, Bio is a playstyle that can shut down one unit. I don't think it would be fair for one unit (swarmhost) having the ability to shut down a whole playstyle. There is a reason the Liberator lost its ability to deal bonus damage to light, it opened more possiblities for Zerg to go mutas which were down right impossible had the Liberator kept its bonus damage.
|
On February 05 2017 05:13 TurboDreams wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2017 04:41 Topdoller wrote:On February 05 2017 03:50 ihatevideogames wrote:On February 05 2017 02:44 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:On February 04 2017 22:06 JackONeill wrote:
One thing that has to be taken into account is that mech isn't about mechanics, it's about strategy. Bio gives a terran player the ability to force the opponent into similar mechanical prowesses.
Mech is very different, because it relies much more on positionning, hard counters and composition. That's you'll often see mech build at the pro level look either extremely powerfull, either completely terrible.
That's also why some terrans suck playing mech and why some zerg players have no idea how to play against it. But that's also why a very reactive and adaptative zerg player will completely crush mech if it's not viable : because he'll be able to build the right composition, take the right positions against what he's facing, and destroy it.
In that sense, looking too much at what top terrans are doing is kind of silly when talking about mech. Because what i explained also applies to pro players. Overall, what we can see is that mech isn't really played in the pro scene when you look at all the pros, and that's why blizz should look at the SH. SH are also not really played at the pro scene, what's your point? Do we also need to nerf everything else to make SH a viable playstyle? Thors and Battlecruisers are not really played at the pro scene, what's your point? Do we also need to nerf everything else to make them a viable playstye? See how retarded your argument sounds? Mech refers to a playstyle that relies on positioning, not a single unit. When a whole playstyle is shut down because of a single unit, then yes, that unit should be looked into. Applying that very same logic, why cant a Zerg player play SH against a Bio player. Bio slaughters this unit so hard its not viable. Therefor bio needs to be nerferd to allow Zergs to build SH if we apply your logic to that particular situation. I am sure there are many Zerg players who want to build SH and Lurkers against Terran but cant because they know its an auto lose The game is all about counters, just because you want to build 2 units all day long and nothing else, why should the game changed because of a few players with limited skillset ? Its different because in your Zerg example, Bio is a playstyle that can shut down one unit. I don't think it would be fair for one unit (swarmhost) having the ability to shut down a whole playstyle. There is a reason the Liberator lost its ability to deal bonus damage to light, it opened more possiblities for Zerg to go mutas which were down right impossible had the Liberator kept its bonus damage.
Muta is also just one unit, people still played ling bane before the liberator nerf.
It's just dumb to ask for a unit nerf just because it's strong vs a certain style, especially if that unit is never even played in any other scenario.
A redesign for that unit could be a possibility though.
But I just think people exgagerate a lot about mech not being viable, top Koreans are not gonna play it because it requires playing totally different from playing bio(a style they have been playing for years and is still strong), why would they switch and risk losing money.
And Scarlett says top Koreans do play mech on ladder, and if they can then people over here certainly can do the same, just don't expect the HoTS turtle mech style to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
