EPTWhat happened to Blizzard's effort to buff Mech? - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ETisME
12621 Posts
| ||
|
mrarthursimon
United States55 Posts
This is a fucking "No true scottsman" argument. They'll just keep bitching. Let them. Fuck them. Jesus you are some of the pickiest mother fuckers I've ever listened to. On March 05 2017 03:19 Jealous wrote: In this episode of Monthly Mech Viability Whine Thread, we have the same posters making the same complaints they've made for months, all with little to no statistical or empirical evidence! Players who reach M and GM with Mech who still think that their homogenous, uninspired, turtle-oriented style of play is getting the shaft are here to answer any logical counter-arguments you have with the same shriveled up explanations and whinefests that you've grown to expect and detest! Tune in again next month, when you will hear the same issues brought up again and again from people who lack a sense of realism when it comes to Blizzard's approach to the game, how others play and want to play, and lack the basic objectivity necessary to talk about balance! Can you do this for all of these threads? Matter of fact, just make a news letter. I'll even donate to a patreon to fund it if you want. I'm so tired of all this whine. Got any cheese to go with it? User was warned for this post | ||
|
xTJx
Brazil419 Posts
On March 05 2017 03:19 Jealous wrote: In this episode of Monthly Mech Viability Whine Thread, we have the same posters making the same complaints they've made for months, all with little to no statistical or empirical evidence! Players who reach M and GM with Mech who still think that their homogenous, uninspired, turtle-oriented style of play is getting the shaft are here to answer any logical counter-arguments you have with the same shriveled up explanations and whinefests that you've grown to expect and detest! Tune in again next month, when you will hear the same issues brought up again and again from people who lack a sense of realism when it comes to Blizzard's approach to the game, how others play and want to play, and lack the basic objectivity necessary to talk about balance! We should copy this for further mech threads hahahahahaha | ||
|
reneg
United States859 Posts
On March 07 2017 13:00 ninazerg wrote: Exactly. I can't stand these people who are like, "Change the game so that I win more." This is no joke. I mean, look at this suggestion to make it 'balanced': On March 07 2017 06:27 Lexender wrote: This guy knows whats up. Giving the cyclone more AA (like 320 damage or so for lock on for example) in trade for some of its ground attack would be a huge step in making mech viable in TvP, tank cyclone comps are actually pretty good vs ground toss but you become too vulnerable to stargate play. His complaint is that he wants cyclone AA (with its very short lock on time) to 1-shot pretty much anything that comes at him. He's willing to 'give up' a little of the Cyclone Damage (which is, very admittedly very high against armored). This is in a world where Widow mines will 1-shot an oracle (still), almost completely destroy a warp prism, and soften up most other stargate play. A possible solution to having weak(er) AA for mech is to sprinkle in marines. Don't build your barracks to act as a step into factories, or as a scout. Use it to pepper in a unit that has GOOD AA abilities. I don't understand why 'mech' is now synonymous with 'rax cannot be used, fact only' Mech has a lot of options, and can be extremely powerful. It does have limitations: it's not as mobile as Bio, it can't be healed by medivacs. It does have strengths over bio: every unit has more HP than bio units do, they're all beefier. These are trade offs for playing a mech style play. What I keep seeing on these threads is a desire to be able to shut down literally anything (that quote above, cyclone 1-shotting anything in the air), or a complaint that people on the other side of the map built units that are capable of attacking. (This might come as a shocker, but the other guy is trying to win, too). Edit: I think one thing that mech does need to do, is scout better. I think that if they can build their ideal army vs. the enemy composition, they can pretty much roll over anything, but the problem I see a lot of people doing is, "I'm going to build x tanks and x hellbats, and push" - they don't scout anything at all, and then get surprised when a unit that is strong against their composition comes out. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On March 07 2017 06:51 ihatevideogames wrote: Replace every 'Blizzard' in your post with 'Activision' and everything starts to make more sense. Even since joining Activision, Blizzard has still taken care of their IP far better than SC2. The points I mention still stand true. On March 07 2017 08:10 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the executive producer of SC2, Chris Sigaty, has already disagreed with you. he said nothing will enter SC2's "space" as an ultra competitive RTS game for the next 10 years. It's a broken record, heard of this from you and mentioned evidence that debunks it. Even if they announced a game right now, by the time it released it would be 10 years after SC2 release. And multiple Blizzard employees have stated that they planned to work on a new project after LotV. Not to mention Blizzard Team 1 (their RTS division) has been taken off of Heroes of the Storm and put on an unannounced project. This is besides the fact of Sigaty not yet seeing the decline of SC2. Those comments were years ago, before Blizzard nearly halted development on SC2 as they have for the last year and a half. But presumption don't matter anyway, you will be eating those words once Blizzard announces what Team 1 has been up to.Team 1 ONLY works in their RTS engine, and they have been said to have been removed from Heroes, which means it is an RTS. | ||
|
ruypture
United States367 Posts
On March 07 2017 07:49 ninazerg wrote: How about this: instead of trying to go pure mech, you go with a strategy that already works really well. Pure mech isn't even the problem. It's a play-style problem. The people who complain that mech is bad are complaining that slow, defensive mech is bad. Top terrans, right now, see success in series play with mech in tvz, and bio-mech in tvt. In both of these situations the mech player is aggressive, taking advantage of hellion speed into hellbat damage, cyclone everything, raven auto-turret damage, and even banshee play. All of those options are aggressive choices. You can go hellion banshee, cyclone hellbat, pure cyclone, raven hellbat, etc. Anyways the point is that the people complaining mech is bad are just playing mech wrong or poorly. | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2655 Posts
On March 08 2017 02:17 ruypture wrote: Pure mech isn't even the problem. It's a play-style problem. The people who complain that mech is bad are complaining that slow, defensive mech is bad. Top terrans, right now, see success in series play with mech in tvz, and bio-mech in tvt. In both of these situations the mech player is aggressive, taking advantage of hellion speed into hellbat damage, cyclone everything, raven auto-turret damage, and even banshee play. All of those options are aggressive choices. You can go hellion banshee, cyclone hellbat, pure cyclone, raven hellbat, etc. Anyways the point is that the people complaining mech is bad are just playing mech wrong or poorly. No we are complaining that THOSE styles are not viable, when was the last time you actually saw hellions in a TvT past like 2 for the early game? Or speed banshees? (I think gumiho played speed banshees once out of like 60 TvZs at IEM) I think there were like 2 hellion cyclone games over all too, out of all the 3 rax reapers and 2-1-1 games. (most of them where loses too) On March 07 2017 23:17 reneg wrote: This is in a world where Widow mines will 1-shot an oracle (still), almost completely destroy a warp prism, and soften up most other stargate play. A possible solution to having weak(er) AA for mech is to sprinkle in marines. Don't build your barracks to act as a step into factories, or as a scout. Use it to pepper in a unit that has GOOD AA abilities. I don't understand why 'mech' is now synonymous with 'rax cannot be used, fact only' Mech has a lot of options, and can be extremely powerful. It does have limitations: it's not as mobile as Bio, it can't be healed by medivacs. It does have strengths over bio: every unit has more HP than bio units do, they're all beefier. These are trade offs for playing a mech style play. What I keep seeing on these threads is a desire to be able to shut down literally anything (that quote above, cyclone 1-shotting anything in the air), or a complaint that people on the other side of the map built units that are capable of attacking. (This might come as a shocker, but the other guy is trying to win, too). This is some of the most double standard post of all. Lock on lasts, 14 seconds, its not very short (many battles don't even last 14 seconds) and its not 1 shotting everything lock deals various shots, you could take lock on and make it normal damage if you wan't. This is so intellectually false trying to dismiss so much part of the game because every small buff is "asking to 1 shot everything so they just win". If you are going to engage in a discussion do it like civilized adult or don't do it all | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2655 Posts
| ||
|
Kevin_Sorbo
Canada3217 Posts
On March 07 2017 23:17 reneg wrote: This is no joke. I mean, look at this suggestion to make it 'balanced': His complaint is that he wants cyclone AA (with its very short lock on time) to 1-shot pretty much anything that comes at him. He's willing to 'give up' a little of the Cyclone Damage (which is, very admittedly very high against armored). This is in a world where Widow mines will 1-shot an oracle (still), almost completely destroy a warp prism, and soften up most other stargate play. A possible solution to having weak(er) AA for mech is to sprinkle in marines. Don't build your barracks to act as a step into factories, or as a scout. Use it to pepper in a unit that has GOOD AA abilities. I don't understand why 'mech' is now synonymous with 'rax cannot be used, fact only' Mech has a lot of options, and can be extremely powerful. It does have limitations: it's not as mobile as Bio, it can't be healed by medivacs. It does have strengths over bio: every unit has more HP than bio units do, they're all beefier. These are trade offs for playing a mech style play. What I keep seeing on these threads is a desire to be able to shut down literally anything (that quote above, cyclone 1-shotting anything in the air), or a complaint that people on the other side of the map built units that are capable of attacking. (This might come as a shocker, but the other guy is trying to win, too). Edit: I think one thing that mech does need to do, is scout better. I think that if they can build their ideal army vs. the enemy composition, they can pretty much roll over anything, but the problem I see a lot of people doing is, "I'm going to build x tanks and x hellbats, and push" - they don't scout anything at all, and then get surprised when a unit that is strong against their composition comes out. I think you misunderstand his Cyclone suggestion. I think he doesnt mean 1 shot. He means 300 over the duration of the lock on. Why is it bad that you can kill the oracle with 1 wm shot btw? As long as an oracle has the ability to win the game single handedly just by showing up unanonced to your base, wm should 1 shot them imo. bashing on mech players who were told by Blizzard since WOL that they would make mech viable is pretty easy. The meta is pretty boring atm and the game needs diversity. Mech could help with that, by forcing different playstyles in different match ups. I've never been a big fan of mech, but there were times in HOTS where there were cool mech strats that didnt rely on avilo turtle raven bs. I remember a 2-2 150 supply super aggressive timing Flash used to do. The brand of mech Innovation was playing at the end of HOTS with bcs after 180 supply was cool. Those are just a couple I can remember off the top of my head. People shouldnt hate on mech because of what happened during the sh era. Or we can circle jerk with the usual 'but protoss cant make robo units only' or 'stop camping on 3 bases fggit lulul' | ||
|
ReachTheSky
United States3294 Posts
| ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States721 Posts
The top Koreans play bio mostly because they have more practice with it and so they know how it works. Mech is still largely undiscovered, but that doesn't mean it's not viable. It could end up being the case that a Terran figures out how Mech is supposed to be played properly. In BW, TvZ was all bio with some small percentage going straight into mech. Much like many Koreans play LotV now. This was true until some Korean pro figured out a point of smooth transition at 4-5 rax, abandoning bio and adopting mech halfway through the game. Hellbats are very strong, and they pair with medivacs, which makes them an ideal candidate for a mid-game mech transition. If Koreans learn to utilize their EPM efficiently enough to be able to produce bunkers with the capacity upgrade, and save their early-mid game bio, they could theoretically entrench positions that no Z could reasonably break in certain situations. Barracks could be lifted to provide vision in key areas during the first hybrid push (attack paths, or vision for tanks to fire. All upgrades would be researched at the armory in the best case scenario. Stim and concussive shells would still be required for early game pressure. Combat shields is a bonus. Blue flame is an obvious must-get. Since the ebay is not being used for infantry upgrades, it can research missle tower range and building armor. Fully upgraded turrets make it very difficult for mutalisks to harass in small numbers before upgrades kick in, and against a bunker-fortified mech push, which could include mines, they are not ideal. Hydars are the only viable counter, and even they suffer against upgraded tanks. The Z would be required to stall until he could make vipers for abduct on tanks, or a broodlord transition. The broodlord transition can only come so early, when it does, the T must back away and switch into viking production, while trying to harass on multiple fronts, perhaps with bansees or hellion-hellbat drops. At this point in the game, the bio will likely have all died, and been entirely replaced by mech, which would by now be on about 2/2 (80 dmg tank shots) Ghosts do not require bio upgrades to be effective, so they fit nicely into the Terran end-game mech composition. Planetary fortresses may be built to aid in nullifying runbys (they will have building armor). Early game bio harass means swarmhosts can't be rushed to. If they are, the T just stays on bio and closes the game out. Thoughts? | ||
|
Tresher
Germany404 Posts
On March 07 2017 07:49 ninazerg wrote: How about this: instead of trying to go pure mech, you go with a strategy that already works really well. How about no because we already do this for over 6 years. | ||
|
Monochromatic
United States998 Posts
What if mech was buffed in such a way that makes it more offensive and much worse defensively? For example (and just for example), much stronger tanks, but with overkill? That way you'd have to spread them out more, making them more vulnerable to air counterplay. | ||
|
DeadByDawn
United Kingdom476 Posts
On March 07 2017 23:17 reneg wrote: This is no joke. I mean, look at this suggestion to make it 'balanced': His complaint is that he wants cyclone AA (with its very short lock on time) to 1-shot pretty much anything that comes at him. He's willing to 'give up' a little of the Cyclone Damage (which is, very admittedly very high against armored). This is in a world where Widow mines will 1-shot an oracle (still), almost completely destroy a warp prism, and soften up most other stargate play. A possible solution to having weak(er) AA for mech is to sprinkle in marines. Don't build your barracks to act as a step into factories, or as a scout. Use it to pepper in a unit that has GOOD AA abilities. I don't understand why 'mech' is now synonymous with 'rax cannot be used, fact only' Mech has a lot of options, and can be extremely powerful. It does have limitations: it's not as mobile as Bio, it can't be healed by medivacs. It does have strengths over bio: every unit has more HP than bio units do, they're all beefier. These are trade offs for playing a mech style play. What I keep seeing on these threads is a desire to be able to shut down literally anything (that quote above, cyclone 1-shotting anything in the air), or a complaint that people on the other side of the map built units that are capable of attacking. (This might come as a shocker, but the other guy is trying to win, too). Edit: I think one thing that mech does need to do, is scout better. I think that if they can build their ideal army vs. the enemy composition, they can pretty much roll over anything, but the problem I see a lot of people doing is, "I'm going to build x tanks and x hellbats, and push" - they don't scout anything at all, and then get surprised when a unit that is strong against their composition comes out. You have no idea what one shot means do you? I wouldn't mind seeing more mech, even the turtle sort, just for the diversity of it nowadays. | ||
|
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
On March 08 2017 05:31 Monochromatic wrote: I'm noticing that many people who are against mech buffs dislike the idea of turtling. What if mech was buffed in such a way that makes it more offensive and much worse defensively? For example (and just for example), much stronger tanks, but with overkill? That way you'd have to spread them out more, making them more vulnerable to air counterplay. But that means there will be better defensivly than offensivly, they will be easy to surround on the midle of the map but hard to beat protected by wall-off, touretts. Aslo, stronger tanks means : one tanks defense will be stronger than before, so even harder to attack a terran. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
Do you recall when Zerg used siege units to control areas of the map while zero supply units hampered movement where the armies were out of position? Because it was SH + Spine Crawlers instead of Siege Tanks + Spider Mines people flipped out. People aren't asking for mech, they're asking for nostalgia. | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2655 Posts
On March 08 2017 06:17 Tyrhanius wrote: But that means there will be better defensivly than offensivly, they will be easy to surround on the midle of the map but hard to beat protected by wall-off, touretts. Aslo, stronger tanks means : one tanks defense will be stronger than before, so even harder to attack a terran. Altough stronger tanks are totally used for defense and make defensive styles stronger you have to think, what are you defending for? If you make that to defend to then make, well more tanks, you are not really getting anywhere. With bases that run out 40% faster, teleporting BCs, stronger carriers and vipers even if you are capable of defending everything you are still not going to win, defensive styles were strong in HotS because they allowed you to tech to mass raven/viking, take that away (nerfing the raven) and you don't win anything by being defensive. | ||
|
reneg
United States859 Posts
On March 08 2017 02:21 Lexender wrote: No we are complaining that THOSE styles are not viable, when was the last time you actually saw hellions in a TvT past like 2 for the early game? Or speed banshees? (I think gumiho played speed banshees once out of like 60 TvZs at IEM) I think there were like 2 hellion cyclone games over all too, out of all the 3 rax reapers and 2-1-1 games. (most of them where loses too) This is some of the most double standard post of all. Lock on lasts, 14 seconds, its not very short (many battles don't even last 14 seconds) and its not 1 shotting everything lock deals various shots, you could take lock on and make it normal damage if you wan't. This is so intellectually false trying to dismiss so much part of the game because every small buff is "asking to 1 shot everything so they just win". If you are going to engage in a discussion do it like civilized adult or don't do it all On March 08 2017 02:27 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: I think you misunderstand his Cyclone suggestion. I think he doesnt mean 1 shot. He means 300 over the duration of the lock on. Why is it bad that you can kill the oracle with 1 wm shot btw? As long as an oracle has the ability to win the game single handedly just by showing up unanonced to your base, wm should 1 shot them imo. bashing on mech players who were told by Blizzard since WOL that they would make mech viable is pretty easy. The meta is pretty boring atm and the game needs diversity. Mech could help with that, by forcing different playstyles in different match ups. I've never been a big fan of mech, but there were times in HOTS where there were cool mech strats that didnt rely on avilo turtle raven bs. I remember a 2-2 150 supply super aggressive timing Flash used to do. The brand of mech Innovation was playing at the end of HOTS with bcs after 180 supply was cool. Those are just a couple I can remember off the top of my head. People shouldnt hate on mech because of what happened during the sh era. Or we can circle jerk with the usual 'but protoss cant make robo units only' or 'stop camping on 3 bases fggit lulul' On March 08 2017 05:34 DeadByDawn wrote: You have no idea what one shot means do you? I wouldn't mind seeing more mech, even the turtle sort, just for the diversity of it nowadays. Ahhh. I took the "lock on damage" to mean the amount of damage it does once it locks on, not the amount of damage it does over the course of the entire lock on. I apologize for this most grevious of misunderstandings. Surely you can see why this sounds like an absolutely insane idea. Also: I have no issue with the fact that the WM kills an Oracle, i was pointing out that in a world where the already was a unit that one shots an Oracle, we didn't need more. But that was in the context of the cyclone doing 320 damage as soon as it locks on. And as far as mech goes, I do feel like there are a lot of strong plays that you can do with it. It's just more dependant upon scouting and Intel gathering. | ||
|
ReachTheSky
United States3294 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
ihatevideogames
570 Posts
On March 08 2017 22:56 ReachTheSky wrote: Guys blizzard already got our money, they don't care about balance, don't waste your time, just boycott their games and send a real message to the company. I have zero tolerance for game companies that are not proactive in supporting/evolving their own games/balance. No wonder blizzard is not #1 anymore, they operate by the philosophy of whether or not they are still getting money from us. Lets see how this works out in the long haul. Spot on except for one thing: the only care about balance in the pro scene. As long as the pro scene has around 50% in all MUs, they don't give a shit about the rest of the community. As you said, they already got our money. And it's not Blizzard, it's Activision since many years now. | ||
| ||
