|
The Storm patch has been updated three times, and it got buffed every single time?! Is the balance team trying to make sure even fewer people play mech in TVP?
The most powerful units in Terran mech are sieged units like Widow Mines, Tanks, and Liberators or Thors. Now, dealing with an army that took ten minutes and a massive amount of resources to build only requires landing one good Storm. With its insane radius and 140 damage, how are these units supposed to dodge it? Even if they don’t die outright, getting them to low health means a couple of warp-ins of Zealots and Stalkers can clean up effortlessly. This is an army the Terran spent immense time and resources building! Do you call that a balanced trade?
Even if you perfectly use EMPs and drain all the HT energy, the Protoss just needs to warp in one new HT and use some free Nexus energy to instantly negate your entire army. I’ve encountered this situation countless times. If the opponent wants to go for Storms, there’s literally no avoiding it.
Don’t tell me to use mobile units like Cyclones or Banshees. Cyclones are okay for some mid-game harassment, but when it comes to the final, decisive engagement, you always have to rely on core units like Tanks, Thors, and Liberators—especially against the Protoss’ main army. In mid to late game, Cyclones simply don’t hold up, let’s be real.
As for the so-called “buffs” to Banshees, they feel as meaningless as getting a $5 coupon when buying a Rolls-Royce. All it takes is a Stargate opener—one Oracle for Revelation and a couple of Phoenixes—to wipe out your expensive, upgraded Banshee fleet in seconds. Just look around—how many people are actually using Banshees now?
For over a decade, Storm—a massive AoE damage spell—has always been adjusted with extreme caution in StarCraft. But recently, the balance team, for some unknown reason, is making such rookie mistakes, severely impacting mech’s win rate. Do you really think Protoss isn’t easy-mode enough? That there aren’t already few enough people playing mech against them?
I’ve long suspected there’s someone influential in the balance team who doesn’t play the game much, is probably around Platinum league, and is a Protoss apologist. Honestly, I saw it back when they changed the Widow Mine. Someone on that team clearly doesn’t look at the minimap and can’t handle multi-pronged attacks. Now, with the Liberator vision nerf, it’s even more obvious—they’ve completely killed its multi-prong harassment role, making it easier for Protoss players to focus on the main fight while freely warping in units all over your base. Interested netizens should try to dox exactly who these carried players are within the balance team. Their understanding of balance for a veteran esports title is so shallow—it’s a total disservice to the global player base and Blizzard’s loyal fans.
Honestly, I can understand the balance team’s original intention to increase Protoss’ chances of winning championships. But after multiple rounds of Protoss buffs, Protoss is now playing a completely different game from Terran and Zerg. Terran and Zerg are playing StarCraft on hell mode, while Protoss is playing the children’s version. Why? Because of a vicious cycle: The balance team thinks Protoss is weak, so they buff Protoss → Protoss players win easily on ladder → the required skill floor for Protoss drops further → Protoss players get complacent → but premier tournament championships will always go to the most talented and hardworking players → a race relying on patches instead of self-improvement will never win → Protoss still doesn’t win championships → the balance team simplistically buffs Protoss again. Logic loop completed.
A Friendly Suggestion:
If the Protoss community ever hopes to produce a generational talent like Serral for Zerg or Clem for Terran, it cannot rely on patch buffs. In the short term, buffing Protoss may seem to help them win more games. However, in the long run, this ultimately harms Protoss professional players. Players may abandon hard work and rigorous practice, instead choosing to loudly complain and lobby for stronger patches. But the highest professional championships will always belong to the most diligent and dedicated players—not those who depend on patch advantages.
Continuously buffing Protoss is like endlessly pampering a spoiled child, then expecting them to defeat their opponents in the most brutally competitive environment and claim a world championship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just scrolled through the comments. This is pure gold.
This is the classic Protoss-apologist mentality — they never read the full context before nitpicking and offering laughable rebuttals. Either that, or they resort to personal attacks when they know they're in the wrong. If you genuinely ask them what part of your argument is incorrect and invite discussion, they just slap a "whiner" label on you and make a quick escape.
These people have no patience for anything. They dabble superficially, and the moment the outside world doesn’t suit their preferences, they throw a tantrum, blame everyone else, and act like total man-children.
The same clown-like behavior shows in-game too. Terran and Zerg have already been nerfed into hell-mode difficulty, yet they’re still not satisfied. They feel their precious Protoss isn’t easy enough, isn’t braindead enough. The slightest inconvenience sends them crying louder than anyone on the forums. The group benefiting the most always acts the most victimized.
So I strongly suggest Blizzard just develop a one-click win button for Protoss — maybe then we’ll finally shut these man-children up.
|
Nah we shouldn’t be pampering to spoiled mech players.
Pure mech should never be a viable play style to begin with.
Imagine if toss player say they should make pure Robo play style viable
|
On October 08 2025 05:58 TeamMamba wrote:
Nah we shouldn’t be pampering to spoiled mech players.
Pure mech should never be a viable play style to begin with.
Imagine if toss player say they should make pure Robo play style viable
So true, I don't even know why they gave robo specific upgrades and its own mineral dump unit!
|
On October 08 2025 05:47 bycrazingby wrote:
Interested netizens should try to dox exactly who these carried players are within the balance team. Their understanding of balance for a veteran esports title is so shallow—it’s a total disservice to the global player base and Blizzard’s loyal fans.
Way to buck the stereotype of mech players as being unhinged weirdos.
|
|
|
If you are playing mech vs toss you are playing for fun anyway and not to win so it shouldn't matter.
|
Its ridicolous. It makes the terrans doin even more all ins than before. scv pull every game before protoss get storm. Even if you dodge storm, youcant get a good engagement because you can never commit. If you commit and its 1 or 2 storms left, youre dead.
|
On October 08 2025 15:14 MiCroLiFe wrote:
Its ridicolous. It makes the terrans doin even more all ins than before. scv pull every game before protoss get storm. Even if you dodge storm, youcant get a good engagement because you can never commit. If you commit and its 1 or 2 storms left, youre dead.
sounds like last patch
|
On October 08 2025 05:58 TeamMamba wrote:
Nah we shouldn’t be pampering to spoiled mech players.
Pure mech should never be a viable play style to begin with.
Imagine if toss player say they should make pure Robo play style viable
it is so funny the protoss enjoys the most patch benefit while saying the most ridiculous nonsense
according to your logic, F2 +A is only specific use to toss players, while mech players defeated by toss everyday is acceptable.
what a protoss apologist!
Blizzard look what you have done to these spoiled toss players. they take the child mode for granted
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 08 2025 14:57 CicadaSC wrote:
If you are playing mech vs toss you are playing for fun anyway and not to win so it shouldn't matter.
Eighty percent of Terran's units are mechanical, and you're trying to claim that using mech is unreasonable? So by your logic, StarCraft should just be about spamming Marines all day, while the remaining 80% of the mechanical units sit idle and gather dust, right? It seems I've still underestimated the sheer audacity of Protoss apologists.
There's always this ridiculous narrative that mech wins too easily and that Protoss has it too hard. That's why mech has been nerfed over and over, year after year, until barely anyone uses it anymore. Meanwhile, Protoss has been buffed into a braindead, toddler-difficulty version of the game. And even now, this mob of complainers still isn't satisfied.
|
On October 08 2025 05:58 TeamMamba wrote:
Nah we shouldn’t be pampering to spoiled mech players.
Pure mech should never be a viable play style to begin with.
Imagine if toss player say they should make pure Robo play style viable
Eighty percent of Terran's units are mechanical, and you're trying to claim that using mech is unreasonable? So by your logic, StarCraft should just be about spamming Marines all day, while the remaining 80% of the mechanical units sit idle and gather dust, right? It seems I've still underestimated the sheer audacity of Protoss apologists.
There's always this ridiculous narrative that mech wins too easily and that Protoss has it too hard. That's why mech has been nerfed over and over, year after year, until barely anyone uses it anymore. Meanwhile, Protoss has been buffed into a braindead, toddler-difficulty version of the game. And even now, this mob of complainers still isn't satisfied.
|
Can't kill what's already dead
|
I don't think we need TvP mech in our lives
|
United States1905 Posts
On October 08 2025 05:58 TeamMamba wrote:
Nah we shouldn’t be pampering to spoiled mech players.
Pure mech should never be a viable play style to begin with.
Imagine if toss player say they should make pure Robo play style viable
It's called skytoss, my dude.
|
On October 08 2025 22:00 Mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2025 05:58 TeamMamba wrote:
Nah we shouldn’t be pampering to spoiled mech players.
Pure mech should never be a viable play style to begin with.
Imagine if toss player say they should make pure Robo play style viable It's called skytoss, my dude.
Realistically, Skytoss needs High Templar support...
|
"Don’t tell me to use mobile units" This gave me a good laugh. The rest of the post was just sad.
|
On October 08 2025 22:12 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2025 22:00 Mizenhauer wrote:On October 08 2025 05:58 TeamMamba wrote:
Nah we shouldn’t be pampering to spoiled mech players.
Pure mech should never be a viable play style to begin with.
Imagine if toss player say they should make pure Robo play style viable It's called skytoss, my dude. Realistically, Skytoss needs High Templar support...
Realistically, the Skytoss is there to buffer for the High Templars.
Without splash damage, Skytoss is trash against a player who can macro.
|
I don't think great Toss champions of the past, your Zests and S0S's, your Stats's and Traps, relied on the crutch of a point-and-click-adventure AoE total solution. In fact, I don't think Hero does either.
Would it be possible to redirect balancing to focus on whatever parts of the toolkit these players could and, in Hero's case, can, rely on to make the whole thing seem a little less...Braindead?
|
On October 09 2025 00:32 Admiral Yang wrote:
I don't think great Toss champions of the past, your Zests and S0S's, your Stats's and Traps, relied on the crutch of a point-and-click-adventure AoE total solution. In fact, I don't think Hero does either.
Would it be possible to redirect balancing to focus on whatever parts of the toolkit these players could and, in Hero's case, can, rely on to make the whole thing seem a little less...Braindead?
I don't think there is literally a single Protoss unit that whiners don't claim is braindead. People complain that Storm is a-move.
The entire race is designed around Warp Gate and Tier 3 AOE. Blizzard should have tried to fix that in 2017 or 2018 with their redesign patches, but they didn't.
I'd personally trade Warp Gate + Warp Prisms for Shuttles + Whirlwind (LotV campaign upgrade for Zealots) + Phase Reactor (LotV campaign upgrade for Stalkers), but I don't think anyone sane would take that trade.
|
This thread is brain dead, but I whole heartedly agree on the mech dilemma. The fools've been trying to make tvp mech work, probably because of bw pvt, since they gave us the warhound in hots beta, now we finally see it, and we decide against it simply because it was a "mistake", well most of these patches have been mistakes, is what I say.
Tvp mech solves the low lvl matchup balance, while keeping high lvl integrity as well.
As for the rest of the thread, I'm not sure who gained the most from the patch, I don't know where libs stand, so I'd probably say, yeah storm and cyclone change killed mech.
Toss players have plenty of skills, and herO is probably the strongest player in most aspects of the game, though he has faults in some aspects.
Ghost doesn't rly work to thwart with mech, because ghosts are more costly than ht's.
|
On October 09 2025 02:33 ejozl wrote:
This thread is brain dead, but I whole heartedly agree on the mech dilemma. The fools've been trying to make tvp mech work, probably because of bw pvt, since they gave us the warhound in hots beta, now we finally see it, and we decide against it simply because it was a "mistake", well most of these patches have been mistakes, is what I say.
Tvp mech solves the low lvl matchup balance, while keeping high lvl integrity as well.
As for the rest of the thread, I'm not sure who gained the most from the patch, I don't know where libs stand, so I'd probably say, yeah storm and cyclone change killed mech.
Toss players have plenty of skills, and herO is probably the strongest player in most aspects of the game, though he has faults in some aspects.
Ghost doesn't rly work to thwart with mech, because ghosts are more costly than ht's.
the real brain dead one is who enjoys the most benefit of all the protoss pathc advantages and shamelessly calls other people whining, not me, you dumb
User was warned for this post
|
Northern Ireland26192 Posts
The idea that Protoss just keeps getting buffed really doesn’t stack up.
Although yes, just eyeballing numbers and mech’s relative lack of mobility, the longer duration storm (+ Disruptors sucking less) would seem to make mech just worse in TvP.
But you got pretty potentially strong changes to help mech in TvZ at the same time.
I don’t think you’re off-base with all of your points, but you sure are whiny, combined with good old-fashioned Terran Master RaceTM arrogance
I’ll never really understand this strange obsession some have with mech, just play bio like a real man.
|
I remembered something that I read (almost a decade ago) about this same subject:
On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:
Can you explain how wanting mech to be competitive isn't "stupid" (irrational) at its core? You've just picked some production buildings and units that follow a non-combat theme (they're mechanical) and ask Blizzard to change the rules of the game so this theme of units you like building is viable to play on every map and against every race. There's no other group of SC2 players like the mech players. I think it's totally cool to have a composition that you like to play but it goes too far when discussing possibly changing of the rules of the game to make your little pet composition better. It all started with mech being viable in a different game and wanting an equivalent in SC2, which is not at all unlike comparing terran mech to protoss mech. The races aren't supposed to be the same and neither are the games. The completely arbitrary picking of certain terran units, the "mechanical" ones built from factories and starports, is so absurd as a basis for this whole movement that you don't even think about it anymore. Every time the mech petitioners go too far with how much they want the whole game to change to suit them, people have to come remind you how ridiculous it all is.
I couldn't put it better if I tried.
EDIT:
Also this:
On December 12 2013 01:31 NonY wrote:
The thing is that bio play is so resilient and good for all stages of the game, because that's what has been balanced and has been the focus of competitive play since 2010, that you can't just make mech have all the same strengths as bio and tell terran "we've actually designed two perfectly viable ways for you to play from top to bottom. pick one and have fun". At least one of them must be situational and have some glaring weaknesses along with some unique strengths.
What I've gathered from mech players is that they want mech to be as solid and dependable as it was in BW. As long as bio is filling that role, then what's the point? I don't get it from a game design perspective. They don't just want more variety because they don't want the increased risks inherent to that. They already hate how often protoss is currently rewarded for risky play. They are basically saying "these are the units I like. this is the style of play I like. make it viable." If bio was so unreliable and so boring, then I could understand it. But it can take on anything, it is mechanically challenging and tactically challenging, and it makes for a lot of action and cool moves. It is everything we could want in a StarCraft matchup and their response is "but I like tankssssss". Well, my favorite unit was the reaver, but I play SC2 now.
|
On October 09 2025 22:56 WombaT wrote:
The idea that Protoss just keeps getting buffed really doesn’t stack up.
Although yes, just eyeballing numbers and mech’s relative lack of mobility, the longer duration storm (+ Disruptors sucking less) would seem to make mech just worse in TvP.
But you got pretty potentially strong changes to help mech in TvZ at the same time.
I don’t think you’re off-base with all of your points, but you sure are whiny, combined with good old-fashioned Terran Master RaceTM arrogance
I’ll never really understand this strange obsession some have with mech, just play bio like a real man.
wow，telling people that protoss favors in TVP mech is whining? what a protoss apologist
by the way, there are plenty of ways to increase mech in TVP while not harming the TVZ, for example, add the mech on shield damage to protoss
|
Well you can start by allowing abduct to do its thing..
I don't agree, if ppl find a style fun, it's not crazy to want it be more viable. Just because its name is called by mech that does not mean that what makes the style cool, is the mech tag, or built from the factory. That's evident in the fact that we call mobile mech, mobile mech because it doesn't function in the turtly style that we attribute to mech. We also don't call scv pulls half mech, or something silly like that. The protoss mech functions a bit like mech, which is why the name makes some spit of sense, in a race where 90% of the units are mech, you'd never call stalker, sentry, colossus protoss mech.
And I don't even agree that bio is epitome of starcraft 2, I find it pretty boring tbh, the marauder and roach are pretty boring units, but if the marauder was built to destroy buildings mostly that would be cool, or if roaches were actually built for burrow play.
Bio is fine, and I like byun who rly plays bio the way it seems meant to be played, but marine, marauder, medivac have been pretty suffocating in sc2 in how prevalent it's been.
I also wanna add that turtling is seen upon as something negative, but in reality all most casual players want to do is turtle up and play possible grind fest.
|
Boys if you're losing because of one or two storms you're doing something wrong..
|
Northern Ireland26192 Posts
On October 15 2025 19:58 bycrazingby wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2025 22:56 WombaT wrote:
The idea that Protoss just keeps getting buffed really doesn’t stack up.
Although yes, just eyeballing numbers and mech’s relative lack of mobility, the longer duration storm (+ Disruptors sucking less) would seem to make mech just worse in TvP.
But you got pretty potentially strong changes to help mech in TvZ at the same time.
I don’t think you’re off-base with all of your points, but you sure are whiny, combined with good old-fashioned Terran Master RaceTM arrogance
I’ll never really understand this strange obsession some have with mech, just play bio like a real man. wow，telling people that protoss favors in TVP mech is whining? what a protoss apologist by the way, there are plenty of ways to increase mech in TVP while not harming the TVZ, for example, add the mech on shield damage to protoss
No, making a whining post makes one a whiner.
Also what MJG said.
|
On October 14 2025 19:44 MJG wrote:I remembered something that I read (almost a decade ago) about this same subject: Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:
Can you explain how wanting mech to be competitive isn't "stupid" (irrational) at its core? You've just picked some production buildings and units that follow a non-combat theme (they're mechanical) and ask Blizzard to change the rules of the game so this theme of units you like building is viable to play on every map and against every race. There's no other group of SC2 players like the mech players. I think it's totally cool to have a composition that you like to play but it goes too far when discussing possibly changing of the rules of the game to make your little pet composition better. It all started with mech being viable in a different game and wanting an equivalent in SC2, which is not at all unlike comparing terran mech to protoss mech. The races aren't supposed to be the same and neither are the games. The completely arbitrary picking of certain terran units, the "mechanical" ones built from factories and starports, is so absurd as a basis for this whole movement that you don't even think about it anymore. Every time the mech petitioners go too far with how much they want the whole game to change to suit them, people have to come remind you how ridiculous it all is. I couldn't put it better if I tried. EDIT: Also this: Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 01:31 NonY wrote:
The thing is that bio play is so resilient and good for all stages of the game, because that's what has been balanced and has been the focus of competitive play since 2010, that you can't just make mech have all the same strengths as bio and tell terran "we've actually designed two perfectly viable ways for you to play from top to bottom. pick one and have fun". At least one of them must be situational and have some glaring weaknesses along with some unique strengths.
What I've gathered from mech players is that they want mech to be as solid and dependable as it was in BW. As long as bio is filling that role, then what's the point? I don't get it from a game design perspective. They don't just want more variety because they don't want the increased risks inherent to that. They already hate how often protoss is currently rewarded for risky play. They are basically saying "these are the units I like. this is the style of play I like. make it viable." If bio was so unreliable and so boring, then I could understand it. But it can take on anything, it is mechanically challenging and tactically challenging, and it makes for a lot of action and cool moves. It is everything we could want in a StarCraft matchup and their response is "but I like tankssssss". Well, my favorite unit was the reaver, but I play SC2 now.
This quote made some (SOME) sense back on their time when Blizzard was still wishy-washy about mech but its completely stupid by todays standard. Not only has been making mech a viable choice in all three MU an important design goal by Blizzard but several changes have already been made towards that (including new upgrades like Banshee speed, a whole unit in the cyclone and even total design overhauls like what happened to the tank).
Mech isn't something a few crazy players ask for like in 2015 anymore and trying to dismiss its importance in the game is incredibly disingenuous.
|
man am i glad i only play broodwar... after 15 years you guys dont stop getting screwed by blizzard xD
|
Northern Ireland26192 Posts
On October 19 2025 13:14 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2025 19:44 MJG wrote:I remembered something that I read (almost a decade ago) about this same subject: On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:
Can you explain how wanting mech to be competitive isn't "stupid" (irrational) at its core? You've just picked some production buildings and units that follow a non-combat theme (they're mechanical) and ask Blizzard to change the rules of the game so this theme of units you like building is viable to play on every map and against every race. There's no other group of SC2 players like the mech players. I think it's totally cool to have a composition that you like to play but it goes too far when discussing possibly changing of the rules of the game to make your little pet composition better. It all started with mech being viable in a different game and wanting an equivalent in SC2, which is not at all unlike comparing terran mech to protoss mech. The races aren't supposed to be the same and neither are the games. The completely arbitrary picking of certain terran units, the "mechanical" ones built from factories and starports, is so absurd as a basis for this whole movement that you don't even think about it anymore. Every time the mech petitioners go too far with how much they want the whole game to change to suit them, people have to come remind you how ridiculous it all is. I couldn't put it better if I tried. EDIT: Also this: On December 12 2013 01:31 NonY wrote:
The thing is that bio play is so resilient and good for all stages of the game, because that's what has been balanced and has been the focus of competitive play since 2010, that you can't just make mech have all the same strengths as bio and tell terran "we've actually designed two perfectly viable ways for you to play from top to bottom. pick one and have fun". At least one of them must be situational and have some glaring weaknesses along with some unique strengths.
What I've gathered from mech players is that they want mech to be as solid and dependable as it was in BW. As long as bio is filling that role, then what's the point? I don't get it from a game design perspective. They don't just want more variety because they don't want the increased risks inherent to that. They already hate how often protoss is currently rewarded for risky play. They are basically saying "these are the units I like. this is the style of play I like. make it viable." If bio was so unreliable and so boring, then I could understand it. But it can take on anything, it is mechanically challenging and tactically challenging, and it makes for a lot of action and cool moves. It is everything we could want in a StarCraft matchup and their response is "but I like tankssssss". Well, my favorite unit was the reaver, but I play SC2 now. This quote made some (SOME) sense back on their time when Blizzard was still wishy-washy about mech but its completely stupid by todays standard. Not only has been making mech a viable choice in all three MU an important design goal by Blizzard but several changes have already been made towards that (including new upgrades like Banshee speed, a whole unit in the cyclone and even total design overhauls like what happened to the tank). Mech isn't something a few crazy players ask for like in 2015 anymore and trying to dismiss its importance in the game is incredibly disingenuous.
What is mech? I mean really? Earnest question
|
On October 19 2025 16:45 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2025 13:14 Lexender wrote:On October 14 2025 19:44 MJG wrote:I remembered something that I read (almost a decade ago) about this same subject: On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:
Can you explain how wanting mech to be competitive isn't "stupid" (irrational) at its core? You've just picked some production buildings and units that follow a non-combat theme (they're mechanical) and ask Blizzard to change the rules of the game so this theme of units you like building is viable to play on every map and against every race. There's no other group of SC2 players like the mech players. I think it's totally cool to have a composition that you like to play but it goes too far when discussing possibly changing of the rules of the game to make your little pet composition better. It all started with mech being viable in a different game and wanting an equivalent in SC2, which is not at all unlike comparing terran mech to protoss mech. The races aren't supposed to be the same and neither are the games. The completely arbitrary picking of certain terran units, the "mechanical" ones built from factories and starports, is so absurd as a basis for this whole movement that you don't even think about it anymore. Every time the mech petitioners go too far with how much they want the whole game to change to suit them, people have to come remind you how ridiculous it all is. I couldn't put it better if I tried. EDIT: Also this: On December 12 2013 01:31 NonY wrote:
The thing is that bio play is so resilient and good for all stages of the game, because that's what has been balanced and has been the focus of competitive play since 2010, that you can't just make mech have all the same strengths as bio and tell terran "we've actually designed two perfectly viable ways for you to play from top to bottom. pick one and have fun". At least one of them must be situational and have some glaring weaknesses along with some unique strengths.
What I've gathered from mech players is that they want mech to be as solid and dependable as it was in BW. As long as bio is filling that role, then what's the point? I don't get it from a game design perspective. They don't just want more variety because they don't want the increased risks inherent to that. They already hate how often protoss is currently rewarded for risky play. They are basically saying "these are the units I like. this is the style of play I like. make it viable." If bio was so unreliable and so boring, then I could understand it. But it can take on anything, it is mechanically challenging and tactically challenging, and it makes for a lot of action and cool moves. It is everything we could want in a StarCraft matchup and their response is "but I like tankssssss". Well, my favorite unit was the reaver, but I play SC2 now. This quote made some (SOME) sense back on their time when Blizzard was still wishy-washy about mech but its completely stupid by todays standard. Not only has been making mech a viable choice in all three MU an important design goal by Blizzard but several changes have already been made towards that (including new upgrades like Banshee speed, a whole unit in the cyclone and even total design overhauls like what happened to the tank). Mech isn't something a few crazy players ask for like in 2015 anymore and trying to dismiss its importance in the game is incredibly disingenuous. What is mech? I mean really? Earnest question
In SC2 context mech is the "promise" of a less mechanically-demanding playstyle to lower-level Terran users, which would be more in-line with their Zerg and Protoss counterparts on this part of the skill spectrum.
Since the game has shifted away from it's original design with LotV's release to promote more harass, expanding, multitasking, mech has kinda fallen off, but what has always kinda rubbed me the wrong way as a mech player myself is this kind-of bad-faith argument that while it's generally okay for the other two races to build up "unbeatable" lategame compositions when leaving them unchecked, mech always has been universally hated, although simply achieved the same thing for Terrans (again, at least in lower leagues).
As a side note in response to those Nony quotes: If it's illogical to assume that SC2 Terran should have viable mech "just because BW Terran has it", then why are we accepting that Terran still is the timing-based race also in SC2?
I think turtling/playing defensively is a choice that should be viable for players to make, depending on their personal preferences. Does it have to culminate in HotS TvZ with Swarmhosts vs mech? No, but taking this away from players entirely as an option to base their strategy on in a strategy game is dumb IMO, when there's counter strategies available to deal with it.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26192 Posts
On October 19 2025 21:37 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2025 16:45 WombaT wrote:On October 19 2025 13:14 Lexender wrote:On October 14 2025 19:44 MJG wrote:I remembered something that I read (almost a decade ago) about this same subject: On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:
Can you explain how wanting mech to be competitive isn't "stupid" (irrational) at its core? You've just picked some production buildings and units that follow a non-combat theme (they're mechanical) and ask Blizzard to change the rules of the game so this theme of units you like building is viable to play on every map and against every race. There's no other group of SC2 players like the mech players. I think it's totally cool to have a composition that you like to play but it goes too far when discussing possibly changing of the rules of the game to make your little pet composition better. It all started with mech being viable in a different game and wanting an equivalent in SC2, which is not at all unlike comparing terran mech to protoss mech. The races aren't supposed to be the same and neither are the games. The completely arbitrary picking of certain terran units, the "mechanical" ones built from factories and starports, is so absurd as a basis for this whole movement that you don't even think about it anymore. Every time the mech petitioners go too far with how much they want the whole game to change to suit them, people have to come remind you how ridiculous it all is. I couldn't put it better if I tried. EDIT: Also this: On December 12 2013 01:31 NonY wrote:
The thing is that bio play is so resilient and good for all stages of the game, because that's what has been balanced and has been the focus of competitive play since 2010, that you can't just make mech have all the same strengths as bio and tell terran "we've actually designed two perfectly viable ways for you to play from top to bottom. pick one and have fun". At least one of them must be situational and have some glaring weaknesses along with some unique strengths.
What I've gathered from mech players is that they want mech to be as solid and dependable as it was in BW. As long as bio is filling that role, then what's the point? I don't get it from a game design perspective. They don't just want more variety because they don't want the increased risks inherent to that. They already hate how often protoss is currently rewarded for risky play. They are basically saying "these are the units I like. this is the style of play I like. make it viable." If bio was so unreliable and so boring, then I could understand it. But it can take on anything, it is mechanically challenging and tactically challenging, and it makes for a lot of action and cool moves. It is everything we could want in a StarCraft matchup and their response is "but I like tankssssss". Well, my favorite unit was the reaver, but I play SC2 now. This quote made some (SOME) sense back on their time when Blizzard was still wishy-washy about mech but its completely stupid by todays standard. Not only has been making mech a viable choice in all three MU an important design goal by Blizzard but several changes have already been made towards that (including new upgrades like Banshee speed, a whole unit in the cyclone and even total design overhauls like what happened to the tank). Mech isn't something a few crazy players ask for like in 2015 anymore and trying to dismiss its importance in the game is incredibly disingenuous. What is mech? I mean really? Earnest question In SC2 context mech is the "promise" of a less mechanically-demanding playstyle to lower-level Terran users, which would be more in-line with their Zerg and Protoss counterparts on this part of the skill spectrum. Since the game has shifted away from it's original design with LotV's release to promote more harass, expanding, multitasking, mech has kinda fallen off, but what has always kinda rubbed me the wrong way as a mech player myself is this kind-of bad-faith argument that while it's generally okay for the other two races to build up "unbeatable" lategame compositions when leaving them unchecked, mech always has been universally hated, although simply achieved the same thing for Terrans (again, at least in lower leagues). As a side note in response to those Nony quotes: If it's illogical to assume that SC2 Terran should have viable mech "just because BW Terran has it", then why are we accepting that Terran still is the timing-based race also in SC2? I think turtling/playing defensively is a choice that should be viable for players to make, depending on their personal preferences. Does it have to culminate in HotS TvZ with Swarmhosts vs mech? No, but taking this away from players entirely as an option to base their strategy on in a strategy game is dumb IMO, when there's counter strategies available to deal with it.
Those styles are kind of universally unpopular, especially at lower levels. It’s not just Terran who gets flak on that regard, and the other two factions have had nerfs to certain styles over the years too.
But is it a style or is it building things from a factory? I mean I think Battlemech is quite a fun, dynamic style but it ain’t mech to me, if mech is a particular style and approach, not merely a fac-centric comp.
I like BW mech, but it’s a very different game in SC2. A lot of the difficulty in manouvering, in plugging defensive holes, and in counter-play works in BW because of the lack of unlimited unit selection.
In SC2, if tanks are too good, given how it’s easier to move armies around, and given how supplies go up way quicker in SC2 (even before Legacy, which is even faster), it’s hard to envisage how anything on the ground can engage a tank ball.
On the flipside, if they aren’t good enough you just get busted before you can get set up. Especially vP.
It’s been 15 years and Blizz have never found the sweet spot, and I’m not sure they can.
On the flip side, at lower levels mech is still totally viable, especially vT or vZ. Maybe not optimal, but absolutely playable. It’s not particularly good vP, even lower down, sure.
You’ve also the problem of blended comps and what that looks like. Terran bio has a very versatile, potent set of weapons that scale with micro far better than anything else in the game. If you boost other tools to make mech equivalently good, doesn’t bio-tank get crazy good in a ‘best of both worlds’ sense in the hands of skilled players?
|
As others have pointed out, the goal here is a bit unclear. Mech, in the sense of Terran styles centered around Factory units, is in fact viable, at low levels, at higher levels, and even at pro levels as an occasional mix-in. The trouble is that buffing Mech too much tends to lead to very static, turtle-y games at all levels, which is why we've had changes to reduce the strength of turtlier things and increase the strength of turtle-busting units for all races. That has had the side effect of reducing the strength of some mech things. But let's be real, Turtle Terran is still absolutely viable at most levels, including mech-centric versions.
But then this gets to the complexity of definitions that always seem to be behind mech discussions. Does mech need to mean styles that only use Factory and Starport units, period? Does Battlemech count? Does mech have to mean only Tank-centric styles? And just how viable do they have to be, anyway? Does mech just have to be playable with a decent shot, or does it have to be strong? As strong as bio? Stronger? Does mech have to be strong on all matchups, all maps? As an occasional mix-in or as the default in every game?
This is where Nony's bigger critiques come in. It is simply not possible given the basic rules of SC2 for a highly immobile style to play out in an equivalent way to a highly mobile style. Period. These styles will always have massive asymmetries and strengths and weaknesses. It's possible for them both to be strong, but only given map and tech and economy changes that allow for that. In BW PvT, the economy and maps allow Terran to relatively rapidly build up large, near-unbeatable ground mech armies that can slowly expand to cover more territory and then go for giant, nearly unbeatable pushes, forcing Protoss to do some combination of slowing down the Terran juggernaught with harassment, wearing down and slowing down their unbeatable army with piecemeal attacks, piercing their spread-out lines in a few points, and simply avoiding the army entirely and going for counter-attacks. There's nothing inherently wrong with this dynamic, but it very much relies on the eco and map-making to render it viable.
LotV, though, is not BW. It is very much a game built around harass and mobility for all three races. Virtually all the changes for LotV, and indeed nearly all the changes from BW to SC2 generally, were built around strengthening mobility and harassment tools and favoring spread-out expansions.
This is where the back and forth of mech complaints tend to come in. Given the strength of harassment and mobility tools in LotV, it's more or less not possible for a highly immobile style to succeed without significant turtling--by which I mean not merely playing defensively, but concentrating all forces at a very small area and not expanding almost at all. BW Terran is also turtly, but the dynamics of the game mean that it's both required to cover more ground (and so expose itself to more counter-attacks and smaller assaults) and also is capable of doing so without as much risk. But the essential problem isn't so much that turtling and playing against turtling is inherently "un-fun," as that mech simply becomes the odd playstyle out in a game otherwise based around very different things. People want to play the game SC2, by which they mean engaging in mobility and harass tactics--and the trouble with really strong turtle styles is that they don't allow the opponent to do anything, fundamentally.
Compare this with SC2 Protoss, which in some ways (as many people, beginning with Artosis, have pointed out) is more the spiritual successor to BW mech. There's been a similar dynamic in some SC2 matchups with Protoss gradually putting together an unbeatable army that's relatively immobile. Yet SC2 Protoss is designed in such a way that to put together their deathballs they still are absolutely required to engage in harass and usually early attacks and spread out a lot and move around a lot and defend far-flung expansions--and, in short, play SC2 LotV. And then Protoss deathballs are not actually unbeatable, can split up, and are still way more mobile than Terran mech--and heck, Protoss still suffered massively in LotV from being relatively less mobile and had to have all kinds of band-aid mobility tools and defenses added to keep them viable.
All that being said, as I began this post by saying, Terran mech is still viable in SC2. It's just viable within the parameters of SC2 LotV, which is to say, it has to be a turtly strat and as a turtly strat it has to have inherent weaknesses and can't be allowed to easily put together a truly unbeatable army quickly or easily or merely by turtling. Because if it it did, that would fundamentally break the game of LotV, and people would hate it--and they have!
It can still remain perfectly viable, though, by some combo of being less immobile period, being forced to spread out more, being forced to engage in harassment more, and/or having clear weaknesses to its final army such that it can't beat everything and only works as an occasional or surprise or counter-strat. Mech in SC2 has gone back and forth between these options a lot, and I'm perfectly supportive of changes that serve any or all of those purposes.
But then, we come back to the original question, which is: what do mech players want? They do have to somewhat pick their poison, because they will simply never get BW Terran mech in SC2.
|
|
|
If you enjoy mech play, you should play 2v2s, the maps are much better suited to turtle play.
|
Northern Ireland26192 Posts
On October 20 2025 23:24 Captain Peabody wrote:
As others have pointed out, the goal here is a bit unclear. Mech, in the sense of Terran styles centered around Factory units, is in fact viable, at low levels, at higher levels, and even at pro levels as an occasional mix-in. The trouble is that buffing Mech too much tends to lead to very static, turtle-y games at all levels, which is why we've had changes to reduce the strength of turtlier things and increase the strength of turtle-busting units for all races. That has had the side effect of reducing the strength of some mech things. But let's be real, Turtle Terran is still absolutely viable at most levels, including mech-centric versions.
But then this gets to the complexity of definitions that always seem to be behind mech discussions. Does mech need to mean styles that only use Factory and Starport units, period? Does Battlemech count? Does mech have to mean only Tank-centric styles? And just how viable do they have to be, anyway? Does mech just have to be playable with a decent shot, or does it have to be strong? As strong as bio? Stronger? Does mech have to be strong on all matchups, all maps? As an occasional mix-in or as the default in every game?
This is where Nony's bigger critiques come in. It is simply not possible given the basic rules of SC2 for a highly immobile style to play out in an equivalent way to a highly mobile style. Period. These styles will always have massive asymmetries and strengths and weaknesses. It's possible for them both to be strong, but only given map and tech and economy changes that allow for that. In BW PvT, the economy and maps allow Terran to relatively rapidly build up large, near-unbeatable ground mech armies that can slowly expand to cover more territory and then go for giant, nearly unbeatable pushes, forcing Protoss to do some combination of slowing down the Terran juggernaught with harassment, wearing down and slowing down their unbeatable army with piecemeal attacks, piercing their spread-out lines in a few points, and simply avoiding the army entirely and going for counter-attacks. There's nothing inherently wrong with this dynamic, but it very much relies on the eco and map-making to render it viable.
LotV, though, is not BW. It is very much a game built around harass and mobility for all three races. Virtually all the changes for LotV, and indeed nearly all the changes from BW to SC2 generally, were built around strengthening mobility and harassment tools and favoring spread-out expansions.
This is where the back and forth of mech complaints tend to come in. Given the strength of harassment and mobility tools in LotV, it's more or less not possible for a highly immobile style to succeed without significant turtling--by which I mean not merely playing defensively, but concentrating all forces at a very small area and not expanding almost at all. BW Terran is also turtly, but the dynamics of the game mean that it's both required to cover more ground (and so expose itself to more counter-attacks and smaller assaults) and also is capable of doing so without as much risk. But the essential problem isn't so much that turtling and playing against turtling is inherently "un-fun," as that mech simply becomes the odd playstyle out in a game otherwise based around very different things. People want to play the game SC2, by which they mean engaging in mobility and harass tactics--and the trouble with really strong turtle styles is that they don't allow the opponent to do anything, fundamentally.
Compare this with SC2 Protoss, which in some ways (as many people, beginning with Artosis, have pointed out) is more the spiritual successor to BW mech. There's been a similar dynamic in some SC2 matchups with Protoss gradually putting together an unbeatable army that's relatively immobile. Yet SC2 Protoss is designed in such a way that to put together their deathballs they still are absolutely required to engage in harass and usually early attacks and spread out a lot and move around a lot and defend far-flung expansions--and, in short, play SC2 LotV. And then Protoss deathballs are not actually unbeatable, can split up, and are still way more mobile than Terran mech--and heck, Protoss still suffered massively in LotV from being relatively less mobile and had to have all kinds of band-aid mobility tools and defenses added to keep them viable.
All that being said, as I began this post by saying, Terran mech is still viable in SC2. It's just viable within the parameters of SC2 LotV, which is to say, it has to be a turtly strat and as a turtly strat it has to have inherent weaknesses and can't be allowed to easily put together a truly unbeatable army quickly or easily or merely by turtling. Because if it it did, that would fundamentally break the game of LotV, and people would hate it--and they have!
It can still remain perfectly viable, though, by some combo of being less immobile period, being forced to spread out more, being forced to engage in harassment more, and/or having clear weaknesses to its final army such that it can't beat everything and only works as an occasional or surprise or counter-strat. Mech in SC2 has gone back and forth between these options a lot, and I'm perfectly supportive of changes that serve any or all of those purposes.
But then, we come back to the original question, which is: what do mech players want? They do have to somewhat pick their poison, because they will simply never get BW Terran mech in SC2.
Excellent bloody post this one!
|
On October 19 2025 21:37 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2025 16:45 WombaT wrote:On October 19 2025 13:14 Lexender wrote:On October 14 2025 19:44 MJG wrote:I remembered something that I read (almost a decade ago) about this same subject: On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:
Can you explain how wanting mech to be competitive isn't "stupid" (irrational) at its core? You've just picked some production buildings and units that follow a non-combat theme (they're mechanical) and ask Blizzard to change the rules of the game so this theme of units you like building is viable to play on every map and against every race. There's no other group of SC2 players like the mech players. I think it's totally cool to have a composition that you like to play but it goes too far when discussing possibly changing of the rules of the game to make your little pet composition better. It all started with mech being viable in a different game and wanting an equivalent in SC2, which is not at all unlike comparing terran mech to protoss mech. The races aren't supposed to be the same and neither are the games. The completely arbitrary picking of certain terran units, the "mechanical" ones built from factories and starports, is so absurd as a basis for this whole movement that you don't even think about it anymore. Every time the mech petitioners go too far with how much they want the whole game to change to suit them, people have to come remind you how ridiculous it all is. I couldn't put it better if I tried. EDIT: Also this: On December 12 2013 01:31 NonY wrote:
The thing is that bio play is so resilient and good for all stages of the game, because that's what has been balanced and has been the focus of competitive play since 2010, that you can't just make mech have all the same strengths as bio and tell terran "we've actually designed two perfectly viable ways for you to play from top to bottom. pick one and have fun". At least one of them must be situational and have some glaring weaknesses along with some unique strengths.
What I've gathered from mech players is that they want mech to be as solid and dependable as it was in BW. As long as bio is filling that role, then what's the point? I don't get it from a game design perspective. They don't just want more variety because they don't want the increased risks inherent to that. They already hate how often protoss is currently rewarded for risky play. They are basically saying "these are the units I like. this is the style of play I like. make it viable." If bio was so unreliable and so boring, then I could understand it. But it can take on anything, it is mechanically challenging and tactically challenging, and it makes for a lot of action and cool moves. It is everything we could want in a StarCraft matchup and their response is "but I like tankssssss". Well, my favorite unit was the reaver, but I play SC2 now. This quote made some (SOME) sense back on their time when Blizzard was still wishy-washy about mech but its completely stupid by todays standard. Not only has been making mech a viable choice in all three MU an important design goal by Blizzard but several changes have already been made towards that (including new upgrades like Banshee speed, a whole unit in the cyclone and even total design overhauls like what happened to the tank). Mech isn't something a few crazy players ask for like in 2015 anymore and trying to dismiss its importance in the game is incredibly disingenuous. What is mech? I mean really? Earnest question In SC2 context mech is the "promise" of a less mechanically-demanding playstyle to lower-level Terran users, which would be more in-line with their Zerg and Protoss counterparts on this part of the skill spectrum. Since the game has shifted away from it's original design with LotV's release to promote more harass, expanding, multitasking, mech has kinda fallen off, but what has always kinda rubbed me the wrong way as a mech player myself is this kind-of bad-faith argument that while it's generally okay for the other two races to build up "unbeatable" lategame compositions when leaving them unchecked, mech always has been universally hated, although simply achieved the same thing for Terrans (again, at least in lower leagues). As a side note in response to those Nony quotes: If it's illogical to assume that SC2 Terran should have viable mech "just because BW Terran has it", then why are we accepting that Terran still is the timing-based race also in SC2? I think turtling/playing defensively is a choice that should be viable for players to make, depending on their personal preferences. Does it have to culminate in HotS TvZ with Swarmhosts vs mech? No, but taking this away from players entirely as an option to base their strategy on in a strategy game is dumb IMO, when there's counter strategies available to deal with it.
I'm curious what you think the "unbeatable" lategame zerg composition is. Especially when we're discussing lower leagues where viper/infestor micro is very challenging. Just doesn't feel like that's something terran and protoss have to worry too much about.
|
On October 20 2025 23:24 Captain Peabody wrote:
But then, we come back to the original question, which is: what do mech players want? They do have to somewhat pick their poison, because they will simply never get BW Terran mech in SC2.
Many good points here. There are many "styles" that one could figure out with mech, but in the sc2 context I think we need to narrow it down if we want any change to happen. Generally I think everyone could agree that these are iconic mech styles through the endgame (I'm including the context of the ability to push out since I think most agree that pure turtling is not ideal, and I'm not including strategies intended to win the game in early-to-midgame like Cyclone-heavy strategies):
- Methodical Tank-pushing
- Steamrolling with Thors
Of those two, I think most mech players would identify methodical Tank-pushing to be the most iconic style of mech, so I think it is fair to prioritize it.
The problems, as stated by plenty of others, are around the lack of mobility of mech combined with the high focus of harassment and expansion in LotV.
There are four ways to get past these issues:
1. A complete game design overhaul to focus less on harassment. Likely not achievable at this point, but one can dream.
2. Maps that feature tighter expansion paths and/or bases with denser resources. Likely more achievable than #1, but also favors turtle strategies. Still, perhaps there remains some potential for exploration in mapmaking.
3. Allow mech to be effective on a significantly lower base count. This is essentially the definition of "boring turtle gameplay," which is not great for the gameplay or viewership experience.
4. Changes to mech units to allow for more flexibility in defense and offense, without making it too mobile or allowing Factory unit support to make Terran bio too strong. Difficult, but I think there is more that can be explored here and it's more achievable than #1.
The root challenge on a composition level that #4 would need to solve is making up for the fact that a full supply mobile army can quickly come together to attack or defend a distant expansion by itself, and just as quickly split up to attack or defend multiple expansions. Protoss is generally slower than Terran bio and Zerg, but can manage to keep up due to:
A) "pseudo-mobility" in the forms of Warp Gate and Recall.
B) having units that can threaten to quickly destroy significant chunks of a mobile army for a comparatively low supply cost in the form of Disruptors and High Templar (high burst-splash units that can be threatening in low numbers). More prominently in earlier versions of SC2, Forcefields also have been a way to delay opposing pushes and allow mobile midgame armies to be eaten up in smaller bites.
C) decent harassment potential in various forms, particularly with Warp Prisms and Zealot/DT runbys in the lategame.
The closest thing Terran mech has for "pseudo-mobility" is Medivacs to carry mech units, but given the cost of Medivacs that is hardly a viable equivalent. Blizzard tried to capitalize on this with "Meditanks" at some point, which was a nice try but presented too many balance and design challenges.
As for units that can supply-efficiently destroy significant chunks of a mobile army (high burst-splash units that are effective in low numbers), the closest equivalents are Widow Mines and Tanks themselves. In WoL days, we also had Seeker Missiles on Ravens and 250mm Cannons on Thors, and Point Defense Drone effectively made opposing armies much "smaller" in terms of damage output.
So why do Disruptors and High Templar achieve for Protoss what Widow Mines and Tanks can't seem to achieve for mech? There are probably details I don't know of as to why, but here are what I believe to be likely reasons:
- Purification Nova is a dynamic ability that can force more APM and time to avoid it, also effectively reducing the damage output of the opposing force as well while it moves/splits away from the nova. Additionally, because of its sheer damage potential, a large army must pay attention to a low number of Purification Novas even with no other units present, whereas a large army can often safely ignore a low number of Tanks or Widow Mines if no other units are present.
- Storms similarly cannot just be ignored and must be moved/split away from.
- The time to "dodge" that Purification Nova and Storm force helps towards allowing Protoss to utilize their "pseudo-mobility" perks to reinforce the position.
- Widow Mines do not have the range to dynamically cover an area in the same way that Disruptors and High Templar can. However, increasing Widow Mine range would have detrimental effects on balance for bio and for harassment, and there's likely no way it could be increased enough in a reasonable way to make up for the deficit.
- Tanks simply do not have the damage output to melt opposing units as quickly as Storms and Purification Novas have the potential to without being in higher numbers, and the necessity to siege and unsiege simply gives them less movement flexibility than units that don't need to siege and unsiege (arguably the Siege Tank's high range can make up for this, though). Upping the Tank's damage output is, of course, a fragile endeavor, especially when considering midgame Terran pushes and high counts of Tanks in the late game.
Regarding harassment potential, Hellions of course have great worker-melting potential. However, their poor performance in direct combat and virtually non-existent ability to take down structures makes them largely inferior in the lategame compared to bio drops and Zealot/DT runbys. Banshees could potentially fill this gap, but they largely do not double as a valuable contribution to the main army and are less expendable than bio units and Zealots. DTs technically don't have those strengths either, but their niche of deleting town hall structures so quickly gives them a strong enough edge. BCs can be decent harassment in the earlier game stages, but are a huge investment and tend to fall off in effectiveness in the lategame - also, conceptually, it's a bit ridiculous to rely on a capital ship as a harassment unit.
All of that considered, it boils down to:
1. Giving mech some more mobility flexibility without overdoing it or making Factory support of bio too strong.
2. Giving mech a way to force large armies to respect a low number of defensive units, like what Protoss has in Disruptors and High Templar.
3. Giving mech reliable harassment potential.
How do we achieve this? I'm not sure what the best ways are. Here are some ideas to spur discussion:
- Add a "mech dropship" that is cheaper/free on gas and maybe even lower supply cost than a Medivac but doesn't heal units, and maybe only carries Mechanical units. Maybe it unlocks at Armory tech. Maybe instead of carrying units based on supply and special rules, it carries a certain flat number of units (so it could carry 4 Hellions or 4 Tanks), or it is based on supply but can carry more supply than a Medivac. This provides some mobility flexibility without severely strengthening Factory units supporting bio, while also providing some additional harassment potential.
- Explore what Seeker Missile, 250mm Cannons, and Point Defense Drone could look like in a LotV context, hopefully allowing a small number of units to threaten or hold off large mobile armies for a long enough amount of time to allow reinforcements to mobilize or counterattack. Point Defense Drone particularly would likely need a rework, such as giving its laser an attack delay so it only intercepts a limited amount of incoming projectiles instead of all of them. Some kind of redesign of the Cyclone or Banshee to have a missile or bomb or something to threaten large clumps of units or have some PDD-like functionality could alternatively be a direction to explore.
- Explore what adding a slight delay between a Siege Tank shot firing and landing opens up in terms of a potential damage output or splash radius increase. This delay means that Tanks will be less effective when clumped together due to an increased chance of wasted shots, encouraging spreading them out more (this could be leaned into even further by decreasing the Tank's rate of fire, making the wasted shots more costly). This could potentially allow room to make smaller groups of Tanks stronger whilst punishing pure turtle strategies. Notably, any damage increase could potentially need to be in the form of an upgrade to avoid making midgame mixed Terran pushes too strong.
- Handling any two of the aspects of mobility flexibility, defensive potential of a low number of units, and reliable harassment potential could allow some breathing room for the third aspect to be indirectly improved (for example, more harassment can potentially be invested into if a smaller amount of units can more effectively delay an attack on an expansion and the other mech units can more quickly reinforce).
Again, I don't know if those are the right changes, these are merely meant to spur discussion. If someone else has better ideas, let's hear them.
|
Northern Ireland26192 Posts
On October 21 2025 04:04 NinjaDuckBob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2025 23:24 Captain Peabody wrote:
But then, we come back to the original question, which is: what do mech players want? They do have to somewhat pick their poison, because they will simply never get BW Terran mech in SC2.
Many good points here. There are many "styles" that one could figure out with mech, but in the sc2 context I think we need to narrow it down if we want any change to happen. Generally I think everyone could agree that these are iconic mech styles through the endgame (I'm including the context of the ability to push out since I think most agree that pure turtling is not ideal, and I'm not including strategies intended to win the game in early-to-midgame like Cyclone-heavy strategies): - Methodical Tank-pushing - Steamrolling with Thors Of those two, I think most mech players would identify methodical Tank-pushing to be the most iconic style of mech, so I think it is fair to prioritize it. The problems, as stated by plenty of others, are around the lack of mobility of mech combined with the high focus of harassment and expansion in LotV. There are four ways to get past these issues: 1. A complete game design overhaul to focus less on harassment. Likely not achievable at this point, but one can dream. 2. Maps that feature tighter expansion paths and/or bases with denser resources. Likely more achievable than #1, but also favors turtle strategies. Still, perhaps there remains some potential for exploration in mapmaking. 3. Allow mech to be effective on a significantly lower base count. This is essentially the definition of "boring turtle gameplay," which is not great for the gameplay or viewership experience. 4. Changes to mech units to allow for more flexibility in defense and offense, without making it too mobile or allowing Factory unit support to make Terran bio too strong. Difficult, but I think there is more that can be explored here and it's more achievable than #1. The root challenge on a composition level that #4 would need to solve is making up for the fact that a full supply mobile army can quickly come together to attack or defend a distant expansion by itself, and just as quickly split up to attack or defend multiple expansions. Protoss is generally slower than Terran bio and Zerg, but can manage to keep up due to: A) "pseudo-mobility" in the forms of Warp Gate and Recall. B) having units that can threaten to quickly destroy significant chunks of a mobile army for a comparatively low supply cost in the form of Disruptors and High Templar (high burst-splash units that can be threatening in low numbers). More prominently in earlier versions of SC2, Forcefields also have been a way to delay opposing pushes and allow mobile midgame armies to be eaten up in smaller bites. C) decent harassment potential in various forms, particularly with Warp Prisms and Zealot/DT runbys in the lategame. The closest thing Terran mech has for "pseudo-mobility" is Medivacs to carry mech units, but given the cost of Medivacs that is hardly a viable equivalent. Blizzard tried to capitalize on this with "Meditanks" at some point, which was a nice try but presented too many balance and design challenges. As for units that can supply-efficiently destroy significant chunks of a mobile army (high burst-splash units that are effective in low numbers), the closest equivalents are Widow Mines and Tanks themselves. In WoL days, we also had Seeker Missiles on Ravens and 250mm Cannons on Thors, and Point Defense Drone effectively made opposing armies much "smaller" in terms of damage output. So why do Disruptors and High Templar achieve for Protoss what Widow Mines and Tanks can't seem to achieve for mech? There are probably details I don't know of as to why, but here are what I believe to be likely reasons: - Purification Nova is a dynamic ability that can force more APM and time to avoid it, also effectively reducing the damage output of the opposing force as well while it moves/splits away from the nova. Additionally, because of its sheer damage potential, a large army must pay attention to a low number of Purification Novas even with no other units present, whereas a large army can often safely ignore a low number of Tanks or Widow Mines if no other units are present. - Storms similarly cannot just be ignored and must be moved/split away from. - The time to "dodge" that Purification Nova and Storm force helps towards allowing Protoss to utilize their "pseudo-mobility" perks to reinforce the position. - Widow Mines do not have the range to dynamically cover an area in the same way that Disruptors and High Templar can. However, increasing Widow Mine range would have detrimental effects on balance for bio and for harassment, and there's likely no way it could be increased enough in a reasonable way to make up for the deficit. - Tanks simply do not have the damage output to melt opposing units as quickly as Storms and Purification Novas have the potential to without being in higher numbers, and the necessity to siege and unsiege simply gives them less movement flexibility than units that don't need to siege and unsiege (arguably the Siege Tank's high range can make up for this, though). Upping the Tank's damage output is, of course, a fragile endeavor, especially when considering midgame Terran pushes and high counts of Tanks in the late game. Regarding harassment potential, Hellions of course have great worker-melting potential. However, their poor performance in direct combat and virtually non-existent ability to take down structures makes them largely inferior in the lategame compared to bio drops and Zealot/DT runbys. Banshees could potentially fill this gap, but they largely do not double as a valuable contribution to the main army and are less expendable than bio units and Zealots. DTs technically don't have those strengths either, but their niche of deleting town hall structures so quickly gives them a strong enough edge. BCs can be decent harassment in the earlier game stages, but are a huge investment and tend to fall off in effectiveness in the lategame - also, conceptually, it's a bit ridiculous to rely on a capital ship as a harassment unit. All of that considered, it boils down to: 1. Giving mech some more mobility flexibility without overdoing it or making Factory support of bio too strong. 2. Giving mech a way to force large armies to respect a low number of defensive units, like what Protoss has in Disruptors and High Templar. 3. Giving mech reliable harassment potential. How do we achieve this? I'm not sure what the best ways are. Here are some ideas to spur discussion: - Add a "mech dropship" that is cheaper/free on gas and maybe even lower supply cost than a Medivac but doesn't heal units, and maybe only carries Mechanical units. Maybe it unlocks at Armory tech. Maybe instead of carrying units based on supply and special rules, it carries a certain flat number of units (so it could carry 4 Hellions or 4 Tanks), or it is based on supply but can carry more supply than a Medivac. This provides some mobility flexibility without severely strengthening Factory units supporting bio, while also providing some additional harassment potential. - Explore what Seeker Missile, 250mm Cannons, and Point Defense Drone could look like in a LotV context, hopefully allowing a small number of units to threaten or hold off large mobile armies for a long enough amount of time to allow reinforcements to mobilize or counterattack. Point Defense Drone particularly would likely need a rework, such as giving its laser an attack delay so it only intercepts a limited amount of incoming projectiles instead of all of them. Some kind of redesign of the Cyclone or Banshee to have a missile or bomb or something to threaten large clumps of units or have some PDD-like functionality could alternatively be a direction to explore. - Explore what adding a slight delay between a Siege Tank shot firing and landing opens up in terms of a potential damage output or splash radius increase. This delay means that Tanks will be less effective when clumped together due to an increased chance of wasted shots, encouraging spreading them out more (this could be leaned into even further by decreasing the Tank's rate of fire, making the wasted shots more costly). This could potentially allow room to make smaller groups of Tanks stronger whilst punishing pure turtle strategies. Notably, any damage increase could potentially need to be in the form of an upgrade to avoid making midgame mixed Terran pushes too strong. - Handling any two of the aspects of mobility flexibility, defensive potential of a low number of units, and reliable harassment potential could allow some breathing room for the third aspect to be indirectly improved (for example, more harassment can potentially be invested into if a smaller amount of units can more effectively delay an attack on an expansion and the other mech units can more quickly reinforce). Again, I don't know if those are the right changes, these are merely meant to spur discussion. If someone else has better ideas, let's hear them.
Interesting ideas and a fine post.
But you almost end up needing to make big, sweeping changes in an asymmetric RTS that’s generally always been vaguely balanced, to enable a particular style of play, that’s almost the diametric opposite of how a faction generally plays.
|
I don't know why you'd need sweeping changes, it was semi viable last patch, the style also don't have to be as good as bio, but it's great to have, not only because bio is very taxing, but also for variety or strategic options.
But I'll be honest, speaking as a toss, what makes me want to try terran off race has been turtling with seeker missiles, or powerful ghosts, Bunkering up and using planetaries and missile turrets, this is the terran feel that's somewhat missing in current sc2. Bio is only rly a thing because of medics and that buys into this idea of the scrappy race trying to eek out every little bit extra from otherwise weaker troops.
|
On October 21 2025 22:44 ejozl wrote:
I don't know why you'd need sweeping changes, it was semi viable last patch, the style also don't have to be as good as bio, but it's great to have, not only because bio is very taxing, but also for variety or strategic options.
Semi-viable is not the same as viable. If the game is balanced with bio in mind, then a strategy that is meaningfully worse than bio will underperform except as a surprise strategy or as one players don't know how to play against. Mech has to be at least above a certain threshold of "good" in comparison to bio at any particular level of play in order to see consistent results with it at that level respectively. So if we want to see generally consistent pro results with mech, we need mech as a composition to be at least close to as good as bio at the pro level. Otherwise, it largely doesn't contribute to that benefit of a variety of strategic options.
|
Tbh I don't think every strategy/style needs to be viable as they are not good for the health of the game. We need to have some mech units need to be very good and viable all game, and we have that in the siege tank and viking/liberator. I would say this patch made mech better (pure mech probably worse with cyclone bugfix), not worse due to tank not being abductable and viking cost reduction. Going pure turtle mech should never be the best strategy and should be unviable at top pro scene as its terrible to watch. Turtle terran itself is still viable vs zerg, but it requires using ghosts and other bio units to properly pull off.
I will say that watching oracles spam stasis last patch, or carriers winning at every level that isnt vs Serral is horrible for esports and I'm glad theyve both been nerfed over the years. I don't want to see a return of turtle mech or swarmhosts (like in hots) being viable at pro play or anything coming close to it.
Mech is still very much viable outside of pro play and you can get pretty high on ladder with it... I am pretty old myself (nearing 40 with a nerve issue in my keyboard hand) so I lean very hard on mech due to APM constraints and can still pull off top 50 GM going pure mech on this patch (even before the hotfix nerf). So to say mech has been killed is laughable, it's fine it just isn't going to win you any world championships. You can also spam carriers or roaches to very high ratings with the other races too, every race has their easy mode if you want to actually utilize it that falls apart once you start approaching pro levels. Let's just be happy blizzard is actively balancing the game, re-opening dead servers, and possibly providing further support down the road.
|
Mech is a limited subset of a single faction's units. it should not be viable all the time. In particular, if your opponent knows ahead time you have a big tendency to just build 5 factories as fast as possible you should be at a big disadvantage.
|
On October 19 2025 16:45 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2025 13:14 Lexender wrote:On October 14 2025 19:44 MJG wrote:I remembered something that I read (almost a decade ago) about this same subject: On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:
Can you explain how wanting mech to be competitive isn't "stupid" (irrational) at its core? You've just picked some production buildings and units that follow a non-combat theme (they're mechanical) and ask Blizzard to change the rules of the game so this theme of units you like building is viable to play on every map and against every race. There's no other group of SC2 players like the mech players. I think it's totally cool to have a composition that you like to play but it goes too far when discussing possibly changing of the rules of the game to make your little pet composition better. It all started with mech being viable in a different game and wanting an equivalent in SC2, which is not at all unlike comparing terran mech to protoss mech. The races aren't supposed to be the same and neither are the games. The completely arbitrary picking of certain terran units, the "mechanical" ones built from factories and starports, is so absurd as a basis for this whole movement that you don't even think about it anymore. Every time the mech petitioners go too far with how much they want the whole game to change to suit them, people have to come remind you how ridiculous it all is. I couldn't put it better if I tried. EDIT: Also this: On December 12 2013 01:31 NonY wrote:
The thing is that bio play is so resilient and good for all stages of the game, because that's what has been balanced and has been the focus of competitive play since 2010, that you can't just make mech have all the same strengths as bio and tell terran "we've actually designed two perfectly viable ways for you to play from top to bottom. pick one and have fun". At least one of them must be situational and have some glaring weaknesses along with some unique strengths.
What I've gathered from mech players is that they want mech to be as solid and dependable as it was in BW. As long as bio is filling that role, then what's the point? I don't get it from a game design perspective. They don't just want more variety because they don't want the increased risks inherent to that. They already hate how often protoss is currently rewarded for risky play. They are basically saying "these are the units I like. this is the style of play I like. make it viable." If bio was so unreliable and so boring, then I could understand it. But it can take on anything, it is mechanically challenging and tactically challenging, and it makes for a lot of action and cool moves. It is everything we could want in a StarCraft matchup and their response is "but I like tankssssss". Well, my favorite unit was the reaver, but I play SC2 now. This quote made some (SOME) sense back on their time when Blizzard was still wishy-washy about mech but its completely stupid by todays standard. Not only has been making mech a viable choice in all three MU an important design goal by Blizzard but several changes have already been made towards that (including new upgrades like Banshee speed, a whole unit in the cyclone and even total design overhauls like what happened to the tank). Mech isn't something a few crazy players ask for like in 2015 anymore and trying to dismiss its importance in the game is incredibly disingenuous. What is mech? I mean really? Earnest question
A different composition really, having different units with diferent upgrades and their strenghts be the core of your main army, much how a zerg can go roach or ling bane and then transition, mech isnt JUST mech units, mech in TvZ has had ghost as part of it since LotV.
I mean how often do you see blueflame? Banshee speed? Servos? Half of the terran upgrades could may as well not exist at all if only bio was the way to play. Same thing with cyclones and hellbats, wich you see less than 6 made in a game, if they are made at all.
For the record I don't think we need sweeping changes, mech strenght has always been tied to the map pool and I think thats a good think that adds a nice dept of strategy because complaining about stuff like this:
On October 24 2025 07:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Mech is a limited subset of a single faction's units. it should not be viable all the time. In particular, if your opponent knows ahead time you have a big tendency to just build 5 factories as fast as possible you should be at a big disadvantage.
Like that isnt exactly what happens with bio but its somehow ok for you enemy to know you build 5 barracks but not 5 factories.
Having the option to mech once in a while adds nice variety and it really doesnt need big changes (mech TvP was viable in some maps a few patches ago and that was a nice change even if it wasnt good as a main strat).
|
Protoss is structured as ground or air comp - with 3 tech trees for support units, Robo, Templar, Stargate
The research and tech tree are organized in this way, to emphasize Protoss as the few but strong "tech" race
The upgrades are grouped by ground upgrades and air upgrades, hence separating Protoss into "ground protoss" and "skytoss" allowing air units to make up the majority of your army
Zerg is structured as mass larvae at Hatcheries, with only needing 1 tech building to make a huge army of the unit you need
This organization emphasizes Zerg as the swarmy "economy" race
Their research is also uniquely organized as melee, range, armor for ground, and then also attack and armor for air
Terran is structured as Barracks, Factory, and Starport units (and mid-way SC2 Starport got merged a bit into Factory due to shared upgrades)
This organization emphasizes Terran as the production focused "army" race
The research is grouped by barracks, factory/starport
Of course you shouldn't be able to make pure Robo units as Protoss.
With Mech, you also shouldn't be able to make a competitive composition with pure Factory units either.
You need to eventually diversify with some starport units and/or bio units (Ghost).
"Bio" itself is already supported also by Factory and Starport units.
Mech just makes the base composition center more around Factory instead.
Anyways, of course the balance team and conversation that pros and players focus on will never unfortunately think about mech much, because the players and viewers who were open to mech styles or enjoyed those styles have long since lost interest in the game. It's a survivor's effect.
Unfortunately, many changes over time - such as making Raven more of a bio support spellcaster than a Mech spellcaster, really took away from Mech. (Why does AA missile have to so dominantly favor bio units' rate of fire? why not something that increases armor instead of increasing dps?)
Thankfully they pulled back the 140 total dmg Storm a bit though. But it should be fine either way because they also have less range to cast it, making it easier to snipe HTs with tanks, libs, and ghosts. I don't think HTs are the main issue for Mech.
|
Good post, but having a whole play style that only comes from one building really isn't a problem.
In BW terran plays fact only vs. toss and that's not indicative of bad game design, and hydras pre-bw with lurkers were the only unit that the missiles attack upg supported.
When the raven anti armour was implemented cyclones were pew pewing so it actually made sense, now it's a bio only unit. I think with the storm range nerf you could nerf feedback, fungal, emp with 1 range and that would bring them more in line with interference matrix which could then have more of a showing.
Mb aa missile could do a debuff called vulnerable which does the following: every weapon does its full effect dmg, meaning +vs. light, +vs. armoured, or whatever type is dealt to vulnerable units.
And mb infestor stinky cloud could do the opposite, give resistance which negates +vs type modifiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
