|
On January 09 2013 05:22 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +We are not trying to create a "Factory Only" option for Terrans in this match up that works in every game on every map all the time So they are fine with 'barracks only' bio solution on all maps, but they won't allow 'factory only'. The hell?
Well.I suppose that if we use Starport for Medivacs and Vikings,this mean we are not going only Barrack in TvP,but I disagree.
Is Blizz trying to create mixture of units in TvP? I cant see this happen because of upgrades.I wonder what kind of mixture,because Hellbats need Medivacs,but Tanks,Hellions,Thors and Vikings not.Ghosts are nice support and a must for me vs Protoss,but they wont make me build two ebays for upgrades.
Changing tank supply into 2 is too much for TvT and TvZ.I think only buffing tank damage vs mech units,as well as Viking ground attack to try counter immortals will be fine.Widow mine as well need 1 supply and more range.
|
On January 09 2013 23:54 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 23:49 mcmizzler wrote:
Do siege tanks really need a buff? i mean i play T and i think 13 range and splash damage is pretty strong already I was originally off the idea that a range change shouldn't be on the table, but when you consider that everything in SC2 moves faster, and Blizzard has already introduced units with higher range than the tank (bad design choice IMO as having units with longer range than the seige tank is akin to not having marines/zealots/zerglings in that some rules shouldn't be broken) then there's kind of a power creep, however a range change is still debatable. On the other-hand the tank definitely needs a drastic damage buff (damage is absolutely pitiful given that it incurs extreme drawbacks solely to fire), and possibly some supply adjustments too. The reasoning for this is that tanks were already subpar in WoL, and HotS has introduced 3-4 new tank soft/hard counters alone. It's current state is laughable.
Stop claiming tanks are crap, they are used nonstop for god's sake in WoL. Only not in TvP but they are a core unit in TvT and TvZ....
|
On January 10 2013 00:28 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 00:14 Telenil wrote:On January 09 2013 20:26 Rabiator wrote:On January 09 2013 17:56 Telenil wrote:
Apart from "it is awesome in Brood War", why is that a terrible thing? There is no building in the game that can make you win games on its own, even barracks need medevacs. You would hate the game if mass stargates could stand against every composition, so why do you want pure factories to do that?
The core of mech is the positionnal play + harassing with faster unit. Something isn't mech just because it comes from the factory, but on the other hand, it can still be mech even if all units don't come from the same building. The "factory style" you describe has enough difficulty on its own due to the immobility, but "forcing" this style to rely upon units from other buildings too much is a terrible thing, because it makes it too complicated and in the end not worthwile. Against the Tempest you basically NEED the Viking, but WHY should it be necessary? Blizzard dont want to admit that they screwed up with the Tempest (and the Broodlord/Infestor combo) and change these units and so they are falling back to the "we dont intend to do this" option and just tell us to build other stuff too to make it work. If I remove the usual "I would design this game better than Blizzard" crap (sorry but that's what it is), the actual argument is "mech shouldn't have to rely on other buildings because, combined with its lack of mobility, it would make it too complicated". That sounds a bit... flimsy. Bio use barracks + vikings + medevacs, PvT protoss use gateway + robo, and if you want tanks involved, the compositions required to face zerglings/banelings/mutas were even more diverse. Factory + vikings is not more complicated than those strategies. In other words, why shouldn't players have to build vikings when TvZ involving marine/tank/medevacs/thors into vikings were considered fine? Mech - IMMOBILITY Bio - MOBILITY You notice the difference? Adding "mobile" units to get around the fact that mech is immobile is stupid, because it simply shows that mobility is too important in SC2 because the developers make these decisions. Its basically cheating and the merging of one upgrade for mech and air already blurs the lines between the races, because you are basically down to three upgrades to do it all ... just like Zerg and Protoss have it. Thats not good. Its all about the additional option of being able to play a "static" game of positioning and slowly creeping ahead. Sadly SC2 is all about mobility and thats a big part of the reason why mech doesnt work / works badly. The only solution to this - in Blizzards framework - is to buff the Siege Tank in such a way to make them SCARY to any kind of infantry; both other races have sufficient numbers of "tricks" to deal with static big targets that cant shoot air ...
This.
A mech army is immobile because tanks need to siege and thors are slow.
A protoss army is very mobile because of a higher average movement speed than mech, colossus cliff walk, stalker blink and warp in mechanics.
As long as a more mobile protoss army is even barely just weaker than an immobile mech army we have a huge design problem. A well positioned mech army should absolutely stomp a protoss army in a head on engagement.
As long as this is not the case TvP mech will not be a solid playstyle.
Besides this, a lot of other issues will need to be solved.
For instance it should be possible to use a few carefully placed mech units to defend harass on multiple fronts etc.
Blizzard trying to improve mech sounds promising, but I would not be surprised if the changes they make actually ends up hurting mech in TvP. That is how much i confide in their abilities.
edit:
And please Plansix, spare me your comments about me complaining about game design.
You clearly have no clue, and I'm tired of you.
|
On January 10 2013 00:27 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 00:14 Telenil wrote:On January 09 2013 20:26 Rabiator wrote:On January 09 2013 17:56 Telenil wrote:
Apart from "it is awesome in Brood War", why is that a terrible thing? There is no building in the game that can make you win games on its own, even barracks need medevacs. You would hate the game if mass stargates could stand against every composition, so why do you want pure factories to do that?
The core of mech is the positionnal play + harassing with faster unit. Something isn't mech just because it comes from the factory, but on the other hand, it can still be mech even if all units don't come from the same building. The "factory style" you describe has enough difficulty on its own due to the immobility, but "forcing" this style to rely upon units from other buildings too much is a terrible thing, because it makes it too complicated and in the end not worthwile. Against the Tempest you basically NEED the Viking, but WHY should it be necessary? Blizzard dont want to admit that they screwed up with the Tempest (and the Broodlord/Infestor combo) and change these units and so they are falling back to the "we dont intend to do this" option and just tell us to build other stuff too to make it work. If I remove the usual "I would design this game better than Blizzard" crap (sorry but that's what it is), the actual argument is "mech shouldn't have to rely on other buildings because, combined with its lack of mobility, it would make it too complicated". That sounds a bit... flimsy. Bio use barracks + vikings + medevacs, PvT protoss use gateway + robo, and if you want tanks involved, the compositions required to face zerglings/banelings/mutas were even more diverse. Factory + vikings is not more complicated than those strategies. In other words, why shouldn't players have to build vikings when TvZ involving marine/tank/medevacs/thors into vikings were considered fine? I agree somewhat. But then I think they need to look at the gas cost of tanks/thors/vikings. Because all 3 units are very gas intensive per supply.
The other races lategame units all have similar gas costs and the mineral units are even countered by the mech minerals (at least after hellbat introduction).
So if, according to Telenil's post, a powerratio can be found that makes mech+support playable compositionwise, the cost will be OK.
But yeah, you can tweak the costs to achieve that ratio.
|
On January 10 2013 00:03 dicedicerevolution wrote:
It's a little disheartening to see them still tweaking unit values to balance the late-game. It would be far more effective to tweak the macro mechanics and mining rates so that the "over-powered" units you get late-game actually has a heavy upkeep associated which would require continuous expanding (and therefore takes longer to mass and would allow skill-based board control to matter more).
I agree, T3 units should need more investment and be more powerful so they could be more valuable with less numbers. But right now or they come in great numbers (example: brood lords) or they almost never used because they cant be cost-efective (expample: BC).
Mixing factory+rax gameplay or factory+starport its not a big deal, but I think that factory+starport is not viable: enougth void rays can counter everything (vikings, tanks, thors, etc...) and mixed with tempest makes mech TvP useless. Or they nerf skytoss against T or terran needs better armored AA.
|
I think Blizzard has to realise that Mech vs Protoss isn't going to work if they don't either nerf the immortal or introduce a unit specialised at killing immortals.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rpnle.jpg?1)
In DB we trust
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Denmark970 Posts
On January 09 2013 14:14 MasterCynical wrote:
I don't like the sound of "if its not fun then we'll have to abandon this". Coming from the same people that thought TvT tank play is not fun and killing workers is not fun really worries me.
I would love to see how Blizzard would apply that philosophy to Tempests. Balanced or not, that unit makes the Colossus look like a master piece in terms of design.
|
On January 10 2013 00:39 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 00:28 Rabiator wrote:On January 10 2013 00:14 Telenil wrote:On January 09 2013 20:26 Rabiator wrote:On January 09 2013 17:56 Telenil wrote:
Apart from "it is awesome in Brood War", why is that a terrible thing? There is no building in the game that can make you win games on its own, even barracks need medevacs. You would hate the game if mass stargates could stand against every composition, so why do you want pure factories to do that?
The core of mech is the positionnal play + harassing with faster unit. Something isn't mech just because it comes from the factory, but on the other hand, it can still be mech even if all units don't come from the same building. The "factory style" you describe has enough difficulty on its own due to the immobility, but "forcing" this style to rely upon units from other buildings too much is a terrible thing, because it makes it too complicated and in the end not worthwile. Against the Tempest you basically NEED the Viking, but WHY should it be necessary? Blizzard dont want to admit that they screwed up with the Tempest (and the Broodlord/Infestor combo) and change these units and so they are falling back to the "we dont intend to do this" option and just tell us to build other stuff too to make it work. If I remove the usual "I would design this game better than Blizzard" crap (sorry but that's what it is), the actual argument is "mech shouldn't have to rely on other buildings because, combined with its lack of mobility, it would make it too complicated". That sounds a bit... flimsy. Bio use barracks + vikings + medevacs, PvT protoss use gateway + robo, and if you want tanks involved, the compositions required to face zerglings/banelings/mutas were even more diverse. Factory + vikings is not more complicated than those strategies. In other words, why shouldn't players have to build vikings when TvZ involving marine/tank/medevacs/thors into vikings were considered fine? Mech - IMMOBILITY Bio - MOBILITY You notice the difference? Adding "mobile" units to get around the fact that mech is immobile is stupid, because it simply shows that mobility is too important in SC2 because the developers make these decisions. Its basically cheating and the merging of one upgrade for mech and air already blurs the lines between the races, because you are basically down to three upgrades to do it all ... just like Zerg and Protoss have it. Thats not good. Its all about the additional option of being able to play a "static" game of positioning and slowly creeping ahead. Sadly SC2 is all about mobility and thats a big part of the reason why mech doesnt work / works badly. The only solution to this - in Blizzards framework - is to buff the Siege Tank in such a way to make them SCARY to any kind of infantry; both other races have sufficient numbers of "tricks" to deal with static big targets that cant shoot air ... This. A mech army is immobile because tanks need to siege and thors are slow. A protoss army is very mobile because of a higher average movement speed than mech, colossus cliff walk, stalker blink and warp in mechanics. As long as a more mobile protoss army is even barely just weaker than an immobile mech army we have a huge design problem. A well positioned mech army should absolutely stomp a protoss army in a head on engagement. As long as this is not the case TvP mech will not be a solid playstyle. Besides this, a lot of other issues will need to be solved. For instance it should be possible to use a few carefully placed mech units to defend harass on multiple fronts etc. Blizzard trying to improve mech sounds promising, but I would not be surprised if the changes they make actually ends up hurting mech in TvP. That is how much i confide in their abilities. edit: And please Plansix, spare me your comments about me complaining about game design. You clearly have no clue, and I'm tired of you.
This is very true. I still don't understand why the design team fails to see the cost effectiveness of tanks specifically against most protoss units. As you pointed out correctly, an immobile, established tank link of mech units should be able to trade favourable against a protoss army, but this is not the case. Now go back to brood war and see where the design strength of that is; powerful space control tanks. Now observe the tank we have in sc2. Pitiful damage and must be deathballed to be marginally effective. Since both Z and P have further gained units that deal well with tanks, why is there still no mention in improving the tank? Keep in mind that tanks are the reason why mech works in ALL matchups.
The new medivacs also make mech alot weaker, so it doesn't affect bio V mech and infact, it's a clear indication that tanks are in need of improvement. As a closing note; i also share the same sentiment with Blizzard's ability to balance games, as evidenced by their inability to balance accordingly. I mean, surely they play the game to right? Are tanks really that strong for it to be untouched in light of hots? I SINCERELY HOPE they'll see this thread, look at the poll and see where mech is currently lacking (SIEGE TANKS). Someone should just throw a piece of brick through their main office window which states the word; BUFF TANKS incase things aren't clear enough.
|
Excuse my oblivousness but why is a 'slow pushing mech army' not the same as 'a deathball'?
Could someone explain the difference to me? I am really not trying to be sarcastic: I just don't really see the difference.
|
On January 10 2013 01:50 AdrianHealey wrote:
Excuse my oblivousness but why is a 'slow pushing mech army' not the same as 'a deathball'?
Could someone explain the difference to me? I am really not trying to be sarcastic: I just don't really see the difference.
Deathball is, like you've observed, just a matter of massing powerful T3 units with the intention of simply walking over there and killing them with your entire army in a single control group. Slow pushing mech on the otherhand, is more of a matter of spreading tanks (and not T3 end game units) in a defensive fashion, with the intent of covering areas for the purpose of defending and establishing a front defensive line to a point where you either, force your opponent to engage, gain map control. Meching, unlike deathballs, needs a good amount of spacing in between tanks (tank hopping) and good positioning to avoid overlaps to maximise damage like what you see in brood war.
Meching requires consideration of map awareness, unit positioning backed with strategic army movement and solid line of BASE defenses (turrets, sensor towers) built to further enhance offense. Meching isn't simply about defending and massing to 200/200 because of it's relative ineffectiveness as a deathball vs other races like broodlord infestor in WoL, and killing players was actually possible without reaching 200/200 with meticulous pushes. In simple terms, it follows the philosophy of defense is the best offense. Watch some SPL Proleague from 09-12 to see how strategic mech was. The player i recommend watching is Fantasy. His strategic mind for tank positioning and TvT is like no other. While i regard Flash as the best player in BW, fantasy's TvT is better than Flash.
|
United States4883 Posts
On January 10 2013 01:50 AdrianHealey wrote:
Excuse my oblivousness but why is a 'slow pushing mech army' not the same as 'a deathball'?
Could someone explain the difference to me? I am really not trying to be sarcastic: I just don't really see the difference.
The difference is that, (in theory), a mech army caught out of position or unsieged is likely to lose large chunk or be crushed whereas a deathball engages at any angle with full efficiency. Example: colossus/immortal/archon; all units stack on top of each other and engage pretty much evenly in any direction. A mech army needs to engage with hellions tanking damage for tanks, tanks need to be sieged for the whole engagement, and any ghosts or vikings need to sit behind the tank line unless engaging or casting EMP.
And to comment on "slow pushing mech armies" in WoL...I think we have an issue that mech can't move at all because it can't control any space at all except for where all units are. The best you can do in terms of "gaining map space" is slowly leapfrogging your tanks, which is hardly moving; the result is that the time spent on leapfrogging the tanks is not equal to the time it takes for an army to run in, pick off a few tanks, and remacro an army. Therefore, if you even somehow manage to slowly secure space on the map, you end up with the difficulty of just running out of money, and the game has gone on for 60 minutes on 4 bases already.....
|
On January 10 2013 02:03 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 01:50 AdrianHealey wrote:
Excuse my oblivousness but why is a 'slow pushing mech army' not the same as 'a deathball'?
Could someone explain the difference to me? I am really not trying to be sarcastic: I just don't really see the difference.
The difference is that, (in theory), a mech army caught out of position or unsieged is likely to lose large chunk or be crushed whereas a deathball engages at any angle with full efficiency. Example: colossus/immortal/archon; all units stack on top of each other and engage pretty much evenly in any direction. And to comment on "slow pushing mech armies" in WoL...I think we have an issue that mech can't move at all because it can't control any space at all except for where all units are. The best you can do in terms of "gaining map space" is slowly leapfrogging your tanks, which is hardly moving; the result is that the time spent on leapfrogging the tanks is not equal to the time it takes for an army to run in, pick off a few tanks, and remacro an army. Therefore, if you even somehow manage to slowly secure space on the map, you end up with the difficulty of just running out of money, and the game has gone on for 60 minutes on 4 bases already.....
Agreed, and not to mention, every race in sc2 has units that can deal with a few tanks spread out with high efficiency, which means, clumping tanks are often the only solution for a cost effective trade. It can also be seen that the tank in sc2 is laughably weak for it's cost, which is why slow mech push is never a good option or rarely seen in this game.
|
On January 10 2013 00:39 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 00:28 Rabiator wrote:On January 10 2013 00:14 Telenil wrote:On January 09 2013 20:26 Rabiator wrote:On January 09 2013 17:56 Telenil wrote:
Apart from "it is awesome in Brood War", why is that a terrible thing? There is no building in the game that can make you win games on its own, even barracks need medevacs. You would hate the game if mass stargates could stand against every composition, so why do you want pure factories to do that?
The core of mech is the positionnal play + harassing with faster unit. Something isn't mech just because it comes from the factory, but on the other hand, it can still be mech even if all units don't come from the same building. The "factory style" you describe has enough difficulty on its own due to the immobility, but "forcing" this style to rely upon units from other buildings too much is a terrible thing, because it makes it too complicated and in the end not worthwile. Against the Tempest you basically NEED the Viking, but WHY should it be necessary? Blizzard dont want to admit that they screwed up with the Tempest (and the Broodlord/Infestor combo) and change these units and so they are falling back to the "we dont intend to do this" option and just tell us to build other stuff too to make it work. If I remove the usual "I would design this game better than Blizzard" crap (sorry but that's what it is), the actual argument is "mech shouldn't have to rely on other buildings because, combined with its lack of mobility, it would make it too complicated". That sounds a bit... flimsy. Bio use barracks + vikings + medevacs, PvT protoss use gateway + robo, and if you want tanks involved, the compositions required to face zerglings/banelings/mutas were even more diverse. Factory + vikings is not more complicated than those strategies. In other words, why shouldn't players have to build vikings when TvZ involving marine/tank/medevacs/thors into vikings were considered fine? Mech - IMMOBILITY Bio - MOBILITY You notice the difference? Adding "mobile" units to get around the fact that mech is immobile is stupid, because it simply shows that mobility is too important in SC2 because the developers make these decisions. Its basically cheating and the merging of one upgrade for mech and air already blurs the lines between the races, because you are basically down to three upgrades to do it all ... just like Zerg and Protoss have it. Thats not good. Its all about the additional option of being able to play a "static" game of positioning and slowly creeping ahead. Sadly SC2 is all about mobility and thats a big part of the reason why mech doesnt work / works badly. The only solution to this - in Blizzards framework - is to buff the Siege Tank in such a way to make them SCARY to any kind of infantry; both other races have sufficient numbers of "tricks" to deal with static big targets that cant shoot air ... This. A mech army is immobile because tanks need to siege and thors are slow. A protoss army is very mobile because of a higher average movement speed than mech, colossus cliff walk, stalker blink and warp in mechanics. As long as a more mobile protoss army is even barely just weaker than an immobile mech army we have a huge design problem. A well positioned mech army should absolutely stomp a protoss army in a head on engagement. As long as this is not the case TvP mech will not be a solid playstyle. Besides this, a lot of other issues will need to be solved. For instance it should be possible to use a few carefully placed mech units to defend harass on multiple fronts etc. Blizzard trying to improve mech sounds promising, but I would not be surprised if the changes they make actually ends up hurting mech in TvP. That is how much i confide in their abilities. edit: And please Plansix, spare me your comments about me complaining about game design. You clearly have no clue, and I'm tired of you.
Actually, I have no problem with your comments and they mostly make sense, and you don't use the words "game design" as some vague value judgment to enhance your argument. You make points that make sense.
I totally agree that a mech army should be able to trade efficently with a protoss a mobile protoss army if attacked head on or at a bad angle. Right now, it is very hard to get that form of engagement with a protoss against a standard protoss army and impossible if the protoss has focused on immortals over colossi. A protoss should really be forced to tech switch to air to directly engage a mech army or hope for a really good engagement.
|
On January 10 2013 02:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 00:39 one-one-one wrote:On January 10 2013 00:28 Rabiator wrote:On January 10 2013 00:14 Telenil wrote:On January 09 2013 20:26 Rabiator wrote:On January 09 2013 17:56 Telenil wrote:
Apart from "it is awesome in Brood War", why is that a terrible thing? There is no building in the game that can make you win games on its own, even barracks need medevacs. You would hate the game if mass stargates could stand against every composition, so why do you want pure factories to do that?
The core of mech is the positionnal play + harassing with faster unit. Something isn't mech just because it comes from the factory, but on the other hand, it can still be mech even if all units don't come from the same building. The "factory style" you describe has enough difficulty on its own due to the immobility, but "forcing" this style to rely upon units from other buildings too much is a terrible thing, because it makes it too complicated and in the end not worthwile. Against the Tempest you basically NEED the Viking, but WHY should it be necessary? Blizzard dont want to admit that they screwed up with the Tempest (and the Broodlord/Infestor combo) and change these units and so they are falling back to the "we dont intend to do this" option and just tell us to build other stuff too to make it work. If I remove the usual "I would design this game better than Blizzard" crap (sorry but that's what it is), the actual argument is "mech shouldn't have to rely on other buildings because, combined with its lack of mobility, it would make it too complicated". That sounds a bit... flimsy. Bio use barracks + vikings + medevacs, PvT protoss use gateway + robo, and if you want tanks involved, the compositions required to face zerglings/banelings/mutas were even more diverse. Factory + vikings is not more complicated than those strategies. In other words, why shouldn't players have to build vikings when TvZ involving marine/tank/medevacs/thors into vikings were considered fine? Mech - IMMOBILITY Bio - MOBILITY You notice the difference? Adding "mobile" units to get around the fact that mech is immobile is stupid, because it simply shows that mobility is too important in SC2 because the developers make these decisions. Its basically cheating and the merging of one upgrade for mech and air already blurs the lines between the races, because you are basically down to three upgrades to do it all ... just like Zerg and Protoss have it. Thats not good. Its all about the additional option of being able to play a "static" game of positioning and slowly creeping ahead. Sadly SC2 is all about mobility and thats a big part of the reason why mech doesnt work / works badly. The only solution to this - in Blizzards framework - is to buff the Siege Tank in such a way to make them SCARY to any kind of infantry; both other races have sufficient numbers of "tricks" to deal with static big targets that cant shoot air ... This. A mech army is immobile because tanks need to siege and thors are slow. A protoss army is very mobile because of a higher average movement speed than mech, colossus cliff walk, stalker blink and warp in mechanics. As long as a more mobile protoss army is even barely just weaker than an immobile mech army we have a huge design problem. A well positioned mech army should absolutely stomp a protoss army in a head on engagement. As long as this is not the case TvP mech will not be a solid playstyle. Besides this, a lot of other issues will need to be solved. For instance it should be possible to use a few carefully placed mech units to defend harass on multiple fronts etc. Blizzard trying to improve mech sounds promising, but I would not be surprised if the changes they make actually ends up hurting mech in TvP. That is how much i confide in their abilities. edit: And please Plansix, spare me your comments about me complaining about game design. You clearly have no clue, and I'm tired of you. Actually, I have no problem with your comments and they mostly make sense, and you don't use the words "game design" as some vague value judgment to enhance your argument. You make points that make sense. I totally agree that a mech army should be able to trade efficently with a protoss a mobile protoss army if attacked head on or at a bad angle. Right now, it is very hard to get that form of engagement with a protoss against a standard protoss army and impossible if the protoss has focused on immortals over colossi. A protoss should really be forced to tech switch to air to directly engage a mech army or hope for a really good engagement.
Thank you!
That was really nice said 
Or do multi pronged harass abusing immobility of mech while avoiding direct engagements.
|
On January 10 2013 00:38 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 23:54 DemigodcelpH wrote:On January 09 2013 23:49 mcmizzler wrote:
Do siege tanks really need a buff? i mean i play T and i think 13 range and splash damage is pretty strong already I was originally off the idea that a range change shouldn't be on the table, but when you consider that everything in SC2 moves faster, and Blizzard has already introduced units with higher range than the tank (bad design choice IMO as having units with longer range than the seige tank is akin to not having marines/zealots/zerglings in that some rules shouldn't be broken) then there's kind of a power creep, however a range change is still debatable. On the other-hand the tank definitely needs a drastic damage buff (damage is absolutely pitiful given that it incurs extreme drawbacks solely to fire), and possibly some supply adjustments too. The reasoning for this is that tanks were already subpar in WoL, and HotS has introduced 3-4 new tank soft/hard counters alone. It's current state is laughable. Stop claiming tanks are crap, they are used nonstop for god's sake in WoL. Only not in TvP but they are a core unit in TvT and TvZ....
As long as you can take on a siege line head on and come out on top, tanks are too weak.
|
On January 10 2013 02:41 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 02:27 Plansix wrote:On January 10 2013 00:39 one-one-one wrote:On January 10 2013 00:28 Rabiator wrote:On January 10 2013 00:14 Telenil wrote:On January 09 2013 20:26 Rabiator wrote:On January 09 2013 17:56 Telenil wrote:
Apart from "it is awesome in Brood War", why is that a terrible thing? There is no building in the game that can make you win games on its own, even barracks need medevacs. You would hate the game if mass stargates could stand against every composition, so why do you want pure factories to do that?
The core of mech is the positionnal play + harassing with faster unit. Something isn't mech just because it comes from the factory, but on the other hand, it can still be mech even if all units don't come from the same building. The "factory style" you describe has enough difficulty on its own due to the immobility, but "forcing" this style to rely upon units from other buildings too much is a terrible thing, because it makes it too complicated and in the end not worthwile. Against the Tempest you basically NEED the Viking, but WHY should it be necessary? Blizzard dont want to admit that they screwed up with the Tempest (and the Broodlord/Infestor combo) and change these units and so they are falling back to the "we dont intend to do this" option and just tell us to build other stuff too to make it work. If I remove the usual "I would design this game better than Blizzard" crap (sorry but that's what it is), the actual argument is "mech shouldn't have to rely on other buildings because, combined with its lack of mobility, it would make it too complicated". That sounds a bit... flimsy. Bio use barracks + vikings + medevacs, PvT protoss use gateway + robo, and if you want tanks involved, the compositions required to face zerglings/banelings/mutas were even more diverse. Factory + vikings is not more complicated than those strategies. In other words, why shouldn't players have to build vikings when TvZ involving marine/tank/medevacs/thors into vikings were considered fine? Mech - IMMOBILITY Bio - MOBILITY You notice the difference? Adding "mobile" units to get around the fact that mech is immobile is stupid, because it simply shows that mobility is too important in SC2 because the developers make these decisions. Its basically cheating and the merging of one upgrade for mech and air already blurs the lines between the races, because you are basically down to three upgrades to do it all ... just like Zerg and Protoss have it. Thats not good. Its all about the additional option of being able to play a "static" game of positioning and slowly creeping ahead. Sadly SC2 is all about mobility and thats a big part of the reason why mech doesnt work / works badly. The only solution to this - in Blizzards framework - is to buff the Siege Tank in such a way to make them SCARY to any kind of infantry; both other races have sufficient numbers of "tricks" to deal with static big targets that cant shoot air ... This. A mech army is immobile because tanks need to siege and thors are slow. A protoss army is very mobile because of a higher average movement speed than mech, colossus cliff walk, stalker blink and warp in mechanics. As long as a more mobile protoss army is even barely just weaker than an immobile mech army we have a huge design problem. A well positioned mech army should absolutely stomp a protoss army in a head on engagement. As long as this is not the case TvP mech will not be a solid playstyle. Besides this, a lot of other issues will need to be solved. For instance it should be possible to use a few carefully placed mech units to defend harass on multiple fronts etc. Blizzard trying to improve mech sounds promising, but I would not be surprised if the changes they make actually ends up hurting mech in TvP. That is how much i confide in their abilities. edit: And please Plansix, spare me your comments about me complaining about game design. You clearly have no clue, and I'm tired of you. Actually, I have no problem with your comments and they mostly make sense, and you don't use the words "game design" as some vague value judgment to enhance your argument. You make points that make sense. I totally agree that a mech army should be able to trade efficently with a protoss a mobile protoss army if attacked head on or at a bad angle. Right now, it is very hard to get that form of engagement with a protoss against a standard protoss army and impossible if the protoss has focused on immortals over colossi. A protoss should really be forced to tech switch to air to directly engage a mech army or hope for a really good engagement. Thank you! That was really nice said Or do multi pronged harass abusing immobility of mech while avoiding direct engagements.
Yeah, that is the key though, is to make it so multi pronged attacking is still viable while making entrenched positions powerful. The stronger they make entrenched poistions, the more difficult harassment becomes. They run the risk of making the game more static and slow paced. Right now, the first 6 minutes of most SC2 games are pretty dull, so it is a reasonable concern that this could slow the game down further, which no one wants.
|
I seriously can't wait to mech tvp! Down with bio up with MECH! MECH PRIDE!
|
It's great they say this...but uh, they're not ok with factory only (also known as mech) being playable, but perfectly fine with barracks only being playable...? wat?
|
On January 10 2013 03:22 avilo wrote:
It's great they say this...but uh, they're not ok with factory only (also known as mech) being playable, but perfectly fine with barracks only being playable...? wat?
Barracks still require the usage of medivacs / vikings and in their eyes battle hellions. There is always a situation where you could use either the factory or starport to help counter the enemies army. They wish to do the same with the main army as mech however with support from starport and barracks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
