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 nested quote +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