|
On January 16 2017 20:11 Foxxan wrote:
BECAUSE VARIATION IS GOOD. USINg your brain in different ways is good.
Just as protoss can relie more on zealots or stalkers or mix up stalkers/sentries or mix up zealots/archons. Potentially.
Just as terran can relie more on bio or relie more on mech. Its a bloody easy answer, its for variation and mech has potentially a good variation just as bio. No questions should be asked why its a good thing BIO AND MECH could work on their own.. Its a no-brain question that comes from people that doesnt understand a single thing about design in the first place.
Do you see people NOT WANT different compositioons for protoss? NO you dont, just as people like you shouldnt question the design process of variation and dynamic playstyles. It should exist, PERIOD. Stop these nonsense questions of WHY instead HOW should be the center.
yeah actually protoss doesn't have two alternative styles like bio and mech, all "styles" are based on gateway unites complemented by robo units, and occasionally air units. You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this..
But of course you can just shout "design" and "playstyle" and believe to be right..
|
Sweden740 Posts
I think these complaints would disappear if blizzard would just take a stance on factory units and just say that they are supposed to be support units for bio. But as long as blizzard says they are trying to make "viable" it is not to much to ask for it to actually be viable. That being said, if top pros like Innovation, TY and Gumiho are doing it, it must be viable no?
Personally I think since the races are different, it can be interesting with one race having two very different styles but if mech is gonna end up with mass raven/viking/bc turtle I would rather be without it.
|
On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote:
You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this..
I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units.
And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing.
|
On January 16 2017 21:43 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote:
You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this.. I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units. And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing.
I don't buy that first argument because you could say the same about air units, etc. Nobody is whining about building only stargate/starport units tbh.
It all comes down to "bw legacy" tbh and i think that alone is a good reason. The problem is that the games are extremely different and what made mech work in bw is not really there in sc2 (bio vice versa)
The economy alone is a huge issue i think.
|
On January 16 2017 22:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 21:43 Elentos wrote:On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote:
You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this.. I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units. And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing. I don't buy that first argument because you could say the same about air units, etc. Nobody is whining about building only stargate/starport units tbh. It all comes down to "bw legacy" tbh and i think that alone is a good reason. The problem is that the games are extremely different and what made mech work in bw is not really there in sc2 (bio vice versa) The economy alone is a huge issue i think.
Air units have separate upgrades, though
|
On January 16 2017 22:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 21:43 Elentos wrote:On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote:
You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this.. I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units. And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing. I don't buy that first argument because you could say the same about air units, etc. Nobody is whining about building only stargate/starport units tbh. It all comes down to "bw legacy" tbh and i think that alone is a good reason. The problem is that the games are extremely different and what made mech work in bw is not really there in sc2 (bio vice versa) The economy alone is a huge issue i think.
imo the most important reason why mech should be viable is just that it leads to incredibly fun and positional games IF it's designed correctly - see INnoVation vs TaeJa, Maru vs Dream, Lucifron vs Stephano, MMA vs Dark, ForGG vs Life, Bbyong vs Flash, MMA vs Gumiho etc.
having more of that would be really good for the game imo.
|
On January 16 2017 23:49 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 22:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 16 2017 21:43 Elentos wrote:On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote:
You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this.. I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units. And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing. I don't buy that first argument because you could say the same about air units, etc. Nobody is whining about building only stargate/starport units tbh. It all comes down to "bw legacy" tbh and i think that alone is a good reason. The problem is that the games are extremely different and what made mech work in bw is not really there in sc2 (bio vice versa) The economy alone is a huge issue i think. imo the most important reason why mech should be viable is just that it leads to incredibly fun and positional games IF it's designed correctly - see INnoVation vs TaeJa, Maru vs Dream, Lucifron vs Stephano, MMA vs Dark, ForGG vs Life, Bbyong vs Flash, MMA vs Gumiho etc. having more of that would be really good for the game imo.
Sure i don't disagree with that. I simply think it doesn't really work in sc2 as it is now. The game fundamentally works AGAINST positional gameplay (doomdrops, warpgates, nydus, general mobility of whole armies, economy, etc).
Mech will always be a little bit about getting to a certain amount of tanks, etc to be able to take another base. If we try to make it different through other "a move" units like the warhound or the cyclone we really just get bio without medivacs.
On January 16 2017 23:36 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 22:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 16 2017 21:43 Elentos wrote:On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote:
You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this.. I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units. And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing. I don't buy that first argument because you could say the same about air units, etc. Nobody is whining about building only stargate/starport units tbh. It all comes down to "bw legacy" tbh and i think that alone is a good reason. The problem is that the games are extremely different and what made mech work in bw is not really there in sc2 (bio vice versa) The economy alone is a huge issue i think. Air units have separate upgrades, though
That was the point. Nobody is asking for stargate only play even though the upgrades "suggest" it might be a thing. Not really important but i simply didn't buy the "upgrade argument". It's mainly due to bw that people wanna see mech as an option.
|
On January 17 2017 00:49 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 23:49 Charoisaur wrote:On January 16 2017 22:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 16 2017 21:43 Elentos wrote:On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote:
You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this.. I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units. And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing. I don't buy that first argument because you could say the same about air units, etc. Nobody is whining about building only stargate/starport units tbh. It all comes down to "bw legacy" tbh and i think that alone is a good reason. The problem is that the games are extremely different and what made mech work in bw is not really there in sc2 (bio vice versa) The economy alone is a huge issue i think. imo the most important reason why mech should be viable is just that it leads to incredibly fun and positional games IF it's designed correctly - see INnoVation vs TaeJa, Maru vs Dream, Lucifron vs Stephano, MMA vs Dark, ForGG vs Life, Bbyong vs Flash, MMA vs Gumiho etc. having more of that would be really good for the game imo. Sure i don't disagree with that. I simply think it doesn't really work in sc2 as it is now. The game fundamentally works AGAINST positional gameplay (doomdrops, warpgates, nydus, general mobility of whole armies, economy, etc). Mech will always be a little bit about getting to a certain amount of tanks, etc to be able to take another base. If we try to make it different through other "a move" units like the warhound or the cyclone we really just get bio without medivacs.
These are actually some design decisions I rarely see questioned.
Medivacs come out extremely early, warp gate remove defensive advantage (and makes gateway units weaker), nydus has never found a nice place in the game, ground armies can't fight air armies.
I know map makers harp on the air unit design, because it makes their terrain work completely meaningless, but other than that - it's pretty quiet.
Imagine if medivacs were later in the tech tree - you might actually see lurkers in ZvT, and protoss wouldn't be rolling around their base all game trying not to die to a widow mine.
|
On January 17 2017 00:52 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2017 00:49 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 16 2017 23:49 Charoisaur wrote:On January 16 2017 22:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 16 2017 21:43 Elentos wrote:On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote:
You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this.. I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units. And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing. I don't buy that first argument because you could say the same about air units, etc. Nobody is whining about building only stargate/starport units tbh. It all comes down to "bw legacy" tbh and i think that alone is a good reason. The problem is that the games are extremely different and what made mech work in bw is not really there in sc2 (bio vice versa) The economy alone is a huge issue i think. imo the most important reason why mech should be viable is just that it leads to incredibly fun and positional games IF it's designed correctly - see INnoVation vs TaeJa, Maru vs Dream, Lucifron vs Stephano, MMA vs Dark, ForGG vs Life, Bbyong vs Flash, MMA vs Gumiho etc. having more of that would be really good for the game imo. Sure i don't disagree with that. I simply think it doesn't really work in sc2 as it is now. The game fundamentally works AGAINST positional gameplay (doomdrops, warpgates, nydus, general mobility of whole armies, economy, etc). Mech will always be a little bit about getting to a certain amount of tanks, etc to be able to take another base. If we try to make it different through other "a move" units like the warhound or the cyclone we really just get bio without medivacs. These are actually some design decisions I rarely see questioned. Medivacs come out extremely early, warp gate remove defensive advantage (and makes gateway units weaker), nydus has never found a nice place in the game, ground armies can't fight air armies. I know map makers harp on the air unit design, because it makes their terrain work completely meaningless, but other than that - it's pretty quiet. Imagine if medivacs were later in the tech tree - you might actually see lurkers in ZvT, and protoss wouldn't be rolling around their base all game trying not to die to a widow mine.
Sometimes i complain about the medivac, other than that nobody really though hehe. It's not necessarily that it comes too early, but as a bio terran you wanna get healing no matter what and you get "free" mobility with it as well.
I mean i like terrans showing off their multitasking through drops, but it's pretty much a given that there will be lots and lots of drops every single TvX simply because medivacs are a must have. That alone makes the other two races highly dependant on fast units and/or air units (blink stalkers, bling ling instead of lurkers, etc)
|
The fall of sc2 started with medivack boost
|
On January 17 2017 00:49 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2017 23:49 Charoisaur wrote:On January 16 2017 22:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 16 2017 21:43 Elentos wrote:On January 16 2017 20:51 VHbb wrote:
You never see a protoss going "robo"-style with only units produced from the robotics. You also never see anyone complaining about this.. I don't know why people keep using this same example over and over and over again. Protoss doesn't have split upgrades for robo and gateway units. There's no "Robotics" unit tag. Bio and mech upgrades are split, there is a mechanical tag. The game tells players that mech and bio exist independently of each other. It doesn't do that for robo and gateway units. And that's not even including legacy of mech in BW and Blizzard openly attempting to make mech a thing. I don't buy that first argument because you could say the same about air units, etc. Nobody is whining about building only stargate/starport units tbh. It all comes down to "bw legacy" tbh and i think that alone is a good reason. The problem is that the games are extremely different and what made mech work in bw is not really there in sc2 (bio vice versa) The economy alone is a huge issue i think. imo the most important reason why mech should be viable is just that it leads to incredibly fun and positional games IF it's designed correctly - see INnoVation vs TaeJa, Maru vs Dream, Lucifron vs Stephano, MMA vs Dark, ForGG vs Life, Bbyong vs Flash, MMA vs Gumiho etc. having more of that would be really good for the game imo. Sure i don't disagree with that. I simply think it doesn't really work in sc2 as it is now. The game fundamentally works AGAINST positional gameplay (doomdrops, warpgates, nydus, general mobility of whole armies, economy, etc). Mech will always be a little bit about getting to a certain amount of tanks, etc to be able to take another base. If we try to make it different through other "a move" units like the warhound or the cyclone we really just get bio without medivacs.
but the games I just listed show that it IS possible to have this in sc2. sure those games were the exception and the majority of mech games were far more turtly but the fact that those games with exciting positional battles HAVE happened shows that it's not impossible to have something like this in sc2. I'm sure with a few changes those kind of games can become way more common.
|
Most of the games you listed were TvT tbf. A few examples also don't mean much i think. (not saying that these were all examples, i simply don't know atm). Also since then the game had a mapchange (other people call it economy change) and other things changed, do you have any recent examples of interesting mech games?
Personally i believe that you would need to change A LOT of things to make an interesting mech style work (or rather interesting mech matchups)
|
I'm sure Gumiho and ForGG played a lot more exciting mech games in tvz I just don't remember them.
there are barely examples of mech being played in LotV at all so obviously the odds of interesting mech games are pretty low.
edit: now that I think about it, TY vs Nerchio at blizzcon was pretty fun,
|
Sure but we have to talk about the current iteration of sc2, no? :D Blizzcon is close enough, but even there it was largely because of the map. Not sure if we wanna create maps that way.
I still think the three base economy cap and therefore the dire need to be extremely efficient with your army is bad for the game. Ofc there is more to it than that though, but this was discussed a million times already :D
|
On January 17 2017 01:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Sure but we have to talk about the current iteration of sc2, no? :D Blizzcon is close enough, but even there it was largely because of the map. Not sure if we wanna create maps that way.
I still think the three base economy cap and therefore the dire need to be extremely efficient with your army is bad for the game. Ofc there is more to it than that though, but this was discussed a million times already :D
I dunno about other people, but as Zerg I'm looking at 72-80 drones, not "3 base economy cap".
By the time I get that, I'm spread out over 5 bases, usually.
|
On January 17 2017 02:13 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2017 01:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Sure but we have to talk about the current iteration of sc2, no? :D Blizzcon is close enough, but even there it was largely because of the map. Not sure if we wanna create maps that way.
I still think the three base economy cap and therefore the dire need to be extremely efficient with your army is bad for the game. Ofc there is more to it than that though, but this was discussed a million times already :D I dunno about other people, but as Zerg I'm looking at 72-80 drones, not "3 base economy cap". By the time I get that, I'm spread out over 5 bases, usually.
Well yes if you build more workers you can saturate gas and a few minerals. That's not really the same though.
The point is that you usually don't really wanna build more than ~70 workers (zerg can be an exception depending on map, matchup, etc) and no matter how many bases you take you won't get more income with that amound of workers.
It's about a 3 base cap, you are perfectly fine having three mining bases at all times which also means that the game becomes about army efficiency (well ofc you always wanna be efficient, but it adds to this) and getting to ultimate armies might be more important than anything else. While it is fine to balance the game that way in theory, it doesn't really address that different unit compositions have different strengths and weaknesses in defending/mobility, etc. Especially now that you have to expand faster because of low mineral counts. I think the whole economy design is flawed and limiting.
|
It is a bit ironic that mech actually struggles more in TvZ compared to before the 3.8 patch. One of the design goals of the 3.8 patch was to make mech more viable not less.
I think the following needs to be changed in order to make mech viable in TvZ
1. Increase Swarm Host cost.
2. Nerf Vipers. Some kind of abduct nerf is necessary.
|
On January 17 2017 03:55 MockHamill wrote:
It is a bit ironic that mech actually struggles more in TvZ compared to before the 3.8 patch. One of the design goals of the 3.8 patch was to make mech more viable not less.
I think the following needs to be changed in order to make mech viable in TvZ
1. Increase Swarm Host cost.
2. Nerf Vipers. Some kind of abduct nerf is necessary.
Abduct is the only useful ability it has left. May as well just remove it if you're going to nerf abduct, too.
Sometimes I wonder if you people even realize the point of balancing a game is to get 50/50 win rates. Removing all of a race's answers to a strategy will not get a 50/50 win rate.
|
Mech still worse on the "mech patch" than it ever has been. Swarmhosts currently are worse than the old ridiculous swarmhost that took over the game.
Virtually zero mech games at pro level. And if the Z knows about how to abuse swarmhosts it's always a loss.
Pretty disappointed.
|
On January 17 2017 04:15 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2017 03:55 MockHamill wrote:
It is a bit ironic that mech actually struggles more in TvZ compared to before the 3.8 patch. One of the design goals of the 3.8 patch was to make mech more viable not less.
I think the following needs to be changed in order to make mech viable in TvZ
1. Increase Swarm Host cost.
2. Nerf Vipers. Some kind of abduct nerf is necessary. Abduct is the only useful ability it has left. May as well just remove it if you're going to nerf abduct, too. Sometimes I wonder if you people even realize the point of balancing a game is to get 50/50 win rates. Removing all of a race's answers to a strategy will not get a 50/50 win rate.
I agree that Zerg needs answers to mech.
Problem is that the answers are to strong.
Every mech player I talked to struggles on this patch no matter if they are diamond, master or GM.
It is even worse at pro level, mech is more less dead at pro level.
So obviously things are not fine as they are.
Nerfing Swarm Hosts and toning down Vipers is something that must be done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
