What happened to Blizzard's effort to buff Mech?

On March 04 2017 06:18 Cyro wrote:
I recall reading that they didn't think that mech game styles were as fun to watch or play as fast harass-oriented styles

but from my POV terrans are never happy with the compositions available to them

On March 04 2017 07:06 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
Take it this way

Why would you ruin the game for bio terrans / protosses AND zergs while pleasing few players? It is kinda 3v1 so there needs to be a compromise.

Can't see any way to make the game enjoyable while playing vs mech while the other guy is making lunch and a coffe while massing tanks libs and ravens behind tons of turrents and not even moving out.

On March 04 2017 06:27 StarscreamG1 wrote:
What if I tell you mech is not bad, but bio that is stronger and that's why we see bio 95% of time? ^_^

On March 04 2017 07:25 Comedy wrote:
Mech in sc2 just isn't fun for anybody except for the guy with 50 apm only spamming defense and using it to transition to air death balls ( the worst thing that exists in sc2).

On March 04 2017 06:27 StarscreamG1 wrote:
What if I tell you mech is not bad, but bio that is stronger and that's why we see bio 95% of time? ^_^

On March 04 2017 09:04 blunderfulguy wrote:
I very much disagree with the thought that those updates are for "PR". The most vocal players are the ones who talk about and complain about and ask for mech to be "viable", and the SC2 team seems, to me, to throw that in to let those people know that they are both thinking about mech and that they see Terran players talking about it all the time. All. The. Time.

As far as I can tell, Factory-based strategies are pretty viable right now, the thing that isn't as viable, especially in tournaments, is the greedy or turtle-y mech, which the developers understand is bad for the game if it becomes too powerful. Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand what all the confusion is about.

On March 04 2017 09:39 GoloSC2 wrote:


imo it's even worse atm than before the beta
somebody tell those koreans

On March 04 2017 11:28 xTJx wrote:
Hey guys, i share your concerns. As a proud zerg i wanna go ling bane muta every single game, but sometimes protoss builds those op phoenixes that kill my mutas easily, so i'm here to ask Blizzard to remove them from the game ASAP, because LBM not viable.

On March 04 2017 22:12 Heyjoray wrote:
You cant buff mech unless you nerf bio. I wonder when terrans are gonna understand it

On March 04 2017 07:25 Comedy wrote:


yeah, this is how most people feel. Mech in sc2 just isn't fun for anybody except for the guy with 50 apm only spamming defense and using it to transition to air death balls ( the worst thing that exists in sc2).

But mech is still pretty good right now, there's definitely terrans that are able to make it work. Just not the bad players who really want an easier playstyle to be viable =/

On March 04 2017 22:15 Shield wrote:


Mech and bio work in BW. The thing is bio doesn't work vs protoss there. While BW is a different game, it shows that more than one play style is possible.

On March 04 2017 21:39 Railgan wrote:
Mech is definitly viable. What do you guys want? To build some tanks thors hellions and just autowin?

On March 04 2017 07:59 Aocowns wrote:
when am i getting my robo or psionic only protoss though, i really want diversity in compositions so i can play purely units from those buildings or type

On March 04 2017 11:54 Phaenoman wrote:

Actually you try to make this whole topic sound totally pathetic, but what you really do is remind everyone that Zergs and Protoss players have been asking for specific unit compositions themselves for a while now.
Zerg wanted LBM in TvZ to work again. After the Lib nerf more and more LBM is being played.
And since the WM has received the current shield damage, Zealot-Archon has been unplayable and Protoss players have been asking for it.
So your sarcasm is actually the truth, but hey, double standards are cool.

On March 05 2017 01:06 xTJx wrote:


The whole community agreed that turtle until 8 amor ultra was just a bad game design, and that liberators countering everything in the air was dumb, we never asked blizzard to remove every counter to ling bane muta, as you mechers do.

On March 04 2017 10:59 avilo wrote:


I would agree with that. And the koreans all already know, it's why they never go mech except to "surprise" someone. 99% games are bio, except the 1% where a pro does it to try to get a freewin because the opponent doesn't expect you in money games to do a strategy that's blatantly bad lol.

On March 05 2017 01:11 Lexender wrote:


The double standard on this community is outstanding.

On March 05 2017 01:21 Phaenoman wrote:

Mutas were hard countered by Libs quite badly and Zergs started asking for a nerf cuz that unit was basically useless. Do not even try to sell any fairytails here.

On March 05 2017 04:15 Lexender wrote:


Yes that A-move of siege tanks, the most A-move of units because you can totally attack move with them.

You just embody that double standard and I don't know if you are doing on purpose or what, but its not a funny meme.

On March 05 2017 04:17 xTJx wrote:


Zergs asked for 1 unit to have a damage nerf. Mechers ask for nerf on: Nydus, Viper, SH, Hydra, every air unit in the game and doomdrops.

Can you see just a bit of difference? We asked for a nerf so we could defend drops, mechers want to change the whole game just to sit there and build an unstoppable army.

On March 05 2017 01:07 Railgan wrote:

so like when I believe Innovation won a bo5/bo7 vs dark without buillding a starport?

On March 05 2017 03:55 Meta wrote:
You can really tell who did and did not play brood war in this thread. The people who advocate for mech buffs clearly did, and those who say it's boring or "turtle" clearly did not.

On March 05 2017 08:46 blunderfulguy wrote:

He hasn't lost a single game vs mech with SH because even though it's a known counter to that style of play, mech players don't make any efforts to do anything about them aside from complain on forums.

On March 05 2017 09:10 blunderfulguy wrote:

Hellions and Cyclones aren't Mechanical units? TIL. Thanks for letting me know.

On March 05 2017 04:46 Phaenoman wrote:

I can understand the Viper. And you can feel the cloud nerf influence.
But neither the hydra nor the Nydus has been an issue. Almost noone is using nydus. What are you talking about?
The SH is a complete design failure since it was introduced. It has not become any better.
Also now suddenly you do say that Zergs asked for a nerf to make a unit viable. What are you gonna tell me next?

On March 05 2017 09:19 avilo wrote:


100% irrelevant units if the Zerg knows what the swarmhost is.

On March 05 2017 09:22 Charoisaur wrote:

From reading through forums Zerg players are asking for nerfs of: Marines, widow mines, medivacs, reapers, ravens and liberators.

On March 05 2017 09:41 xTJx wrote:


So, this discussion starded saying that because Blizzard nerfed some terran units to make a protoss unit comp and mutas viable, the same should be done to make mech "viable". But then you say you don't want none of the nerfs i mentioned, so what do you want?

On March 05 2017 13:42 shadymmj wrote:
the problem here is that many people think mech = turtle therefore mech bad

what we are really trying to figure out is how to make mech a viable alternative playstyle that doesnt involve camping in your base for 30 mins

On March 04 2017 06:10 IMplying wrote:
Back in the introduction of the re-design DK said "For Terran, our primary focus is on improving the viability of Factory unit armies—popularly known as ‘Mech’ compositions.". They even gave the Tempest an ability to counter Mech, which suggested that they thought Mech was going to be a thing in TvP.

However nothing ever came out of this, they never tried any Mech changes after the initial patch, which obviously wasn't enough. Except for a few examples you never see Mech at the top level.

On March 05 2017 15:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Every Terran game I watch has units from all three buildings.

Why would Blizz want to make people stop using 2/3 of their production options?

On March 05 2017 09:59 blunderfulguy wrote:
If there's still any question about the viability of mech play in the current state of LotV, I would like to present a glorious video from a Terran player by the name of Polt, with fantastically entertaining and intelligent commentary, which he played on the Korean ladder at the Grand Master (90) level and features a spectacular amount of Mechanical units, notably Hellions and Siege Tanks, a transition into Battlecruisers, as well as a large number of Swarm Hosts from his opponent throughout:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JEvBnzGPFY

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!

On March 05 2017 09:30 blunderfulguy wrote:

Irrelevant units? We are talking about Mechanical units, and SH don't hard counter Hellions and Cyclones, especially in the early-mid game, they hard counter a turtling Terran player relying on Planetary Fortresses and Siege Tanks in the mid-late game who also doesn't use their army to attack into a Zerg player and get serious damage done.

On March 04 2017 06:27 StarscreamG1 wrote:
What if I tell you mech is not bad, but bio that is stronger and that's why we see bio 95% of time? ^_^

On March 05 2017 09:59 blunderfulguy wrote:
If there's still any question about the viability of mech play in the current state of LotV, I would like to present a glorious video from a Terran player by the name of Polt, with fantastically entertaining and intelligent commentary, which he played on the Korean ladder at the Grand Master (90) level and features a spectacular amount of Mechanical units, notably Hellions and Siege Tanks, a transition into Battlecruisers, as well as a large number of Swarm Hosts from his opponent throughout:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JEvBnzGPFY

On March 05 2017 22:25 petro1987 wrote:
I've given up on Blizzard ever making mech (I'm talking about mech in the sense of BW, not mass ravens or something similar btw) viable. Let's face it, at this point, the game is almost driven on community lobby. There is no clear vision from the dev team. If Zerg and Protoss players don't want mech to be viable (which seems to be the case), it won't be viable. It doesn't matter how many times you hear from Blizzard that they want to make mech viable. For how long have they been saying this? 4 years? More? The bottomline line is most Zerg and Protoss dislike playing vs mech and they will strongly lobby against it. Hell, I've read in this thread that mech is actually viable now, because avilo is GM and polt has beaten a random player in the ladder. What kind of definition of viability is that? Just look at IEM. How many mech games have you seen? How come a strategy is viable if nobody even uses it. That's some kind of Orwellian redefinition going on.

On March 06 2017 02:22 Jealous wrote:

So you're talking about mech in the sense of BW, where besides a handful of early-game pushes that have at most 12 marines but more often 4-6 vs. Protoss and one mid-game semi-cheese, factory units are the only ones you build?

Or are you talking about the mech that starts after the first marine in TvT, and doesn't relent until late game air mass?

Or is it the mech that has become a popular late-game tool for Terrans vs. Zerg, and has been a strandard transition for years since the wane of SK Terran?

If you want mech in SC2 to be like it was in BW, you're pretty much asking for mech to become the requirement in two match-ups and the preferred option in the late game of the third. Huh, almost sounds like Bio in SC2 now that you think about it. So you want to force the Terran player pool into the Fourth Reich of Mech, just as the rest of the player base had so unfairly chained you to Bio play?

Or is it that you want to make mech as good as it is in BW without making bio any worse? That sounds reasonable!

Tune in next time when we address the true meaning of Orwellian and its application to concepts that didn't make any sense even prior to its introduction!

On March 05 2017 13:53 stuchiu wrote:
This was one of those things I was hoping would be forgotten. Mech as a viewer sucks.

On March 06 2017 03:13 avilo wrote:


I mean maybe you personally dislike it...but when mech was almost as viable as bio...the game had about 100x the viewers it currently does now.

I mean for example, this IEM...games are great sure but...

As a viewer i can tell you every single game opening build and flow of the game without having watched the games. I know 100% every Terran will open with a raven/cyclone expo into marine tank off 3 rax into a doom drop. Every. Single. Game.

Isn't it part of spectator value for the games to be unpredictable and not know 100% what will happen every single game before it starts?

When strategies are limited or players are forced to play one way, it detracts from the spectator value of the game as a whole.

Terran in LOTV is basically 100% limited to bio for tourney play, with like the odd mech game that a pro will try and throw in every now and then because mech is unviable to the point no one even practices vs it xD

Some of the most exciting/viewership games were mech versus swarmhost games. And i bet everyone here will agree that swarmhosts were and are a ridiculous unit, as are mass ravens.

Yet those games drew a huge viewership because they were often macro games of epic proportions and not just making marines and throwing medivacs to random points on the map. They were more strategic games.

SC2 definitely deserves more strategic games, instead of the current direction LOTV took which is speed/build order memorization.

On March 06 2017 03:14 Lexender wrote:


Really I just saw a bunch of games where the terran made nothing out of the factory and just floated it around for scouting.

In reality its not we ask for much, just revert SH buff from 3.8, then take it from there. Considering hydras and corruptors are getting buffed after all.

Also if anything I wish they tryied to push mech in TvP, considering again that they are nerfing WM, very important units for TvP mech.

On March 07 2017 03:15 ruypture wrote:


Let's be realistic here. Mech has nothing to do with the viewership of SC2.

Match-fixing, KeSPA dissolution, inconsistent WCS rules and schedules, player retirements, tournament/organization dissolution, other games, have things to do with viewership.

On March 07 2017 02:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:


I saw a game where liberators, siege tanks, marines, medivacs, widow mines, and maruaders were used in every single matchup for both early games and late game compositions.

I did not see one time where TY or Innovation or any of those players were floating Factories to... I guess spot for Nukes? wtf are you even talking about?

On March 07 2017 03:41 reneg wrote:


I mean, there's that, and the fact that you can pretty much pick any time in SC2's past and say "look, it had more viewers then."

I mean, viewership has been declining ever since 2011/2012, why would we be surprised that older tournaments had better viewership?



On this topic, people tend to put on extremely selective glasses - and have this weird thought that if you build with anything other than a factory, then it's not 'true mech.'

Build an opening reaper? Not real mech.

Build a medivac and transport some marines? Not real mech.

Have marines at all? Not real mech.

I don't understand why people would hamstring themselves in such a way as to not use 2/3 of their tech tree, because they feel like they're carrying some torch for a poorly defined nebulous concept.

You don't see Protoss running around saying they want to be able to have a viable build that has only robo units. that would be insane.

And yet, here we are.

On March 07 2017 04:37 Psychobabas wrote:


The point is that Blizzard said that they want to buff mech play. Mech is arguably worse now than it was in HotS, especially in TvZ. They are not sticking to their guns.

On March 07 2017 04:50 Spyridon wrote:


Without a vision of a place they want to bring SC2 in the future, there's absolutely no reason to stick to their guns.

They no longer have a plan for SC2. At this point it's using minimal resources to keep PR going. That's all this is, and has been, since LotV release.

Hence the promises of doing big changes, doing community updates, and using community feedback as a reason for not doing anything.

On March 04 2017 06:27 StarscreamG1 wrote:
What if I tell you mech is not bad, but bio that is stronger and that's why we see bio 95% of time? ^_^

On March 05 2017 18:58 r1flEx wrote:
I don't play this game anymore. but I tried mech so many times and it's just undoable with thors. mobility gets killed by them. should've been replaced by goliaths or something similar

On March 07 2017 05:15 JackONeill wrote:


"But but but why would you say that??? They're doing bold and interesting design choices by buffing the corruptor speed !"

Blizz has pulled ressources from the multi from the LOTV release, because it's much more profitable to have people pay for skins and 3 hours long 15$ mission packs.
IEM katowice was nice though. Poland really loves starcraft, and maybe in the future blizz will finally start shaking multi up to remove pain points and idiotic designs plaguing the game.

Mech relies on so much gimmicks now that it'd take a lot of "work" from blizz to solve the problematic stuff. So apparently they're not inclined to at least mention the issue right now, we can only hope that they will in the future.

On March 07 2017 06:35 Spyridon wrote:


At this point it is very clear the multiplayer issues will not be solved. Sad to say, but it's true. Look at the work they have done since LotV. It's clear they will never make changes nearly large enough to fix anything.

Their "design update" they promised post-LotV? Announced last summer as a balance patch, where the majority of features was reverted. And it was nothing but a balance patch anyway. No actual "design" changes.

Blizzard does not do this idle. Based on their activity in the past, this is a sign they are relying on another RTS for multiplayer purposes. Likely the BW remaster, but we won't know for sure until any announcements.

Some people doubt it when I say this, but time will tell. Blizzard's actions do not make sense otherwise. Keeping players on the hook, continuing PR, but not delivering, and letting their game decline without stepping in and taking extreme measures to keep things on track...? This is what Blizzard does when preparing for an announcement, and it is the only time that Blizzard ever lets their products decline without drastic measures.

I would put money on Blizzcon this year being the announcement.

On March 07 2017 06:35 Spyridon wrote:
Blizzard does not do this idle. Based on their activity in the past, this is a sign they are relying on another RTS for multiplayer purposes. Likely the BW remaster, but we won't know for sure until any announcements.

Some people doubt it when I say this, but time will tell. Blizzard's actions do not make sense otherwise. Keeping players on the hook, continuing PR, but not delivering, and letting their game decline without stepping in and taking extreme measures to keep things on track...? This is what Blizzard does when preparing for an announcement, and it is the only time that Blizzard ever lets their products decline without drastic measures.

I would put money on Blizzcon this year being the announcement.

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!

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."

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.

On March 07 2017 06:51 ihatevideogames wrote:


Replace every 'Blizzard' in your post with 'Activision' and everything starts to make more sense.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On March 08 2017 23:05 ihatevideogames wrote:



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.

On March 08 2017 23:36 JulDraGoN wrote:


Well, if you read through most balance threads on TL you will see that the vast majority of the user base, me included, wants the game to be balanced around top tier level play. Not what is good for the majority (is it still gold league that is the average skill?).
It is hard to make a casual friendly and easy for all kind of game that is still competitive and balanced at the top.

You see Blizzard is taking that approach to their new game Overwatch. This has lead to a very stale meta where some compositions and heroes are just too good to not be played which means a predictable and not so interesting pro scene in my opinion. The main reason is that low to mid tier players (the majority) are complaining about certain things being too hard to deal with. So the "easy" stuff in the low and mid tier are now way too good in the upper tiers.
It is a fine line to walk.

So I personally think it is good that balance is focused at the top and then trickles down to the masses. Most of the time the so called "balance issues" are not the case why people are struggling or losing. The old phrase "macro better" is a classic for a reason.

On March 09 2017 01:12 ReachTheSky wrote:


Lets be honest. Macro games are BORING AS SHIT TO WATCH. Tuning into a broadcast where there is no action for the first 8-12 minutes of a game is not exciting to watch. This is one reason why early WOL had more success compared to HOTS/LOTV. In early WOL, you had exciting strategies, not just 2-3 base maxes or no action for the first 10 minutes of a game. Blizzard needs to really think about this when making balance changes moving forward. The whole mentality "I need to be able to 2-3 base macro/max out while defending EVERYTHING needs to go". It shouldn't even be viable. You simply shouldn't be able to defend offensive strategies with static expansion openings. Defenders advantage is too strong in this game. Mitigate this by making units move faster or by shrinking maps. Make sc2 exciting to watch again. Back to whats on topic though, Blizzard doesn't care about mech. Infact, from an abstract standpoint, turtle mech is the same as bio-expand openings, THERE IS LITERALLY NOTHING HAPPENING FOR THE FIRST 8-10 MINUTES. Its all the same IMO. Blizzard doesn't care though.

On March 09 2017 01:31 VHbb wrote:



It's hard to tell what game you have been watching
Games are much more fast than in HotS (if it's good or bad, I'm not commenting )

On March 09 2017 01:36 reneg wrote:


They do feel much faster, though I think part of that is because Blizz basically said, 'let's skip the first five minutes of each game' and went ahead and plopped everyone a stone's throw from mid-game

On March 09 2017 08:19 FoxDog wrote:
>>>>-- All they have to do is buff the thor anti air so it counters carriers, voidrays/tempest flying locust(sh), vipers and broodlords

avilo devised a testmap with an ability he calls hyperballistic missile

with no nerfs, you could have independent factory only tech viable overnight and it wouldnt be overpowered.

Skip to 1:15 for thor vs carrier test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKozzNavUHQ

On March 09 2017 08:26 Superbanana wrote:
Same old shitty debate with no progress whatsoever.
Its pointless to discuss, every single time everyone repeats the same thing. They give the same reasons why mech should be buffed or not. Even small details are repeated over and over.

It really feels like a terrible political debate.
I refuse to repeat yet again the same stuff to explain what is wrong.
So i'll just state it as a fact. 75% of this thread is full of shit, the rest is ignored.

On March 08 2017 23:05 ihatevideogames wrote:



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.

On March 09 2017 08:30 avilo wrote:

Blizzard in the last 4-5 community updates still has refused to even acknowledge swarmhosts are broken as fuck versus mech. That is purposeful on their part. They honestly don't give a fuck anymore, most people should know this. You are right that their updates are literally just PR.

On March 09 2017 08:30 avilo wrote:


The sad thing is how long ago i came up with that design/balance change, showed that it 100% fixed mech anti-air, and blizzard probably saw it and completely ignored it.

It was after that point i basically gave up all hope of "constructive debate" or rather realized that blizzard does not care for community input and will simply make their own changes. And we've seen all those changes have continuously made the game more 1 dimensional for bio play and made mech worse even after the "mech patch" aka the "swarmhost patch."

It's really clear they are not interested in anyone advising them that is knowledgeable about mech. I am not saying that because i am salty and no one at this point can say "they just don't listen to u avilo."

Here's a list of mech Terrans that tried to give feedback to blizzard about similar issues that i did, that blizzard completely ignored for 5+ yrs:

strekok, goody, htomario, ruff, lillekenan, morrow, myself...probably missing many people.

All of these people made posts on forums, talked about it in videos or in interviews, or on their streams, reddit, TL, etc.

Blizzard has continuously and purposely ignored the advice of every knowledgeable mech person in the community. Even after the big community ladder MOD + test map came out myself and others gave feedback that swarmhosts were ridiculously broken on that map, as well as carriers. They decided to ignore it so the last 3-4 months since the "mech patch" have all been mass swarmhost + raven games on ladder.

At this point, no $$$$$$ = blizzard no listen like someone else in the thread earlier said. Their lead balance dev is content to let the game be 100% bio play and have no strategic diversity.

It's really frustrating, but it's nice that there's still people left in the community that care about this game and have passion to call blizzard out on how bullshit they are after all these years for game balance. This thread can hopefully get mech back on blizzard's radar ? (it won't).



Exactly. The fact they refuse to fix mech and make mech worse patch after patch for years shows they do not care. They will never listen to the community about this, and it is in fact the same debate and posts over and over again year after year.

Blizzard in the last 4-5 community updates still has refused to even acknowledge swarmhosts are broken as fuck versus mech. That is purposeful on their part. They honestly don't give a fuck anymore, most people should know this. You are right that their updates are literally just PR.

On March 09 2017 01:12 ReachTheSky wrote:


Lets be honest. Macro games are BORING AS SHIT TO WATCH. Tuning into a broadcast where there is no action for the first 8-12 minutes of a game is not exciting to watch. This is one reason why early WOL had more success compared to HOTS/LOTV. In early WOL, you had exciting strategies, not just 2-3 base maxes or no action for the first 10 minutes of a game. Blizzard needs to really think about this when making balance changes moving forward. The whole mentality "I need to be able to 2-3 base macro/max out while defending EVERYTHING needs to go". It shouldn't even be viable. You simply shouldn't be able to defend offensive strategies with static expansion openings. Defenders advantage is too strong in this game. Mitigate this by making units move faster or by shrinking maps. Make sc2 exciting to watch again. Back to whats on topic though, Blizzard doesn't care about mech. Infact, from an abstract standpoint, turtle mech is the same as bio-expand openings, THERE IS LITERALLY NOTHING HAPPENING FOR THE FIRST 8-10 MINUTES. Its all the same IMO. Blizzard doesn't care though.

On March 09 2017 09:35 Morbidius wrote:

I have never seen so much stupidity in one post. This has got to be a troll, i refuse to believe otherwise.

On March 09 2017 11:17 jalstar wrote:



The reason early WoL was successful is that CS was temporarily dead and MOBA esports didn't have much money behind it. It had nothing to do with the quality of the game, it was the only esport with lots of money and active developer support at the time.

On March 10 2017 09:21 StraKo wrote:
I just hope that blizzard will some day focus on making more styles viable. The game currently really lacks diversity.

On March 13 2017 21:29 Railgan wrote:
Here I am watching Gumiho destroy yet another Zerg with Hellbat Tank Thor Viking. I open Teamliquid and people complain that Mech is not viable. Maybe the problem isn't mech but that you guys are too bad?