EPT4.7.0 Patch Notes & Final Balance Changes - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
VamosSC
21 Posts
| ||
|
seemsgood
5527 Posts
On December 14 2018 00:01 insitelol wrote: You tend to express yourself in a more "acceptable" form for sure (no sarcasm), but the truth is we both got a warning =). The thing is this mech rant just seems so pathetic to me, i can't really force myself to take it seriously anymore. Just trying to compromise mech lobbists position by trolling them (without decent success i admit it). I guess the only option left for us (sane people) is to completely ignore them. Which is hard for a community as a whole. p.s. I know i could get a ban for this, but for the sake of just being consistent, i was not the ONE who started that (loling at mechers). Why did everyone else get away with that with no warining? Thank you. p.p.s. just noticed that SHODAN actually got the message! Kudos mate. That's exactly what i wanted. Project avilo's image to peoples heads when they hear "mech". We have two life before getting ban. U don't need to worry about it just abuse that rule like me | ||
|
seemsgood
5527 Posts
On December 14 2018 04:50 VamosSC wrote: From my perspective, I'd be okay with tweaking a few things (for example switching Thors with Goliaths) just to make things more fun from a design perspective. But as a public service announcement to Mech lobbyists, when Protoss or Zerg players hear "make mech more viable", all we really are hearing is "buff the shit out of terran by giving an already very strong race more options". You need to realize that the more solid options that are given to any race, the stronger they will automatically be because they will have the ability to vary play styles more and be unpredictable. Now thats not necessarily a bad thing (all races should have some variability). However, I personally feel that Terran has many solid options already. I completely disagree with the argument that Terran is forced to only do the same thing every game. If you think Terran has limited options you are IMO just very uncreative. Switching thors ain't a tweak at all. Thor is my favorite unit and it's sad that people gave up on it but I think this unit can still be fixed. The problem is thors aren't too scary in a straight up fight but also don't have enough mobility which is quite lame since they do have fire power but thier derpy animations are hindering them not because of air toss or other stuff I think blizzard should really consider thor as a pure anti air unit and trash the double mjolnirs because terran don't need them for ground support anymore. They might do worse against more ground enemies but at least I won't see those lame ass animations again | ||
|
VamosSC
21 Posts
On December 14 2018 06:33 seemsgood wrote: Switching thors ain't a tweak at all. Thor is my favorite unit and it's sad that people gave up on it but I think this unit can still be fixed. The problem is thors aren't too scary in a straight up fight but also don't have enough mobility which is quite lame since they do have fire power but thier derpy animations are hindering them not because of air toss or other stuff I think blizzard should really consider thor as a pure anti air unit and trash the double mjolnirs because terran don't need them for ground support anymore. They might do worse against more ground enemies but at least I won't see those lame ass animations again Well I agree with you and don't see the point of changing Thors, I was more saying that to appease people that want that change. I personally think Thors are fine. | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1144 Posts
On December 14 2018 04:50 VamosSC wrote: From my perspective, I'd be okay with tweaking a few things (for example switching Thors with Goliaths) just to make things more fun from a design perspective. But as a public service announcement to Mech lobbyists, when Protoss or Zerg players hear "make mech more viable", all we really are hearing is "buff the shit out of terran by giving an already very strong race more options". You need to realize that the more solid options that are given to any race, the stronger they will automatically be because they will have the ability to vary play styles more and be unpredictable. Now thats not necessarily a bad thing (all races should have some variability). However, I personally feel that Terran has many solid options already. I completely disagree with the argument that Terran is forced to only do the same thing every game. If you think Terran has limited options you are IMO just very uncreative. I agree with you on this much: T has a choice of 2 strong play-styles vZ: bio and speed-mech. within those 2 play-styles, T has a broad selection of strong openers vZ: harass, timing pushes, all-ins and greed. no matter how T opens vZ, the branches will always converge into 2 predictable unit compositions: BIO core composition = marines, marauders, medivacs mid-game support unit = choice of tanks or widow mines late-game special units = liberators and ghosts in the late-game. MECH: core composition = hellion, cyclone mid-game support unit = choice of banshees or widow mines late-game special units = tanks to counter infestors. hellbats, thors and vikings to counter brood lords the question is, which of those things makes T strong? is it the choice of 2 play-styles? or is it the many branches of harass options, timing pushes, all-ins and greedy plays which lead to those core compositions? I strongly disagree with the notion that having 2 possible play-styles - bio and mech - makes T unpredictable. it is easy to scout whether terran is going bio of mech. it is not so easy to scout if T made a 3rd CC, finished cloak, built an armory, yadayadayada. there is no confusion about what units Z should be making mid/late-game in response to T. in fact, T is the most predictable race in terms of core compositions. once T has selected bio, he is locked into bio for the rest of the game. once T has selected mech, same story. mech-to-bio transitions are niche to HotS-era proleague. as far as I can see, nobody in this thread is calling for T to have a wider range of harass options, tricky openers or deceptive plays vZ. nobody is calling for T to have powerful tech-switches, either. some thoughts on mech vZ post-patch... lock-on cyclones have been elevated to a core unit vZ. they now have excellent synergy with hellions, widow mines and banshees, thanks to their similar movement speeds and distinct roles. they are a direct answer to swarm hosts. pre-patch mech vZ had degraded to a numbers game involving unmicroable unit interactions. tornado blaster cyclones could not shoot while moving, so were unable to chase down swarm hosts or shuffle vs ravagers. the only option for mech was to turtle with hellbats, tanks and thors, using medivac pick-ups to keep expensive units alive, while you gear up for one big punch, ideally as 2-2 hits. lock-on cyclones have completely done away with this turtle style. cyclones need hellions, hellions need cyclones, and both need widow mines in certain situations. the improved synergy of these units, used in the speedy "battle mech" style, does not aggregate with tanks. why? because tanks are sitting ducks without hellbats (in hellbat mode) and cyclones are sitting ducks without hellions (in hellion mode). this is what avilo is so pissy about. he wants tanks to be the be-all and end-all. if he was sincerely playing the (mostly) tankless battle-mech style, he would be laughing at swarm hosts. the only reason for mech terrans to build tanks post-patch vZ is when lurkers or infestors are on the field. on 3 bases, you might want 2-3 tanks used defensively to secure bases, but that's it! avilo wants tanks to be the answer to EVERY zerg ground unit. I'm happy for tank-based styles to be completely unviable at the highest level of mech vZ - and that's coming from someone who's played mech vZ since WoL! speed-mech afforded by lock-on cyclones is a much better fit with the design philosophy of sc2: intense, cut-throat, fast-paced action all over the map. I completely understand your frustations about mech lobbyists. it's true... avilo and co. just want terran to be OP. I'm even more angry at them than you are! mech lobbyists kept their mouths shut when the cyclone was gutted at the end of 2016. they didn't care that such a unique factory unit had been degraded to a 1-A mech marine, so long as it scored them some easy wins. the way I see it, they robbed me of a fun style vZ for 2 years. I relentlessly argued for lock-on to be reinstated in literally every balance thread since 2016. you're welcome, protoss players! now pay up cuz you owe me exactly 1 goliath  how do you feel about reasonable mech lobbyists who want terran to have a non-infantry play-style available vP, one that is fun to play and fun for you to play against? and which does not upset the balance of TvZ? would you be on-board with that? or am I just uncreative? | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2655 Posts
On December 11 2018 07:18 deacon.frost wrote: Well I agree, but then don't say it's viable when the biggest whines in this thread is TvP mech. It's not FULLY viable. If the mech should becoma fully viable(PvT included), then it would require bio nerf. IMO That was my point Both are viable in TvZ and didn't need nerfs. | ||
|
showstealer1829
Australia3123 Posts
On December 14 2018 04:54 VamosSC wrote: Also, Avilo is a very solid player (compared to most non-pros) , but he has always chosen to play HIS play style, regardless of whether it is the most viable/effective play style. If you choose to do that, you can't complain when it doesn't always work out. - Avilo - Solid player These two things are mutually exclusive. Pick one | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1144 Posts
On December 14 2018 14:10 showstealer1829 wrote: - Avilo - Solid player These two things are mutually exclusive. Pick one he reached wcs ro32 a few times. GM mechanics, platinum game sense and potato league personality | ||
|
VamosSC
21 Posts
On December 14 2018 13:11 SHODAN wrote: I agree with you on this much: T has a choice of 2 strong play-styles vZ: bio and speed-mech. within those 2 play-styles, T has a broad selection of strong openers vZ: harass, timing pushes, all-ins and greed. no matter how T opens vZ, the branches will always converge into 2 predictable unit compositions: BIO core composition = marines, marauders, medivacs mid-game support unit = choice of tanks or widow mines late-game special units = liberators and ghosts in the late-game. MECH: core composition = hellion, cyclone mid-game support unit = choice of banshees or widow mines late-game special units = tanks to counter infestors. hellbats, thors and vikings to counter brood lords the question is, which of those things makes T strong? is it the choice of 2 play-styles? or is it the many branches of harass options, timing pushes, all-ins and greedy plays which lead to those core compositions? I strongly disagree with the notion that having 2 possible play-styles - bio and mech - makes T unpredictable. it is easy to scout whether terran is going bio of mech. it is not so easy to scout if T made a 3rd CC, finished cloak, built an armory, yadayadayada. there is no confusion about what units Z should be making mid/late-game in response to T. in fact, T is the most predictable race in terms of core compositions. once T has selected bio, he is locked into bio for the rest of the game. once T has selected mech, same story. mech-to-bio transitions are niche to HotS-era proleague. as far as I can see, nobody in this thread is calling for T to have a wider range of harass options, tricky openers or deceptive plays vZ. nobody is calling for T to have powerful tech-switches, either. some thoughts on mech vZ post-patch... lock-on cyclones have been elevated to a core unit vZ. they now have excellent synergy with hellions, widow mines and banshees, thanks to their similar movement speeds and distinct roles. they are a direct answer to swarm hosts. pre-patch mech vZ had degraded to a numbers game involving unmicroable unit interactions. tornado blaster cyclones could not shoot while moving, so were unable to chase down swarm hosts or shuffle vs ravagers. the only option for mech was to turtle with hellbats, tanks and thors, using medivac pick-ups to keep expensive units alive, while you gear up for one big punch, ideally as 2-2 hits. lock-on cyclones have completely done away with this turtle style. cyclones need hellions, hellions need cyclones, and both need widow mines in certain situations. the improved synergy of these units, used in the speedy "battle mech" style, does not aggregate with tanks. why? because tanks are sitting ducks without hellbats (in hellbat mode) and cyclones are sitting ducks without hellions (in hellion mode). this is what avilo is so pissy about. he wants tanks to be the be-all and end-all. if he was sincerely playing the (mostly) tankless battle-mech style, he would be laughing at swarm hosts. the only reason for mech terrans to build tanks post-patch vZ is when lurkers or infestors are on the field. on 3 bases, you might want 2-3 tanks used defensively to secure bases, but that's it! avilo wants tanks to be the answer to EVERY zerg ground unit. I'm happy for tank-based styles to be completely unviable at the highest level of mech vZ - and that's coming from someone who's played mech vZ since WoL! speed-mech afforded by lock-on cyclones is a much better fit with the design philosophy of sc2: intense, cut-throat, fast-paced action all over the map. I completely understand your frustations about mech lobbyists. it's true... avilo and co. just want terran to be OP. I'm even more angry at them than you are! mech lobbyists kept their mouths shut when the cyclone was gutted at the end of 2016. they didn't care that such a unique factory unit had been degraded to a 1-A mech marine, so long as it scored them some easy wins. the way I see it, they robbed me of a fun style vZ for 2 years. I relentlessly argued for lock-on to be reinstated in literally every balance thread since 2016. you're welcome, protoss players! now pay up cuz you owe me exactly 1 goliath how do you feel about reasonable mech lobbyists who want terran to have a non-infantry play-style available vP, one that is fun to play and fun for you to play against? and which does not upset the balance of TvZ? would you be on-board with that? or am I just uncreative? I generally support reasonable mech lobbyists, I do agree that variation in play styles across races makes the game more fun. | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
On December 14 2018 13:11 SHODAN wrote: I agree with you on this much: T has a choice of 2 strong play-styles vZ: bio and speed-mech. within those 2 play-styles, T has a broad selection of strong openers vZ: harass, timing pushes, all-ins and greed. no matter how T opens vZ, the branches will always converge into 2 predictable unit compositions: BIO core composition = marines, marauders, medivacs mid-game support unit = choice of tanks or widow mines late-game special units = liberators and ghosts in the late-game. MECH: core composition = hellion, cyclone mid-game support unit = choice of banshees or widow mines late-game special units = tanks to counter infestors. hellbats, thors and vikings to counter brood lords the question is, which of those things makes T strong? is it the choice of 2 play-styles? or is it the many branches of harass options, timing pushes, all-ins and greedy plays which lead to those core compositions? I strongly disagree with the notion that having 2 possible play-styles - bio and mech - makes T unpredictable. it is easy to scout whether terran is going bio of mech. it is not so easy to scout if T made a 3rd CC, finished cloak, built an armory, yadayadayada. there is no confusion about what units Z should be making mid/late-game in response to T. in fact, T is the most predictable race in terms of core compositions. once T has selected bio, he is locked into bio for the rest of the game. once T has selected mech, same story. mech-to-bio transitions are niche to HotS-era proleague. as far as I can see, nobody in this thread is calling for T to have a wider range of harass options, tricky openers or deceptive plays vZ. nobody is calling for T to have powerful tech-switches, either. some thoughts on mech vZ post-patch... lock-on cyclones have been elevated to a core unit vZ. they now have excellent synergy with hellions, widow mines and banshees, thanks to their similar movement speeds and distinct roles. they are a direct answer to swarm hosts. pre-patch mech vZ had degraded to a numbers game involving unmicroable unit interactions. tornado blaster cyclones could not shoot while moving, so were unable to chase down swarm hosts or shuffle vs ravagers. the only option for mech was to turtle with hellbats, tanks and thors, using medivac pick-ups to keep expensive units alive, while you gear up for one big punch, ideally as 2-2 hits. lock-on cyclones have completely done away with this turtle style. cyclones need hellions, hellions need cyclones, and both need widow mines in certain situations. the improved synergy of these units, used in the speedy "battle mech" style, does not aggregate with tanks. why? because tanks are sitting ducks without hellbats (in hellbat mode) and cyclones are sitting ducks without hellions (in hellion mode). this is what avilo is so pissy about. he wants tanks to be the be-all and end-all. if he was sincerely playing the (mostly) tankless battle-mech style, he would be laughing at swarm hosts. the only reason for mech terrans to build tanks post-patch vZ is when lurkers or infestors are on the field. on 3 bases, you might want 2-3 tanks used defensively to secure bases, but that's it! avilo wants tanks to be the answer to EVERY zerg ground unit. I'm happy for tank-based styles to be completely unviable at the highest level of mech vZ - and that's coming from someone who's played mech vZ since WoL! speed-mech afforded by lock-on cyclones is a much better fit with the design philosophy of sc2: intense, cut-throat, fast-paced action all over the map. I completely understand your frustations about mech lobbyists. it's true... avilo and co. just want terran to be OP. I'm even more angry at them than you are! mech lobbyists kept their mouths shut when the cyclone was gutted at the end of 2016. they didn't care that such a unique factory unit had been degraded to a 1-A mech marine, so long as it scored them some easy wins. the way I see it, they robbed me of a fun style vZ for 2 years. I relentlessly argued for lock-on to be reinstated in literally every balance thread since 2016. you're welcome, protoss players! now pay up cuz you owe me exactly 1 goliath how do you feel about reasonable mech lobbyists who want terran to have a non-infantry play-style available vP, one that is fun to play and fun for you to play against? and which does not upset the balance of TvZ? would you be on-board with that? or am I just uncreative? You might be being uncreative What I don't think Terran players understand is how powerful their infantry is. So when "reasonable" mech lobbyists demand that Terran have a non-infantry option for everything, they are ignoring the gifts blizzard gave to Terran in the form of their ridiculously efficient infantry units that have the potential to punch way above their weight in supply. Terran can't have everything. They already have so much. Their units are all ranged, pound-for-pound very powerful, extremely scalable, synergize well with each other. and Blizzard is supposed to just buff mech, which is already extremely efficient on paper and viable in practice, because spoiled Terran want to be able to fight everything with it? Do you see protoss players asking for pure gateway armies or pure robo armies (lol) to be viable? or to nerf lurkers because lurker backbone in the army = dead protoss ground armies? | ||
|
seemsgood
5527 Posts
On December 18 2018 22:24 BerserkSword wrote: You might be being uncreative What I don't think Terran players understand is how powerful their infantry is. So when "reasonable" mech lobbyists demand that Terran have a non-infantry option for everything, they are ignoring the gifts blizzard gave to Terran in the form of their ridiculously efficient infantry units that have the potential to punch way above their weight in supply. Terran can't have everything. They already have so much. Their units are all ranged, pound-for-pound very powerful, extremely scalable, synergize well with each other. and Blizzard is supposed to just buff mech, which is already extremely efficient on paper and viable in practice, because spoiled Terran want to be able to fight everything with it? Do you see protoss players asking for pure gateway armies or pure robo armies (lol) to be viable? or to nerf lurkers because lurker backbone in the army = dead protoss ground armies? What year is it?? Bio nowadays is relying on the freedom circles and tanks more than ever Previous patch was the weakest patch for MMM and all mech s buffs clearly didn't help terran bios in late game at all MMM can only trade even(I don't even think it can trade even lol) with p or z armies in mid game is not the MMM I used to know I am sure as shit bios in lotv was balanced by one unit named liberator and the dev team wanted to get rid of that | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
On December 18 2018 22:50 seemsgood wrote: What year is it?? Bio nowadays is relying on the freedom circles and tanks more than ever Previous patch was the weakest patch for MMM and all mech s buffs clearly didn't help terran bios in late game at all MMM can only trade even(I don't even think it can trade even lol) with p or z armies in mid game is not the MMM I used to know I am sure as shit bios in lotv was balanced by one unit named liberator and the dev team wanted to get rid of that I'm not saying that MMM alone can get a Terran through an entire match (and I dont think it should be able to either). Same way gateway units often need heavy support. in fact without HT/distruptor, both of which are relatively unreliable as good micro and tactics can render them ineffective, they struggle to trade evenly with many compositions. and just lol @ MMM not being able to trade. stimmed bio destroys everything protoss has unless disruptor (got nerfed vs terran) or HT and at that point you just use superior mobility of your MMM to attack multiple sites as well as good micro to bait disruptor and HT abilities but anyway I'm talking about Terran players who want to just ignore such a strong component of their race and think that it's fair that another component of their race (factory armies) be viable against literally everything. I dont get this whole "mech terran" mindset. Ts arent mech players...they are terran players. | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1144 Posts
On December 18 2018 23:31 BerserkSword wrote: ... god forbid that terran is able to win a game vP using only the factory and starport... I mean, come on! those 2 tech trees only account for 75% of terran's entire unit ensemble. god forbid that terran is able to win a game vP without marines and marauders | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 19 2018 02:36 SHODAN wrote: god forbid that terran is able to win a game vP using only the factory and starport... I mean, come on! those 2 tech trees only account for 75% of terran's entire unit ensemble. god forbid that terran is able to win a game vP without marines and marauders Let's apply this logic on Zerg and Protoss, shall we? How about Protoss being able to win without AoE units? AoE units are nowhere near 25 % of their arsenal, right? Show me how you win a lategame without any splash damage as Protoss. How about Zerg being able to win without Hive units. It's fine. WHo needs broodlords, ultralisks or vipers  Or how about Protoss being able to win without gateway units? How about Zerg being able to win without the "hatchery" units? (roach/zergling/baneling and I will still give them the queen )Oh noez, it doesn't work. | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2655 Posts
On December 19 2018 02:50 deacon.frost wrote: Let's apply this logic on Zerg and Protoss, shall we? How about Protoss being able to win without AoE units? AoE units are nowhere near 25 % of their arsenal, right? Show me how you win a lategame without any splash damage as Protoss. How about Zerg being able to win without Hive units. It's fine. WHo needs broodlords, ultralisks or vipers Or how about Protoss being able to win without gateway units? How about Zerg being able to win without the "hatchery" units? (roach/zergling/baneling and I will still give them the queen )Oh noez, it doesn't work. 1.- Gateway styles are a thing and they are very viable, you can also play protoss without making a single stargate unit. 2.- Zerg can play without huge amounts of their tech tree, like spire, roach warren, baneling nest and ultralisk cavern.] Tech trees don't work the same, and mech IS a thing and will ALWAY BE a thing, people using these arguments, it has entire design choices in the form of upgrades and units made specifically to BE a thing (for example the fact that terran is the only race with 2 mineral only units, 1 for mech and 1 for bio). On December 18 2018 22:24 BerserkSword wrote: Do you see protoss players asking for pure gateway armies or pure robo armies (lol) to be viable? or to nerf lurkers because lurker backbone in the army = dead protoss ground armies? Yes?... I mean are you new or something? The inclusion of the adept, the buff to chargelots and the changes on sentry and stalker were done specifically because protoss players ASKED for more gateway centric strats. | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1144 Posts
On December 19 2018 02:50 deacon.frost wrote: Let's apply this logic on Zerg and Protoss, shall we? How about Protoss being able to win without AoE units? AoE units are nowhere near 25 % of their arsenal, right? Show me how you win a lategame without any splash damage as Protoss. How about Zerg being able to win without Hive units. It's fine. WHo needs broodlords, ultralisks or vipers Or how about Protoss being able to win without gateway units? How about Zerg being able to win without the "hatchery" units? (roach/zergling/baneling and I will still give them the queen )Oh noez, it doesn't work. I mean, good job bending my logic to justify your hyperbolic cherry-picked examples. Protoss has 4 damage-dealing AoE units: high templars (psi storm), archons, colossi and disruptors. 4 out of 18 protoss units are damage-dealing AoE units. 4 out of 18 = 22.22% I included observers and warp prism in that tally - but if we exclude non-fighting units, then AoE units account for exactly 25% of P's arsenal. lol P builds 6 units from the Gateway: zealot, stalker, adept, sentry, dark templar, high templar. T builds 4 units from the Barracks: marine, marauder, reaper, ghost. the Barracks is home to a specialty scouting unit which is only built once during a standard game vP. the removal of tornado blaster cyclones also extinguished the reaper's role in proxy cheese. that brings the total number of playable raxx units down to 3 P being able to win without gateway units is not comparable to T being able to win without raxx units. why? because gateways produce double the number of playable units because gateways have strong overlapping synergies with robo / twilight / stargate because gateways produce both biological and mechanical units (stalker + disruptor / colossus = mech) because gateways are closer to the hatchery than the barracks in terms of production design the barracks, on the other hand, has limited synergy with the rest of T's tech tree. 4M / liberator is core 3-base MMM / tank is borderline playable on certain maps (Dreamcatcher, Stasis) that's it. check out these potato-league compositions: ghost / hellion / cyclone / mine marauder / viking / banshee marine / tank / raven T's flagship units are obsolete in this match-up. thors, unplayable. battlecruisers, unplayable. can you beat P without marines? no can you beat P without marauders? no can you beat T without zealots? yes 8-gate +1 gladept / immortal all-in gladept / phoenix all-in disruptor drop into blink / disruptor 3-gate prism into blink / disruptor oh, and then you have map-specific compositions like phoenix / disruptor / cannon / carrier on 16-bit. I watched GuMiho lose over and over to this on stream can you beat T without stalkers? yes 8-gate +1 gladept / immortal all-in gladept / phoenix all-in chargelot / phoenix all-in oracle into chargelot / storm oracle into phoenix / colossus / charge can you beat T without adepts? yes. adepts can be relegated to a specialty scouting unit like the reaper can you beat T without sentries? yes can you beat T without dark templar? yes can you beat T without high templar? yes | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16017 Posts
On December 19 2018 02:50 deacon.frost wrote: Let's apply this logic on Zerg and Protoss, shall we? How about Protoss being able to win without AoE units? AoE units are nowhere near 25 % of their arsenal, right? Show me how you win a lategame without any splash damage as Protoss. How about Zerg being able to win without Hive units. It's fine. WHo needs broodlords, ultralisks or vipers Or how about Protoss being able to win without gateway units? How about Zerg being able to win without the "hatchery" units? (roach/zergling/baneling and I will still give them the queen )Oh noez, it doesn't work. I don't think this comparison is accurate at all. Terrans don't look at the set of units that exist in the game, pick some of them they don't like and say "I want to win without using any of those units". All they want is a playstyle that's fundamentally different from standard bio play and it just makes the most sense that this alternative playstyle is a factory-centric playstyle because barrack-heavy play will always play out the same. We see Zerg and Protoss players also ask for alternative playstyles like Range vs Melee Zerg, Ling Bane Muta vs Ling bane Hyra, Collossus play, Disruptor play or Gateway HT centric play. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 19 2018 04:56 Charoisaur wrote: I don't think this comparison is accurate at all. Terrans don't look at the set of units that exist in the game, pick some of them they don't like and say "I want to win without using any of those units". All they want is a playstyle that's fundamentally different from standard bio play and it just makes the most sense that this alternative playstyle is a factory-centric playstyle because barrack-heavy play will always play out the same. We see Zerg and Protoss players also ask for alternative playstyles like Range vs Melee Zerg, Ling Bane Muta vs Ling bane Hyra, Collossus play, Disruptor play or Gateway HT centric play. Of course it's not accurate, but I just used the logic Shodan used. He insisted to look at all the units as the whole and pick 75 % of them I believed the amount of smileys made it clear that it was just using that logic ad absurdum to show it's a nonsense view.I get they want mech style to be working, but they have to accept that they're not fighting just Blizzard, part of the community doesn't want the mech to happen either. To have mech viable there would have to be big redesign, mostly because PvT units interaction. And this is simply not happening, SC2 doesn't have that big player base to allow Blizzard to spend big time for the redesign. At the same time Blizzard cannot make angry all the lower leage players(who are THE MAJORITY of players) where mech is mostly turtle play into 200/200 3/3 amove. And making the mech even stronger will get players more angry down there. FFS the a-move Protoss is still a thing and makes people angry even nowadays and it's nowhere near mech level passivness in the lower leagues. And you can't solve this issue easily and respnding with "learn to play" doesn't help either when you play a playstyle that's this annoying. | ||
|
SHODAN
United Kingdom1144 Posts
On December 19 2018 18:28 deacon.frost wrote: ... good job on another misrepresentation of the mech lobby's proposals - in particular, the suggestion that all mech lobbyists want passive turtle play into 200/200 3/3 A-move On December 14 2018 13:11 SHODAN wrote: I'm happy for tank-based styles to be completely unviable at the highest level of mech vZ - and that's coming from someone who's played mech vZ since WoL! speed-mech afforded by lock-on cyclones is a much better fit with the design philosophy of sc2: intense, cut-throat, fast-paced action all over the map. why should mech lobbyists take seriously a peddlar of straw mans, inexactitudes and hyperbole? why don't you engage with the real balance suggestions put forward by mech lobbyists? 1) anti-plasma cannons upgrade for siege tanks. 150/150 cost, armory requirement, 121 second research time. 2) replace thors with goliaths - or - heavily redesign the thor with goliaths in mind you complain about making the mech "even stronger". do you acknowledge that mech is strong vZ and completely unplayable vP? great, so please explain to me how bonus damage to shields would upset the balance of TvZ. zerg units don't have shields, right? do you acknowledge that thors are completely obsolete in the current patch? do you acknowledge the factory / starport AA identity crisis? great, so please explain to me how goliaths are a bad idea and no, sc2 shouldn't be balanced around bronze league. everything is imba and OP in bronze league | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 19 2018 19:05 SHODAN wrote: good job on another misrepresentation of the mech lobby's proposals - in particular, the suggestion that all mech lobbyists want passive turtle play into 200/200 3/3 A-move + Show Spoiler + On December 14 2018 13:11 SHODAN wrote: I'm happy for tank-based styles to be completely unviable at the highest level of mech vZ - and that's coming from someone who's played mech vZ since WoL! speed-mech afforded by lock-on cyclones is a much better fit with the design philosophy of sc2: intense, cut-throat, fast-paced action all over the map. why should mech lobbyists take seriously a peddlar of straw mans, inexactitudes and hyperbole? why don't you engage with the real balance suggestions put forward by mech lobbyists? 1) anti-plasma cannons upgrade for siege tanks. 150/150 cost, armory requirement, 121 second research time. 2) replace thors with goliaths - or - heavily redesign the thor with goliaths in mind you complain about making the mech "even stronger". do you acknowledge that mech is strong vZ and completely unplayable vP? great, so please explain to me how bonus damage to shields would upset the balance of TvZ. zerg units don't have shields, right? do you acknowledge that thors are completely obsolete in the current patch? do you acknowledge the factory / starport AA identity crisis? great, so please explain to me how goliaths are a bad idea and no, sc2 shouldn't be balanced around bronze league. everything is imba and OP in bronze league You do realize I didn't write that? It's your misintepretation of my text. Read more carefully and don't react to just key words when your keyword filter is broken. I will write it again. In the LOWER LEAGUES mech games often goes into turtle play into 200/200 3/3/ amove to victory. LOWER LEAGUES are the important KEY WORDS. LOWER LEAGUES Is it more clear now? And I thought this At the same time Blizzard cannot make angry all the lower leage players(who are THE MAJORITY of players) where mech is mostly turtle play into 200/200 3/3 amove. cannot be misinterpreted. Edit> Just to be super clear - what I wrote is that you need to fight Blizzard team to do reasonable balance changes and at the same time you need to fight all the players who have versus mech experience mostly as the turtle play(which is not a small part) and Blizzard cannot piss off lower league players so higher league players can play mech games. I didn't write anything you suggest I had written. | ||
| ||
