|
On November 10 2025 05:32 WombaT wrote:
Which leads us to the mech ‘problem’. Terran’s general identity and core design is very potent core units that are extremely microable, and in general a shitload of units that require good micro and scale well with it, and this lends itself to big pushes, or picking apart the opponent with aggressive multitasking.
Now mech? I mean it’s cool and iconic, but it ain’t that. And, with each expansion Terran has become yet better suited to the aforementioned style.
Aside from what I said earlier about eco more generally, I think the tricky problem Blizz has, and has generally always had, is developing essentially two completely different identities/playstyles for one faction, and avoiding overlap.
In short, how do you make both equally potent, without making some hybrid best of both worlds approach, not be ridiculous? If you’re a player with the requisite micro and positional chops, that could be pretty brutal if there’s a misstep in a patch. I mean Ghostmech is pretty good already, what if the mech part is meaningfully stronger? To take one example.
Blends can work, marine/tank wars are pretty beloved for a reason and TvT probably is the most unique mirror in terms of testing a different skillset from the non-mirrors
These are fair questions.
Regarding Ghostmech, it has strengths, but it's not Ghostbio strong. Well-controlled Ghosts can certainly help alleviate some compositional weaknesses in Mech by providing an answer to some of Mech's weaknesses to certain units (and providing extra damage against Shields with EMP), but Ghosts don't make up for the weaknesses of Mech in the multi-front LotV context that Bio shines so brightly in.
I suppose my question in response would be, "Is it impossible to allow Mech to compete in a multi-front context whilst maintaining some weaknesses?" To me, the answer to that question is the same as the question for Protoss. I do believe it is possible to allow Protoss to compete in a multi-front context whilst maintaining weaknesses. Ultimately, for all of Protoss's bandaids, Zerg and Bio are still more mobile and have strengths that Protoss armies do not have. Whether or not the current state of the game is balanced between the races is another question, as is the question of whether or not the things filling those gaps for Protoss are the best things that could be filling those gaps (I would agree that they are not), but ultimately 2 things are true:
- The gaps for Protoss are filled.
- The gaps being filled for Protoss does not mean that Bio and Zerg compositions don't have their own unique strengths.
I believe the same could be accomplished for Mech.
Regarding "best of both worlds" - there is a reason why Bio/Tank is not currently as popular as Bio in the non-mirrors. That style has always had the tradeoff of limiting the strengths of Bio's mobility in order to take advantage of the zoning capabilities of Tanks (which lategame Bio has often used Liberators for instead in LotV, which as flying units have higher mobility than Tanks). The "best of both worlds" idea is an illusion because when mixing them, you cannot avoid also mixing in the weaknesses.
- More Tanks means less Ghosts/Vikings/Medivacs for Bio. Pick whether you want to reduce everything Ghosts do, reduce anti-air and vision support, or reduce healing and drop potential. You could say the same for Liberators, but Liberators are more versatile for harassment and are also easier to retreat than Tanks and so do not need to be babysat by the Bio army to the same degree.
- A meaningful number of Tanks will always be a liability if left alone, so at least some portion of the Bio army needs to stay close to the Tanks if the Tanks are out on the map. This means the Bio army is not unfettered in its ability to swing from one side of the map to the other or from one expansion to another so easily, it must play a more "rubber band" playstyle that allows it to return to wherever the Tanks are if needed, else risk losing the investment into the Tanks.
- On the other side, a Bio/Tank army is almost never going to have the same efficiency in a straight-up army clash as a Mech composition. Whatever supply is tied up in Bio means less supply tied up in Mech units, and because of the upgrade split between Bio and Mech, ultimately one part of the army is most likely going to have an upgrade deficit compared to if either Bio or Mech alone were committed to. The strength of Mech over Bio is better supply efficiency in those straight-up engagements at the cost of Bio's mobility.
Now, I do think the biggest concern is the potency of Ravens. Ravens largely don't care about upgrades. Bio into mass Raven was not an unheard-of strategy in the past. Ghost/Raven was ridiculously strong at some points in SC2's history. To deal with this, I do think some things can still be explored, though:
- Any/all of the things I mentioned in my previous post to temper the power of some of the Raven's most potent historical abilities, including considering a supply cost increase for the Raven.
- Possibly splitting some of those abilities into a different/new unit or structure so that, in the case of a unit, more supply and spellcasting management is required to use all of the abilities, or in the case of a structure, of course the potency is limited to wherever that structure is built.
- Leaning into the mobility compatibility drawback of Mech and Bio by giving the Raven a slower movement speed. This also forces splitting the Ravens to cover the multi-front situations that show up in the context of LotV.
|
How 'bout we buff the lock-on cd from 6->4, this way mech has a mobile way to keep up with the expansion rate of the other styles, and in a mechy-feely kind of way. Even in bw not all of mech is immobile, vultures are ones of the fastest units of the game.
|
On November 10 2025 05:40 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2025 05:37 WombaT wrote:On November 10 2025 00:49 Creager wrote:On November 09 2025 20:12 WombaT wrote:
I play bio like a real man
Not my point though. Why should the game risk being unbalanced just to make mech better? With bizarre changes that are counter to what mech’s identity is meant to be?
What is mech, to you, and why does it need made more viable?
I’m of the opinion that it would be nice to have that slow push, positional style that’s less APM intensive be viable, sure. But it’s not like Blizzard haven’t tried tons of times over the years. And sometimes those were awful changes IMO. I’ve never been a fan of the cyclone and that was stuck in the game to help mech out explicitly.
More so to appease the mech crowd than basically anyone else in fact. Balance whining can be obnoxious of course, but at least bio players, Toss and Zerg players are generally wanting a balanced, varied game and not demanding a very specific playstyle, with specific units be good. Can you please abstain from this sexist rethoric? It's pretty dumb to frame something as 'manly' or 'unmanly', especially with the inference that one thing is more difficult than the other. You can make your argument entirely without relying on that initial statement. Members of the Terran ‘Master race’ have been riffing off that for 15 years so it was poking fun at them, not my own position. But yeah fair point, misjudged attempt at humour on my part FWIW I think it's fine. We have lore surrounding an individual known as the ManToss. The word "manly" is not a slur. Personal insecurities are not a reason for censorship in a public forum.
Sure, whatever makes you sleep at night. Might want to queue that update to your world view while you're at it, your current version seems quite outdated.
|
May I also suggest a new spell for the raven, "Repair all army"? Costs 100 Energy and instantly repairs all your mech units to full health. I think it would really suit the underpowered Terran race and fix some of the issue this absolutely valid composition has! The idea with teleportation, of course, also sounds wonderful - really matches the Terran race identity, too! Maybe add chronoboost to the CC? Those BCs take an awfully long time to build!
|
On November 08 2025 20:53 bycrazingby wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2025 20:15 MJG wrote:On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:
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.  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.
This is an amazing description of Mech balance whiners.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On November 10 2025 17:32 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2025 05:40 Jealous wrote:On November 10 2025 05:37 WombaT wrote:On November 10 2025 00:49 Creager wrote:On November 09 2025 20:12 WombaT wrote:
I play bio like a real man
Not my point though. Why should the game risk being unbalanced just to make mech better? With bizarre changes that are counter to what mech’s identity is meant to be?
What is mech, to you, and why does it need made more viable?
I’m of the opinion that it would be nice to have that slow push, positional style that’s less APM intensive be viable, sure. But it’s not like Blizzard haven’t tried tons of times over the years. And sometimes those were awful changes IMO. I’ve never been a fan of the cyclone and that was stuck in the game to help mech out explicitly.
More so to appease the mech crowd than basically anyone else in fact. Balance whining can be obnoxious of course, but at least bio players, Toss and Zerg players are generally wanting a balanced, varied game and not demanding a very specific playstyle, with specific units be good. Can you please abstain from this sexist rethoric? It's pretty dumb to frame something as 'manly' or 'unmanly', especially with the inference that one thing is more difficult than the other. You can make your argument entirely without relying on that initial statement. Members of the Terran ‘Master race’ have been riffing off that for 15 years so it was poking fun at them, not my own position. But yeah fair point, misjudged attempt at humour on my part FWIW I think it's fine. We have lore surrounding an individual known as the ManToss. The word "manly" is not a slur. Personal insecurities are not a reason for censorship in a public forum. Sure, whatever makes you sleep at night. Might want to queue that update to your world view while you're at it, your current version seems quite outdated.
There is an often an implication or association with asinine, or unwise behaviour when manliness is invoked. Or of prideful stubbornness, which intersects pretty neatly with conceptions of toxic masculinity.
I mean a dude getting drunk and punching a bear is, neither wise nor admirable, it is however, manly as fuck.
Granted, the rabbit hole goes deep and this thread is ostensibly about mech, so I won’t ramble too much.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On November 10 2025 19:19 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2025 20:53 bycrazingby wrote:On November 08 2025 20:15 MJG wrote:On December 08 2015 04:33 NonY wrote:
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. 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. This is an amazing description of Mech balance whiners.
It’s almost too perfect!
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On November 10 2025 16:10 ejozl wrote:
How 'bout we buff the lock-on cd from 6->4, this way mech has a mobile way to keep up with the expansion rate of the other styles, and in a mechy-feely kind of way. Even in bw not all of mech is immobile, vultures are ones of the fastest units of the game.
There’s a real fundamental lack of synergy between the cyclone and the tank. They end up clashing, where the primarily tank/vulture combo work together really well, mines are pretty good.
Cyclones pump out damage at quite some range, as do tanks. But cyclones ideally you want to be constantly moving into range and kiting backwards, tanks want to be slowly, methodically pushing forwards.
They simply don’t work all that well together. It’s a bit awkward.
Battlemech can be fun, and the micro itself is easier than bio, but if anything, at least at a high level you almost have to be more active with your cyclone/hellion squad than with bio.
So you run into the problem of how to move around in sync that’s more pronounced than say, marine/tank.
Successful battlemech into mech games tend to fit the same pattern where the cyclone/hellion ball runs around for 10 minutes straight and does enough damage to the (usually) Zerg to gradually swap out the ball to enable a big tank-based deathball to be made, which then just kills them/or becomes unbreakable. It’s like a game of 2 phases in that sense.
Now, there’s nothing innately wrong with that, but it’s a high-APM style that requires constant micro and consistent aggression to work. Isn’t that precisely the issue people have with playing bio, and why they want a slower, more methodical option?
Also in general I’m just not a massive fan of cyclones anyway, so am wary of buffing them. What usually happens is we just get tons of mass cyclone play, and not tank-based mech.
|
Mech units should have teleportation plus detection. And, Blizzard should team up with Logitech to offer a new macro programmable mouse so Mech formations can move and attack together throughout the battlefield in 1 preprogrammed click.
They can use the profits from the mice to fund the GSL and Wardi's events.
On a serious note: I go Mech 50% of the time. My ladder record approximately matches my skill level. Leave Mech alone ... It is fine.
|
On November 10 2025 20:22 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2025 16:10 ejozl wrote:
How 'bout we buff the lock-on cd from 6->4, this way mech has a mobile way to keep up with the expansion rate of the other styles, and in a mechy-feely kind of way. Even in bw not all of mech is immobile, vultures are ones of the fastest units of the game. There’s a real fundamental lack of synergy between the cyclone and the tank. They end up clashing, where the primarily tank/vulture combo work together really well, mines are pretty good. Cyclones pump out damage at quite some range, as do tanks. But cyclones ideally you want to be constantly moving into range and kiting backwards, tanks want to be slowly, methodically pushing forwards. They simply don’t work all that well together. It’s a bit awkward.
This is a really good key point. Of all the changes tried with the Cyclone, it really feels like the question was never considered, "How can we make the Cyclone synergize better with Tanks?"
This also brings to mind a TvP playstyle from back in HotS days that was promoted by a player named Hammer that relied on Siege Tank/Widow Mine synergy, with some Marauder support. The Widow Mine in a sense is a much more suitable equivalent to the Vulture when thinking of Siege Tank synergy based on the basic premise of "Mines protect Tanks from attackers, Tanks protect Mines from attackers." Marauders supplement the Vulture's supporting role of picking off stragglers, and Hellions provide harassment potential and can pick off light unit stragglers.
Sadly this concept didn't work as well in HotS compared to BW, and is even worse in LotV because:
- 75/25/2 for a single Widow Mine, even when considering the ability to reposition and reuse Widow Mines, does not allow for the same coverage or Mine density on the map for-value compared to 3 Spider Mines plus a Vulture for 75/0/2.
- The nature of unit clumping in SC2, while it does allow a single Widow Mine to potentially deal damage to more units, also means it's easier for a deathball of units to wipe out most Mines before they go off. This is exasperated by LotV's multi-front context, where Tanks and Mines need to be split into multiple fronts that can be more easily overrun. This "overrunning" is more difficult in BW, and with the other control difficulty aspects in BW, the BW Spider Mine/Tank synergy is more difficult to deal with in comparison to the Widow Mine/Tank synergy in SC2.
- Obviously Marauders and Tanks don't share upgrades.
- Disruptors and Infestors are pretty hard counters to this style in SC2. Ghosts can be added to help with Infestors, but there is not a great answer for Disruptors currently.
In order to have a Brood War-like methodical Mech style that can advance across the map without relying on pure turtling, there needs to exist a viable composition that allows for that "Tanks guard front line, front line guards Tanks" composition, with a squad of units that can harass and pick off stragglers. The closest playstyle to that which has ever seen consistent play at pro levels at points in SC2 history is probably actually Bio/Tank.
If we wanted a pure Mech composition that accomplishes this, these gaps need to be properly filled:
- A threatening front line/Tank combo that can be widely split while still requiring some tactical strategy for a larger army to wade through it if it doesn't want to trade badly. Front line options here are adjustments to Widow Mines, or some change to Thors or Cyclones to make them more potent on the front line for their cost, or some kind of Raven ability that adequately enhances the front line.
On the Widow Mine side, the main thing that would be needed is more coverage - making them slightly cheaper (like 50/15/1) and faster-building in exchange for a decrease to splash damage or blast radius or making them single-use could be an option here. Many more Mines to wade through, but each one has less potential potency by itself. Or - wild idea - remove Widow Mines and let Cyclones drop Spider Mines that just act like Spider Mines.
On the Tank side, there could be more done to make them function a bit more like they do in BW and work better in a multi-front or wide-front situation. This could be potentially accomplished by the following combination of changes: 1. making the Tank shot act more like a projectile (delay between firing and landing so the Tanks must be more spread out to not waste shots), 2. increasing the Tank weapon cooldown so that it fires less often which makes wasted shots more costly to further discourage clumping Tanks, and finally 3. increasing the Tank damage and/or blast radius so that a lower number of spread-out Tanks can more easily threaten large, clumped armies or core units (such as Disruptors).
- The ability to run around and pick off stragglers and harass with cheap fodder units. This is another direction that Cyclones could be taken in, so that small groups of Cyclone/Hellion together can contend with low numbers of defending units (whereas Hellions alone often just tickle them and Cyclones in their current form are too expensive to be fodder). Just making Cyclones simply a cheap, microable unit with a moderately threatening single-target burst weapon could potentially accomplish this.
(Yes, I realize with all of this combined, my proposed solutions basically transform Cyclones into Vultures)
|
Ah yes. The four races of sc2Terran, Protoss, Zerg, and Mech.
So the complaint is my really strong, powerful army has to be really fast too?
|
Cyclone has plenty of synergi with tanks, they just have the misfortune of being produced from the same structure and requiring tech lab. When you want tanks you typically want them in a row, and so you'd go from cyclone prod. To tank prod. Or vice versa. Were cyclones build from reactor like we've seen or from barrack or star port, we'd see more simultaneous produce of these units. They certainly have more synergi than thors and tanks do.
Speaking to the manliness aspect, I'd say tanks and the old pew pew cyclone as some of the most manly units, as opposed to bio which always runs away and tries to backstab. Mech is Gimli and bio is legolas, which fights more manly? One asks to be tossed into a mob for a head on fight, uneven fight even. Legolas repeatedly jump on the back of the big monsters and shooting it in the back, going from the movies, at least. So, which is it hotshot the cowardly marine needing constant air support to hide from danger and recuperate or the manliest of mans, the siege tank that hunkers down and says, I'll hold the line from here and sink with the ship if necessary?
|
OP hits the mark when it comes to the game becoming harder and harder to move out as mech - and then when you play defensively to not die instantly people complain you're turtling.
However mech doesn't need a mass teleportation tool.
BCs with Jump is already a very potent tool in lategame that can give huge map control and turn the tide of the game.
Mech just needs a couple slight tweaks/buffs. We saw when the bugged cyclone made Mech used in roughly 1/3 of games for a couple weeks (this was a couple months ago or so). It was still difficult to use despite the games being exciting and pretty back and forth - since it still has some big weaknesses you can exploit, like catching them off guard with a mass recall in their base. And there is still a lot of counterplay you can use against mech that pro players usually don't have to resort to - like zealot bombing the tanks instead of just A moving in, or in general splitting the army up instead of just lazily crashing your army into a fortified, walled off base.
Mech TvT is niche but seems viable, and same with TvZ.
TvP it seemed to be in a really good state a couple months ago. Not sure if the Cyclone cd bug fix was enough to neuter that back out of being used frequently. (I never saw a patch note saying they fixed the Lock on dps, just the cd. If they fixed the dps though then they can slightly buff Lock-On back like making Mag-Field give +200 (+100 vs Armor) instead of just +200, giving back some of its use it lost when it used to be +400 vs Armor only. Or making Blue Flame give Hellions +2 (+3 vs Light) instead of just +5 vs Light).
Another thing they could try, especially with the larger maps, is to make Smart Servos slightly speed up Tank Siege and Unsiege (by something like 0.2 secs even). This would be to match how many things in the game got sped up over time.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On November 11 2025 13:20 Herringbone wrote:
Ah yes. The four races of sc2Terran, Protoss, Zerg, and Mech.
So the complaint is my really strong, powerful army has to be really fast too?
Is Maru the 5th race now?
On November 12 2025 02:27 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
OP hits the mark when it comes to the game becoming harder and harder to move out as mech - and then when you play defensively to not die instantly people complain you're turtling.
However mech doesn't need a mass teleportation tool.
BCs with Jump is already a very potent tool in lategame that can give huge map control and turn the tide of the game.
Mech just needs a couple slight tweaks/buffs. We saw when the bugged cyclone made Mech used in roughly 1/3 of games for a couple weeks (this was a couple months ago or so). It was still difficult to use despite the games being exciting and pretty back and forth - since it still has some big weaknesses you can exploit, like catching them off guard with a mass recall in their base. And there is still a lot of counterplay you can use against mech that pro players usually don't have to resort to - like zealot bombing the tanks instead of just A moving in, or in general splitting the army up instead of just lazily crashing your army into a fortified, walled off base.
Mech TvT is niche but seems viable, and same with TvZ.
TvP it seemed to be in a really good state a couple months ago. Not sure if the Cyclone cd bug fix was enough to neuter that back out of being used frequently. (I never saw a patch note saying they fixed the Lock on dps, just the cd. If they fixed the dps though then they can slightly buff Lock-On back like making Mag-Field give +200 (+100 vs Armor) instead of just +200, giving back some of its use it lost when it used to be +400 vs Armor only. Or making Blue Flame give Hellions +2 (+3 vs Light) instead of just +5 vs Light).
Another thing they could try, especially with the larger maps, is to make Smart Servos slightly speed up Tank Siege and Unsiege (by something like 0.2 secs even). This would be to match how many things in the game got sped up over time.
It may seem I’m overly dismissive, but when I question people as to what do they mean by ‘mech’, it is for a reason.
Don’t worry I know where you stand and you make many good posts on the subject, informed by playing at a pretty high level.
For some it’s ’anything that comes from a factory’, so hey mass cyclones running around is mech right? Or some just want to be facilitated in hardcore turtling. Neither of which I think are especially good for the game.
But if we’re talking a methodical, positional style that leans on the siege tank, arguably the most iconic RTS unit, I’m all for it.
Maybe we just have to settle with mech being a viable, but more niche style in 2/3 matchups. It seems super difficult to ever have mech be good versus Protoss.
I’d be interested to hear on your perspectives and experiences here. There just feels to me a couple of real big pain points where mech just dies. But it could be quite good if it survives them.
But I don’t know how you plug some of those specific gaps, without having to fundamentally change a lot. It’s a tale as old as time itself. Mech player is in a decent position, has an OK coverage, but oh Toss has a prism, Zealots and Immortals and finds an angle and just busts.
It’s both consistent, but also pretty razor thin. In the sense that I’ve lost count of times where a minor positional error, or if the Terran managed to get even one more tank out, it’s A-OK. But I guess for me it’s, how do you manage to get to that particular gamestate?
For me a particular pain point one sees is the mech Terran trying to get up a safe third, without either being spread a bit thin and being busted, or the Toss just going super greedy when they see its mech.
I like your idea on smart servos, it’s gated behind an upgrade that you’re only likely getting if you’re playing mech, it wouldn’t be huge and it would make manoeuvring slightly easier while not making it trivial.
|
i'm clicking really fast but my units are going slow? my apm is 375 wtf...my tank should go 375 miles per hour
|
Isn't it a flawed assumption that you should be able to play the same style against all three races? I say this as a recurring theme is that mech is least viable against protoss. As a zerg, my strategy and army comp vs toss, terran, and zerg look nothing like each other. It's completely unique to mech players to say I want to play one style against all three races and I want a specific style to always be balanced even though it's only one branch of terran.
|
On November 12 2025 07:23 Herringbone wrote:
Isn't it a flawed assumption that you should be able to play the same style against all three races? I say this as a recurring theme is that mech is least viable against protoss. As a zerg, my strategy and army comp vs toss, terran, and zerg look nothing like each other. It's completely unique to mech players to say I want to play one style against all three races and I want a specific style to always be balanced even though it's only one branch of terran.
It's less of a "must" and more of an "it'd be really cool if..."
|
If the same comp is mainstay in all three matchups that's called, just being better. We should aim for at least one style not being marine, marauder, medic being viable in at least one matchup. And if tvt is bio, tank vs. some other comp that is a healthy sign aa well.
I don't like fast switching tanks, and to be frank tanks are powerful enough as is. Cyclone could lose a supply, widow mine could lose a supply and do less sentinel missile main target dmg, or raven could be made cool again.
I don't know if it's a buff, but I would also like to see hellbats be non-bio and have 4 fit into a medivac.
Ghost is currently broken, and viking a bit too. But you could lose 1 range on viking, or give back the old dmg point, but have it be slightly better on the ground. It probably should be anti light instead of anti mechanical.
|
United States1909 Posts
On November 12 2025 15:41 ejozl wrote:
and have 4 fit into a medivac.
:
|
The whole point of mech is it's slow and hard to move... if you want to play a fast style, play bio! I cannot understand this post at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
