One of the biggest problems with mech in tvp is the immortal, because he really destroys every mech unit and at the same time he just wont die to tanks, right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints: 14 attacks in total
Now you can't just nerf the immortal, because he has to be strong in pvp, pvz and u can't just buff the tanks or it might change tvt and tvz to much. So my idea is to double the shots per attack: At the moment its 1 shot per attack with 50 dmg, but if u would change that to 2 shots per attack with 25 dmg is would be almost the same in every situation and every fight, but it would kill off 20 shields and not only 10. So then u would need 5 attacks (10 shots) to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints: 9 attacks in total.
››› You save 5 attacks!
The only difference overall would be, that with 2 shots the armor will count double, so it could be good to change the 25 to 26 dmg to compensate for that.
So what do you think?
And maybe somebody who knows how to use the editor could try that out to see how big that change would be.
First map to try this:
On December 03 2013 23:42 Big J wrote: A modified Unit Tester is finished an published on EU and AM
Name: GoOdy's Tank Tester by Jay
Changes: The Sieged Tank's damage has been changed to be applied twice. Damage changed to 18 (+7vs armored). Vehicle Upgrade changed to +2(+1vs armored) for the Sieged Tank
Hmm, very interesting! Can't really see any flaws. Maybe it'll give a bit less splash, if the first of the two shots kills whatever you are attacking? Or maybe the second shot will go off anyway? Can't really see the armour thing be a big deal. The +damage from ups will have to be an even number (it's 5 now right?), but shouldn't be a deal breaker either.
On December 03 2013 21:30 ( bush wrote: Just add a bonus against protoss shields, while making tanks ignore (or at least being stronger) the immortal's hardened shields.
The immortal was basically made specifically to deal with the tank (remember broodwar tvp? Tank, tank, and tank), it would be a bad idea to make the tank ignore the immortal specificity
Really good point Goody, sadly i think it won't be enough (early game/air still would be problems), but it would be an elegant way to help with the immortal basically making tank irrelevant if you don't have 10 ghosts/ravens to support them
And David Kim also seems to have a problem with any elegant solution helping the ground-mech play, he seems to clearly force mech into a thor/air ball
The only it will effect is armor against it will be twice as effective so armor that is 4 will now soak 8 Damage up lol I guess you really could make up for that with the Upgrade so I have to say its quite an effective and very very good take on a possible solution
A more elegant solution will be to make attacks that do under 30 damage be reduced to 10 damage against hardened shields, and those that do 31 and over be reduced to 20 damage. Just an alternative idea.
The only thing they(tanks) need is a bonus to Shields as the WM got. Its not so difficult Blizzard,so please,would you just make Xmas better and put on patch with this unique change?
On December 03 2013 21:59 r1flEx wrote: or just change thors, heavy air attack, light ground attack but with lower range. could also make up for it
Or add the AOE ground effect special ability from WOL campaign Thors. This can help strip the shields of immortals.
Afraid it kills groups of lings/blings too fast? Well for starters I don't think there is a danger of mech being too strong vs zerg right now. But aditionally in the campaign there is quite a long startup time. Just make it non-cancellable once started (or at least that if cancelled the timer restarts), and then you really have to mismanage your lings to be hit by them. Same for speed roaches, they should be fast enough to dodge most of the damage at least.
On December 03 2013 21:30 ( bush wrote: Just add a bonus against protoss shields, while making tanks ignore (or at least being stronger) the immortal's hardened shields.
The immortal was basically made specifically to deal with the tank (remember broodwar tvp? Tank, tank, and tank), it would be a bad idea to make the tank ignore the immortal specificity
Yeah, mech was great in BW, unlike the deathball/ tower defence mech we sometimes see in SC2.
Interesting suggestion, never heard it being made before.
You could just make Ghosts and use emp to get rid of shields. I see Thorzain do it on his stream all the time since the patch and he is really starting to get the hang of it.
i think you should also put tiny emps in tankshots so you dont need many shots for archons any more.
seriously goody: mech is quite strong against protoss as it is. immortals are supposed to give protoss a fighting chance. also you usually add ghosts very quickly anyway. no need to buff you any further
No! The tank is supposed to be strong vs armor, and doubelng the shots makes them much weaker. Double attacks means double damage reduction, ultras, marauders, roaches and colosseus smile... Personally, I dont like the double attack concept much anyway, almost all toss units have it.
I think a rapid fire mech or air unit should be the answer, maybe redesign thors or banshees? Alternatively more accessible ghosts or remove the immortal altogether in LotV. Hardened shields is just not good unit design imo.
If I am allowed to drop my opinion, I find it really unintuitive and straight up stupid that being "armored" actually makes units weaker in this game. Take the same unit, change his armor type from "light" to "armored" and it becomes weaker!!! Just look at all the core units with bonus damage vs armored and compare them against the exotic units with bonus damage against light! :o
Lol i was reading the comments and I thought for quite some time that people where just calling the op goody because he suggested a mech buff.
The change itself seems quite interessting but I really doubt that they will implement something like that. It seems a little to unintuitive and also doesn´t make that much sense optically.
Still sad that tanks perform so bad against toss :/ Really hard to play with them.
I can't believe what I see. Just out of curiosity - how am I supposed to kill a meching player without immortals? It would be nice to see this answer from goody himself, since he's suggesting this buff
For the toss player who say mech is already strong: Why is nobody playing mech then? We hat 3 major events this weekend with a lot of tvp but I can't remember any mech tvp game, maybe I missed some? But dh, wcs, iem, redbull had no? HSC had some mech games from dayshi and I belief he lost all of them. And thorzain won 1 map with mech vs hasuobs, but he even said in an interview that he was just caught off guard.
So I would conclude that bio is much stronger than mech or we would see more player (and more Korean pros) use mech, but we see basically no mech play. And that the only advantage you have atm, because a lot of Toss players never play against it and have no practice vs mech, then if they do, they don't know how to play and use bad unit compositions, bad engagements etc
On December 03 2013 21:55 Green_25 wrote: Why not just give tanks some kind of upgrade which boosts damage versus protoss shields?
Or even better one that buffs the damage (to make smaller amounts of tanks better at defending in the late game allowing the mech army to be more mobile) while also giving them the ability to ignore harden shields.
In theory - is it possible to mech vs protoss in a ground battle? (given tanks are included!) This might sound like a stupid question. But I would love some serious replies.
I love that this thread was made. Thanks to Goody. Love the discussion as well. There are a lot of stuff that could be changed. Many players would appreciate mech being used against protoss. I think it would make a bigger pool/plethora of different players.
On December 03 2013 22:23 deacon.frost wrote: I can't believe what I see. Just out of curiosity - how am I supposed to kill a meching player without immortals? It would be nice to see this answer from goody himself, since he's suggesting this buff
He doesn't want to remove immortals, he want to make them a bit less of an extreme hardcounter.
And then you still got air, archons, superior mobility, etc.
On December 03 2013 22:42 ffadicted wrote: Make ghosts tbh, this is a silly change imo Also I thought balance suggestion threads had no place in TL, shouldn't this be posted in Bnet forums?
On December 03 2013 22:42 ffadicted wrote: Make ghosts tbh, this is a silly change imo Also I thought balance suggestion threads had no place in TL, shouldn't this be posted in Bnet forums?
But Ghosts are not really in the Mech tech tree and it's hard to find a place for them no ? (honest question)
On December 03 2013 22:23 deacon.frost wrote: I can't believe what I see. Just out of curiosity - how am I supposed to kill a meching player without immortals? It would be nice to see this answer from goody himself, since he's suggesting this buff
Yeah..tanks destroy every ground unit that protoss have except immortals and archons. Problem with archon is that they never ever kill tank, they dont do damage. Immortal is the only unit. How to counter these both? Do ghosts. How to counter tempest? Do ravens. After this the only way to stop mech is if terran player do mistake like unsiege all or most of tanks. So most important point is to slow terran. Keep him in his base. Harrash. Dont let him take those additional vespenes.
Ive thought that giving tank mode this type of buff would be really interesting.
Maybe it would allow tanks to "soft counter" immortals but only if they are unsieged, especially if combined with the rotating turret and the 7 range it has, allowing it to kite immortals without taking damage.
So having tanks in tank mode would be better against immortals whereas having them in siege mode would not.
I've also thought that blizzard hasn't made enough use of this split attack mechanic, which has some interesting potential, especially for harass units.
I kind of wish the oracle was more like this instead of pulsar beam being an activated ability, it might have been an instantaneous cluster of 5 attacks, each doing 5 damage. That would be fine against workers still and units with little armor, but your opponent could react by building heavier units or upgrading armor to counter them.
For example, an SCV with +1 would survive being 2-shotted. Maybe a drone would survive with 1 hp if its health regenerated in the attack interval. Probes would have to shell out for +2 armor though, but stalkers at base +1 would be an even stronger counter. Also, +1 base armored buildings would be a bit more resistant, not that that's a big issue.
The only units that currently have this mechanic taken to a more extreme level are the carrier ((5*2)8) and BC (8*8).
double attack doubles armor of the opponent, not something you might want on your heavy hitter. Also the Upgrade Bonus for the Tank would have to be changed. It would probably be okay if the Immortal would be the only problem. But I don't even want to calculate the reduce on Zealot and Archons under Guardian shield.
The good stuff against Immortals are either Spells or Fast attacks. Sadly nothing has fast attacks from the Factory. But air units do, the Banshee is perfect for peeling of Immortal shields since the combined upgrades. The Viking would be the perfect Immortal shield killer if the Immortal would still have range 5 and the Ground Mode of the Viking wouldn't be armored.
For the Tanks I just wish they would also do their 50 damage to everything not light. So Queens and Archons could stop laughing. Or a special shot researched at Fusion Core that is so expensive that it costs Minerals.
On December 03 2013 22:23 deacon.frost wrote: I can't believe what I see. Just out of curiosity - how am I supposed to kill a meching player without immortals? It would be nice to see this answer from goody himself, since he's suggesting this buff
Yeah..tanks destroy every ground unit that protoss have except immortals and archons. Problem with archon is that they never ever kill tank, they dont do damage. Immortal is the only unit. How to counter these both? Do ghosts. How to counter tempest? Do ravens. After this the only way to stop mech is if terran player do mistake like unsiege all or most of tanks. So most important point is to slow terran. Keep him in his base. Harrash. Dont let him take those additional vespenes.
And no, this would be bad change.
Tank-based mech is supposed to *not* die in a frontal assault. Right now protoss can still go air to counter mech, but ground works as well, even when siege tanks are sieged (thanks to immortals) so why bother?
I think this change is good idea, the immortal becomes less of a hard-counter to tanks, yet protoss still has some good other options like abusing mobility through warp prisms or air with void/tempest and all of these options really are a pain for a mech player
I think a less severe change, would be to make hardened shield remove 20 shield vs siege tank shots (Hallucinated 40 shield.) I'm not sure it's needed though, people will figure out how to abuse the combined upgrades sometime.
On December 03 2013 22:42 ffadicted wrote: Make ghosts tbh, this is a silly change imo Also I thought balance suggestion threads had no place in TL, shouldn't this be posted in Bnet forums?
Balance suggestions are almost always closed, with exception to notable community members and/or progamers who aren't just whining about things. This falls under the latter category.
I think a less severe change, would be to make hardened shield remove 20 shield vs siege tank shots (Hallucinated 40 shield.) I'm not sure it's needed though, people will figure out how to abuse the combined upgrades sometime.
David kim doesn't like Exploitation of his game so as soon as someone finds a way to "abuse" combined ups will be the day its nerfed.....
I think suggestions of this type have been thrown at Blizzard for years. It's just not happening. 10% tank buff is about as much as they are willing to consider.
On December 03 2013 21:55 Green_25 wrote: Why not just give tanks some kind of upgrade which boosts damage versus protoss shields?
because they already really strong vs every protoss unit expect the immortel, and then it would be totaly broken
Huh? Chargelots demolish tanks if controlled properly, colossus with lance can kite them easily. Void rays take them out in seconds. Tanks are very shaky against protoss overall.
On December 03 2013 22:23 deacon.frost wrote: I can't believe what I see. Just out of curiosity - how am I supposed to kill a meching player without immortals? It would be nice to see this answer from goody himself, since he's suggesting this buff
Yeah..tanks destroy every ground unit that protoss have except immortals and archons. Problem with archon is that they never ever kill tank, they dont do damage. Immortal is the only unit. How to counter these both? Do ghosts. How to counter tempest? Do ravens. After this the only way to stop mech is if terran player do mistake like unsiege all or most of tanks. So most important point is to slow terran. Keep him in his base. Harrash. Dont let him take those additional vespenes.
And no, this would be bad change.
Tank-based mech is supposed to *not* die in a frontal assault. Right now protoss can still go air to counter mech, but ground works as well, even when siege tanks are sieged (thanks to immortals) so why bother?
Yeah terran bio can also a move over protoss army if protoss is much behind.
If you somehow win fight agaisnt sieged mech army, terran player has been behind for long time. Meaning he had much smaller army.
But in reality, ravens hard counter tempest and going void is extremely hard. You dont have any upgrates for them.
On December 03 2013 21:55 Green_25 wrote: Why not just give tanks some kind of upgrade which boosts damage versus protoss shields?
because they already really strong vs every protoss unit expect the immortel, and then it would be totaly broken
Huh? Chargelots demolish tanks if controlled properly, colossus with lance can kite them easily. Void rays take them out in seconds. Tanks are very shaky against protoss overall.
this change seems fair, but imo it would make zealots a bit stronger with armor upgrades against tanks, but you should always get blue flame hellbats with mech anyways.
On December 03 2013 21:55 Green_25 wrote: Why not just give tanks some kind of upgrade which boosts damage versus protoss shields?
because they already really strong vs every protoss unit expect the immortel, and then it would be totaly broken
Huh? Chargelots demolish tanks if controlled properly, colossus with lance can kite them easily. Void rays take them out in seconds. Tanks are very shaky against protoss overall.
how does one kite tanks?
By attacking, making them siege, falling back out of range, waiting for them to unsiege, rinse and repeat. I've seen it done a few times, it looks pretty funny. Colossus with lance has enough range to safely attack anything in the mechball and move out of range before tanks are sieged.
On December 03 2013 23:19 pmp10 wrote: I think suggestions of this type have been thrown at Blizzard for years. It's just not happening. 10% tank buff is about as much as they are willing to consider.
I think they are worried about making swarm hosts part 2 with tanks and creating more "passive gameplay". I think tanks could use some love, but I can see why blizzard is slow to buff them.
1. Remove Thor energy (and alongside the Strike Cannon ability, it's never used anyways)
2. Make Hellbats mech only and not bio-mech. It just makes no sense that they are Bio, Hellions aren't Bio so why should Hellbats be. This ways they would no longer get completely shredded by Archons.
3. Nerf Ravens! Mass Ravens is just ridiculous, against Protoss as well as against Zerg.
4. Use Ghosts and Immortal shields are no longer a problem.
5. Hooray!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think these would be little changes, creating great effect. There are many other things wrong in this game but this does not belong here.
On December 03 2013 23:19 pmp10 wrote: I think suggestions of this type have been thrown at Blizzard for years. It's just not happening. 10% tank buff is about as much as they are willing to consider.
I think they are worried about making swarm hosts part 2 with tanks and creating more "passive gameplay". I think tanks could use some love, but I can see why blizzard is slow to buff them.
Yeah, except SHs have like over 20 range if locusts are on creep and they don't need any support, whereas tanks by themselves are pretty shit (they are bad even with proper support TBH) and P and Z (and bio T as well) have PLENTY of tools to abuse/slow down a meching Terran, it's just happens that everybody is bad at using them because they never have to.
On December 03 2013 21:55 Green_25 wrote: Why not just give tanks some kind of upgrade which boosts damage versus protoss shields?
because they already really strong vs every protoss unit expect the immortel, and then it would be totaly broken
Huh? Chargelots demolish tanks if controlled properly, colossus with lance can kite them easily. Void rays take them out in seconds. Tanks are very shaky against protoss overall.
I thought the point of this idea was on using tanks in an army composition, not just mass tank. There's this unit which you might consider getting as part of a mech composition called a Hellbat and its pretty good against Zealots. Sieged Tanks are range 13 whilst Colossi are range 9 with thermal lance. Not sure where the whole "kite them easily" is coming from; hell even unsieged they're range 7, which outranges non-thermal lance colossi (6 range).
On December 03 2013 23:35 TrumpetWilli wrote: 1. Remove Thor energy (and alongside the Strike Cannon ability, it's never used anyways)
You're about a year out of date with your information here...
A modified Unit Tester is finished an published on EU and AM
Name: GoOdy's Tank Tester by Jay
Changes: The Sieged Tank's damage has been changed to be applied twice. Damage changed to 18 (+7vs armored). Vehicle Upgrade changed to +2(+1vs armored) for the Sieged Tank
reasoning for those values is: 35+15 halved would be 17.5+12.5 - which is both clunky and may cause weird effects (e.g. with the insta-1health healing of zerg units) the damage amount is now 36+14 which is a supertiny buff (34+16 would be problematic since then the tank can't oneshot zerglings). doubling the attack (making the armor apply twice) is a supertiny nerf. In some cases (like when the zergling has a +1armor advantage) those balance out marvelously anyways
The upgrade changes are the standard ones in line with all other units. Leaving the Upgrades with +3(+2) would certainly be too strong, since they are applied twice.
If someone tries it and finds a bug, please PM me!
Edit: And as a little spoiler - even in this version immortals still counter tanks. So stop the panic and try it.
On December 03 2013 21:55 Green_25 wrote: Why not just give tanks some kind of upgrade which boosts damage versus protoss shields?
because they already really strong vs every protoss unit expect the immortel, and then it would be totaly broken
Huh? Chargelots demolish tanks if controlled properly, colossus with lance can kite them easily. Void rays take them out in seconds. Tanks are very shaky against protoss overall.
I thought the point of this idea was on using tanks in an army composition, not just mass tank. There's this unit which you might consider getting as part of a mech composition called a Hellbat and its pretty good against Zealots. Sieged Tanks are range 13 whilst Colossi are range 9 with thermal lance. Not sure where the whole "kite them easily" is coming from; hell even unsieged they're range 7, which outranges non-thermal lance colossi (6 range).
Hellbats can't cover every angle, only a couple of Zealots getting into melee-range of the tanks can completely change the outcome of an engagement to the protoss side, all it takes is a bit of flanking, and this is why you have to posture yourself defensively at all times as a meching player if you want an even/favourable engagement. Check out's MVP's mech game on WW vs Hero, all it took was a few zealots coming from the side to completely negate hellbats.
On December 03 2013 21:55 Green_25 wrote: Why not just give tanks some kind of upgrade which boosts damage versus protoss shields?
because they already really strong vs every protoss unit expect the immortel, and then it would be totaly broken
Huh? Chargelots demolish tanks if controlled properly, colossus with lance can kite them easily. Void rays take them out in seconds. Tanks are very shaky against protoss overall.
how does one kite tanks?
By attacking, making them siege, falling back out of range, waiting for them to unsiege, rinse and repeat. I've seen it done a few times, it looks pretty funny. Colossus with lance has enough range to safely attack anything in the mechball and move out of range before tanks are sieged.
so, what happends if the terran actually doesnt unsieges all his tanks at one time (or builds a few vikings). like, just playing smart
Mech is pretty strong, I've played myself vs some people who use thors hellbats and ghosts in addition to tanks and its very hard to beat it so I would say you should explore it more before you go into altering balance
I was thinking the exact same thing lately about giving the siege tank's attack multiple "attacks" like the thors currently is to help take shields out faster...
But I honestly do not think it will help much vs immortals because i've seen and played games where the Protoss has had mass immortals vs tank based armies...and every single immortal was EMP'd (meaning they had no shields) and the immortals still steam rolled everything with mass chargelot/archon because Protoss was 2/0/2 or 3/0/3 while mech player was 1/0 or 2/0.
Upgrades are still an issue for mech vs P, anyone that opts to play mech vs Protoss right now, including myself, realize that we will be playing the entire game upgrade handicapped because it's not viable to get double armory + 5 factories + starport + raven + siege tanks + blueflame/hellion transform. Cutting gas cost off the armory and putting it to 100/50 like in brood war would help.
Obviously double attacking tank shots...it would be better than nothing and would help, but it's more the immortal being too extremely efficient against mech and needs to be toned down for mech to see the light of day.
Tanks need to be strong vs Protoss, not weak like they currently are. Giving tanks straight up more damage like they did to widow mines +shield damage might make tanks a fearsome unit that can hold positions and Protoss has to think twice before 1A'ing mindlessly into tank lines.
Just an fyi for everyone here, back when tanks did 50 flat damage mech was incredibly viable against Protoss, and if Protoss 1A'd into you...units melted. The damage nerf and changing zealot armor to light was the nail in the coffin at that point.
Hellbat being bio vs archon certainly doesn't help either...but I doubt that will not be changed.
On December 03 2013 23:51 sc2pal wrote: Mech is pretty strong, I've played myself vs some people who use thors hellbats and ghosts in addition to tanks and its very hard to beat it so I would say you should explore it more before you go into altering balance
Did you really just tell a professional gamer, who is known for playing Mech nearly exclusively, to try and figure his playstyle out a little more because someone on the ladder has beaten you with it?
On December 03 2013 23:51 sc2pal wrote: Mech is pretty strong, I've played myself vs some people who use thors hellbats and ghosts in addition to tanks and its very hard to beat it so I would say you should explore it more before you go into altering balance
Yeah, because Goody, the mech progamer, hasn't experimented with mech much... More likely it's you that hasn't experimented a lot on how to fight mech and you are actually bad at fighting it.
On December 03 2013 23:35 TrumpetWilli wrote: 1. Remove Thor energy (and alongside the Strike Cannon ability, it's never used anyways)
2. Make Hellbats mech only and not bio-mech. It just makes no sense that they are Bio, Hellions aren't Bio so why should Hellbats be. This ways they would no longer get completely shredded by Archons.
3. Nerf Ravens! Mass Ravens is just ridiculous, against Protoss as well as against Zerg.
4. Use Ghosts and Immortal shields are no longer a problem.
5. Hooray!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think these would be little changes, creating great effect. There are many other things wrong in this game but this does not belong here.
Again player that have never played hots. Thor's have never had energy bars in HoTS or strike cannons...
Most funny thing was when month ago terran player said same. And he also said that he only mechs in TvP...liar :D
On December 03 2013 22:42 ffadicted wrote: Make ghosts tbh, this is a silly change imo Also I thought balance suggestion threads had no place in TL, shouldn't this be posted in Bnet forums?
To my knowledge, TL allows balance posts by notable people in the community.
On December 03 2013 21:55 Green_25 wrote: Why not just give tanks some kind of upgrade which boosts damage versus protoss shields?
because they already really strong vs every protoss unit expect the immortel, and then it would be totaly broken
Huh? Chargelots demolish tanks if controlled properly, colossus with lance can kite them easily. Void rays take them out in seconds. Tanks are very shaky against protoss overall.
I thought the point of this idea was on using tanks in an army composition, not just mass tank. There's this unit which you might consider getting as part of a mech composition called a Hellbat and its pretty good against Zealots. Sieged Tanks are range 13 whilst Colossi are range 9 with thermal lance. Not sure where the whole "kite them easily" is coming from; hell even unsieged they're range 7, which outranges non-thermal lance colossi (6 range).
Hellbats can't cover every angle, only a couple of Zealots getting into melee-range of the tanks can completely change the outcome of an engagement to the protoss side, all it takes is a bit of flanking, and this is why you have to posture yourself defensively at all times as a meching player if you want an even/favourable engagement. Check out's MVP's mech game on WW vs Hero, all it took was a few zealots coming from the side to completely negate hellbats.
Welcome to the wonderful world of "powerful but positionally vulnerable" compositions. Similar to that of virtually every Protoss composition since the release of WoL. Something crucial slightly out of position? Boom, there it goes.
Mech is a fundamentally defensive composition given its slow speed and the nature of siege tanks. If the enemy manages to get units into your defensive position then: 1. You screwed up somewhere and 2. Its going to hurt
Same reason Medivac drops in your base are really effective if you don't have something already in place to deal with it (as any race, incidentally).
Edit: That being said I think avilo's got a good point with respect to the armoury. Perhaps a cost reduction and even a build time buff would help there?
I've actually felt for a while the tank needs a buff. But I'm not sure that going after special cases like "two shots to kill immortals better" or "anti-shield shells" is the way to go. I think a flat increase in damage across the board would help. Or perhaps a boost in splash damage within the radius?
On December 03 2013 21:55 Green_25 wrote: Why not just give tanks some kind of upgrade which boosts damage versus protoss shields?
because they already really strong vs every protoss unit expect the immortel, and then it would be totaly broken
Huh? Chargelots demolish tanks if controlled properly, colossus with lance can kite them easily. Void rays take them out in seconds. Tanks are very shaky against protoss overall.
how does one kite tanks?
By attacking, making them siege, falling back out of range, waiting for them to unsiege, rinse and repeat. I've seen it done a few times, it looks pretty funny. Colossus with lance has enough range to safely attack anything in the mechball and move out of range before tanks are sieged.
so, what happends if the terran actually doesnt unsieges all his tanks at one time (or builds a few vikings). like, just playing smart
Wait for when the terran begins to relocate and pounce, kind of how toss beats mech already.
On December 03 2013 21:21 GoOdy wrote: Suggestion for a Mech tvp Buff
One of the biggest problems with mech in tvp is the immortal, because he really destroys every mech unit and at the same time he just wont die to tanks, right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints: 14 attacks in total
Now you can't just nerf the immortal, because he has to be strong in pvp, pvz and u can't just buff the tanks or it might change tvt and tvz to much. So my idea is to double the shots per attack: At the moment its 1 shot per attack with 50 dmg, but if u would change that to 2 shots per attack with 25 dmg is would be almost the same in every situation and every fight, but it would kill off 20 shields and not only 10. So then u would need 5 attacks (10 shots) to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints: 9 attacks in total.
››› You save 5 attacks!
The only difference overall would be, that with 2 shots the armor will count double, so it could be good to change the 25 to 26 dmg to compensate for that.
So what do you think?
And maybe somebody who knows how to use the editor could try that out to see how big that change would be.
Since when was the immortal a "he"? How do we know its gender? Scarlett has shown us that even ultralisks are female. I disapprove of this gender bias.
On December 03 2013 23:53 avilo wrote: But I honestly do not think it will help much vs immortals because i've seen and played games where the Protoss has had mass immortals vs tank based armies...and every single immortal was EMP'd (meaning they had no shields) and the immortals still steam rolled everything with mass chargelot/archon because Protoss was 2/0/2 or 3/0/3 while mech player was 1/0 or 2/0.
Bullsh*t replay lol That must've been on sh*tty terran lol
On December 03 2013 23:51 sc2pal wrote: Mech is pretty strong, I've played myself vs some people who use thors hellbats and ghosts in addition to tanks and its very hard to beat it so I would say you should explore it more before you go into altering balance
Did you really just tell a professional gamer, who is known for playing Mech nearly exclusively, to try and figure his playstyle out a little more because someone on the ladder has beaten you with it?
It boggles the mind...
Some people are talking as if giving advise to a bronze player. Explore more, make Ghosts, mech is strong i use it/ get beaten by it, it's like 2010 all over again. I get that we all want to believe that our own play has some sort of significance on balance/ pro play, but this is getting ridiculous lol
On December 03 2013 23:51 sc2pal wrote: Mech is pretty strong, I've played myself vs some people who use thors hellbats and ghosts in addition to tanks and its very hard to beat it so I would say you should explore it more before you go into altering balance
Did you really just tell a professional gamer, who is known for playing Mech nearly exclusively, to try and figure his playstyle out a little more because someone on the ladder has beaten you with it?
It boggles the mind...
Some people are talking as if giving advise to a bronze player. Explore more, make Ghosts, mech is strong i use it/ get beaten by it, it's like 2010 all over again. I get that we all want to believe that our own play has some sort of significance on balance/ pro play, but this is getting ridiculous lol
You don't need to have pro player skill to give intelligent suggestions/opinions on the game. As with regular sports, people who watch passionately and pay attention to the game can often have very intelligent and meaningful discussions about high level play regardless of their actual ability.
On December 03 2013 23:51 sc2pal wrote: Mech is pretty strong, I've played myself vs some people who use thors hellbats and ghosts in addition to tanks and its very hard to beat it so I would say you should explore it more before you go into altering balance
Did you really just tell a professional gamer, who is known for playing Mech nearly exclusively, to try and figure his playstyle out a little more because someone on the ladder has beaten you with it?
It boggles the mind...
Some people are talking as if giving advise to a bronze player. Explore more, make Ghosts, mech is strong i use it/ get beaten by it, it's like 2010 all over again. I get that we all want to believe that our own play has some sort of significance on balance/ pro play, but this is getting ridiculous lol
Yeah, although I don't think that buffing tanks is the way to make mech viable, I don't tell players to " try ghosts". I think a ghost buff might help mech or some hellbat love. Tank just a little ore time to do their dark business to be super viable.
On December 03 2013 21:55 Green_25 wrote: Why not just give tanks some kind of upgrade which boosts damage versus protoss shields?
because they already really strong vs every protoss unit expect the immortel, and then it would be totaly broken
Huh? Chargelots demolish tanks if controlled properly, colossus with lance can kite them easily. Void rays take them out in seconds. Tanks are very shaky against protoss overall.
I thought the point of this idea was on using tanks in an army composition, not just mass tank. There's this unit which you might consider getting as part of a mech composition called a Hellbat and its pretty good against Zealots. Sieged Tanks are range 13 whilst Colossi are range 9 with thermal lance. Not sure where the whole "kite them easily" is coming from; hell even unsieged they're range 7, which outranges non-thermal lance colossi (6 range).
Hellbats can't cover every angle, only a couple of Zealots getting into melee-range of the tanks can completely change the outcome of an engagement to the protoss side, all it takes is a bit of flanking, and this is why you have to posture yourself defensively at all times as a meching player if you want an even/favourable engagement. Check out's MVP's mech game on WW vs Hero, all it took was a few zealots coming from the side to completely negate hellbats.
Welcome to the wonderful world of "powerful but positionally vulnerable" compositions. Similar to that of virtually every Protoss composition since the release of WoL. Something crucial slightly out of position? Boom, there it goes.
Mech is a fundamentally defensive composition given its slow speed and the nature of siege tanks. If the enemy manages to get units into your defensive position then: 1. You screwed up somewhere and 2. Its going to hurt
Same reason Medivac drops in your base are really effective if you don't have something already in place to deal with it (as any race, incidentally).
Edit: That being said I think avilo's got a good point with respect to the armoury. Perhaps a cost reduction and even a build time buff would help there?
I've actually felt for a while the tank needs a buff. But I'm not sure that going after special cases like "two shots to kill immortals better" or "anti-shield shells" is the way to go. I think a flat increase in damage across the board would help. Or perhaps a boost in splash damage within the radius?
Yeah, because just like Protoss, my mech army can wander around the map and if something goes wrong I just recall to the nearest command center....oh wait!
Also this "powerful but positionally vulnerable" is not as powerful as it's vulnerable, as it stands, it either needs to be more powerful or less vulnerable, being "strong" only if you are behind a wall of Barracks, PFs, sensor towers and a multi-layer turret ring is not very good design, don't you agree?
On December 03 2013 23:51 sc2pal wrote: Mech is pretty strong, I've played myself vs some people who use thors hellbats and ghosts in addition to tanks and its very hard to beat it so I would say you should explore it more before you go into altering balance
Did you really just tell a professional gamer, who is known for playing Mech nearly exclusively, to try and figure his playstyle out a little more because someone on the ladder has beaten you with it?
It boggles the mind...
Some people are talking as if giving advise to a bronze player. Explore more, make Ghosts, mech is strong i use it/ get beaten by it, it's like 2010 all over again. I get that we all want to believe that our own play has some sort of significance on balance/ pro play, but this is getting ridiculous lol
Yeah, although I don't think that buffing tanks is the way to make mech viable, I don't tell players to " try ghosts". I think a ghost buff might help mech or some hellbat love. Tank just a little ore time to do their dark business to be super viable.
Well, I actually think the problem is the tank. Per design of the Mech units, the tank is the number 1 antiground weapon of Mech play. But it is not reasonable to mass tanks against ground for the most part. Because of stuff like Immortals and Archons being so efficient against them.
I guess you can work your way around them for some time, have strong hellbats, have strong Thors, have Ghosts and widow mines deal with shields. But at the end of the day, if all of those workarounds haven't done it, I guess it is really the Tankrelations that have to change.
There are a ton of ways to do this that have been suggested already but david kim is unfortunately not willing to use unelegant solutions to fix the mech 'problem'. Doing this would work okish but it's very unelegant since a double attack doesn't make sense at all with the tanks attack animation. The immortal shield is just a bit of a silly thing. It is only very relevant against tanks and to a slightly lesser extent ultralisks which it both counters too hard I think. In case of ultralisks it's not so bad anymore now because they have received enough buffs but for tanks it's still a bit silly. It's unlikely the immortal will see any big changes though, it's just too much of hassle to do. A simple fix would be that hardened shield reduced attacks over 10 by 20 max but it's just as unelegant basically. Would be a tiny buff to ultralisks and a huge buff to tanks.
I do have to say this would be the best simple fix to the tanks without messing with the immortal. Dealing damage in two parts has disadvantages because armor affects it twice but this is somewhat nicely counterbalanced by the fact attack upgrades get a little better. For example against a unit with 3 armor you would do 44 instead of 47 now, not a big deal. But if you get +3 attack with each attack upgrade giving +3 damage you would deal 62 damage compared to 62 damage now. So it would even out against most stuff, be a little buff if you have more attack upgrades than they have armor and be a little nerf if they have more armor than you have attack (which will only happen against ultralisks basically which is pretty irrelevant). One little problem though with this solution, the normal attack of the tank is 35 damage and you have to somehow divide this by two and how you do is crucial. 17 per attack thus 34 total would be a huge nerf against lings so 18 per attack is the solution. This makes it 1 kill lings except when they have 1 armor which is like it is now and if you get +1 attack upgrade you will still oneshot them unless they have +3 armor (while before you would always oneshot them with +1 attack). This is probably a moot point so it would work. Attack upgrades get slightly better (+4 per attack) but armor upgrades get slightly better against tanks too(-2 per armor upgrade) so this actually evens out and all in all it's a slight buff to the tank against unarmored units for mech, as tanks usually have more attack upgrades than the units they attack have armor (since armor tends to suck against mech a bit). For example tanks with +1 attack would 4-shot zealots (40 on first shot, then 3*38) while now they 5-shot zealots (38 on first shot, 37 on other 4). Noticeable buff but fine I think.
All in all I must say I like this change the most from all i've seen for the tank to fix it. It's a huge buff against immortals, it's a sizeable buff against archons and zealots and it's tiny buff against most other stuff. It is a very tiny nerf against ultralisks. In other words it buffs the tank rightly so in TvP and keeps it pretty much the same in other matchups plus it makes armor upgrades a bit more important against mech. Overall all good changes I'd say. Especially because I find it even more important that when mech finally does get 'fixed' it is a proper fun mech at least with tanks and hopefully a lot of harass. Not some sort of airmech thor/banshee combination.
In that vein I think this change (or something with similar effect) to the tank would be great plus a change to thor making it better against air but worse against ground. That should solve the problems of mech mostly, ie that they are too weak against air (muta's, vipers, voids, carriers, tempests) especially now the widow mine is nerfed plus that some ground combinations just trump them (immortals and swarm hosts specifically). By just a little changes to thor and tank I think this can be solved while enforcing the idea that you need tanks vs ground and thors vs air.
I just hope David Kim uses this 'in between seasons' time to dare another big patch. Perhaps overbuffing mech a little bit and consequently buffing some tools that are good against mech but are almost never seen now (carriers, overlord drop and nydus worms for example). These simple changes can make it possible to make mech viable in both TvZ and TvP making those matches highly entertaining while still keeping the nice balance between mech and biotank there is now in TvT. Additionally overbuffing mech and then buffing tools against it like the carrier and overlord drop would create highly active play plus we might actually see those cool options being used in other ways (the occasional carriers and overlord drop In PvZ, PvP and ZvZ!).
On December 03 2013 21:55 Green_25 wrote: Why not just give tanks some kind of upgrade which boosts damage versus protoss shields?
because they already really strong vs every protoss unit expect the immortel, and then it would be totaly broken
Huh? Chargelots demolish tanks if controlled properly, colossus with lance can kite them easily. Void rays take them out in seconds. Tanks are very shaky against protoss overall.
I thought the point of this idea was on using tanks in an army composition, not just mass tank. There's this unit which you might consider getting as part of a mech composition called a Hellbat and its pretty good against Zealots. Sieged Tanks are range 13 whilst Colossi are range 9 with thermal lance. Not sure where the whole "kite them easily" is coming from; hell even unsieged they're range 7, which outranges non-thermal lance colossi (6 range).
Hellbats can't cover every angle, only a couple of Zealots getting into melee-range of the tanks can completely change the outcome of an engagement to the protoss side, all it takes is a bit of flanking, and this is why you have to posture yourself defensively at all times as a meching player if you want an even/favourable engagement. Check out's MVP's mech game on WW vs Hero, all it took was a few zealots coming from the side to completely negate hellbats.
Welcome to the wonderful world of "powerful but positionally vulnerable" compositions. Similar to that of virtually every Protoss composition since the release of WoL. Something crucial slightly out of position? Boom, there it goes.
Mech is a fundamentally defensive composition given its slow speed and the nature of siege tanks. If the enemy manages to get units into your defensive position then: 1. You screwed up somewhere and 2. Its going to hurt
Same reason Medivac drops in your base are really effective if you don't have something already in place to deal with it (as any race, incidentally).
Edit: That being said I think avilo's got a good point with respect to the armoury. Perhaps a cost reduction and even a build time buff would help there?
I've actually felt for a while the tank needs a buff. But I'm not sure that going after special cases like "two shots to kill immortals better" or "anti-shield shells" is the way to go. I think a flat increase in damage across the board would help. Or perhaps a boost in splash damage within the radius?
Yeah, because just like Protoss, my mech army can wander around the map and if something goes wrong I just recall to the nearest command center....oh wait!
Also this "powerful but positionally vulnerable" is not as powerful as it's vulnerable, as it stands, it either needs to be more powerful or less vulnerable, being "strong" only if you are behind a wall of Barracks, PFs, sensor towers and a multi-layer turret ring is not very good design, don't you agree?
Highly amusing comment. You're comparing apples to oranges. A mech army doesn't NEED to "wander around the map". Hell, Terran as a race doesn't need to "wander around the map" with the whole army. Small Terran forces tend to comfortably outmatch any similarly sized small force from either Zerg or Protoss, which makes them very cost effective. On the other hand pretty much the only way to move around the map as Protoss is with your entire army or, as you put it, "wander around the map". Alternatively you could peel parts off your Protoss army to send them out and lose them in grossly cost-ineffective engagements that they have little to no chance to run away from (no medivacs, remember?).
More to the point and I know I'm repeating myself here, mech is a defensive composition. A Protoss army is slow but fundamentally offensive in nature. So you're comparing two completely different things. Hell you can expand those principles to the races as a whole and even how they win games.
And your last part is entirely subjective and down to whether you think particular units are stronger or weaker than they need to be.
On December 03 2013 23:51 sc2pal wrote: Mech is pretty strong, I've played myself vs some people who use thors hellbats and ghosts in addition to tanks and its very hard to beat it so I would say you should explore it more before you go into altering balance
Did you really just tell a professional gamer, who is known for playing Mech nearly exclusively, to try and figure his playstyle out a little more because someone on the ladder has beaten you with it?
It boggles the mind...
Some people are talking as if giving advise to a bronze player. Explore more, make Ghosts, mech is strong i use it/ get beaten by it, it's like 2010 all over again. I get that we all want to believe that our own play has some sort of significance on balance/ pro play, but this is getting ridiculous lol
You don't need to have pro player skill to give intelligent suggestions/opinions on the game. As with regular sports, people who watch passionately and pay attention to the game can often have very intelligent and meaningful discussions about high level play regardless of their actual ability.
I'm not saying we can't have an opinion, but telling a pro player "just build Ghosts" or "mech is strong i get beaten by it" is so stupid it's insulting and probably a big reason pro players don't like posting much. In "real"sports you can scream all you want that David Moyes has chosen the wrong team for a game or has used the wrong tactics, but not only will your opinion be worthless, it wount even be read by anyone even remotely connected to the club. Comparing the 2 doesn't really work TBF
On December 03 2013 23:51 sc2pal wrote: Mech is pretty strong, I've played myself vs some people who use thors hellbats and ghosts in addition to tanks and its very hard to beat it so I would say you should explore it more before you go into altering balance
Did you really just tell a professional gamer, who is known for playing Mech nearly exclusively, to try and figure his playstyle out a little more because someone on the ladder has beaten you with it?
It boggles the mind...
Some people are talking as if giving advise to a bronze player. Explore more, make Ghosts, mech is strong i use it/ get beaten by it, it's like 2010 all over again. I get that we all want to believe that our own play has some sort of significance on balance/ pro play, but this is getting ridiculous lol
Yeah, although I don't think that buffing tanks is the way to make mech viable, I don't tell players to " try ghosts". I think a ghost buff might help mech or some hellbat love. Tank just a little ore time to do their dark business to be super viable.
Maybe so, although i tend to think the Tank is the problem because it is supposed to be the main "anti ground" unit. Most units in a mech composition seem to do their job OK: Hellbats with light units, Vikings with air, mines with a bit of defence; it's the Tank that get's walked over by big ground units, creating an imbalance IMO.
On December 03 2013 23:51 sc2pal wrote: Mech is pretty strong, I've played myself vs some people who use thors hellbats and ghosts in addition to tanks and its very hard to beat it so I would say you should explore it more before you go into altering balance
Did you really just tell a professional gamer, who is known for playing Mech nearly exclusively, to try and figure his playstyle out a little more because someone on the ladder has beaten you with it?
It boggles the mind...
Some people are talking as if giving advise to a bronze player. Explore more, make Ghosts, mech is strong i use it/ get beaten by it, it's like 2010 all over again. I get that we all want to believe that our own play has some sort of significance on balance/ pro play, but this is getting ridiculous lol
You don't need to have pro player skill to give intelligent suggestions/opinions on the game. As with regular sports, people who watch passionately and pay attention to the game can often have very intelligent and meaningful discussions about high level play regardless of their actual ability.
I'm not saying we can't have an opinion, but telling a pro player "just build Ghosts" or "mech is strong i get beaten by it" is so stupid it's insulting and probably a big reason pro players don't like posting much. In "real"sports you can scream all you want that David Moyes has chosen the wrong team for a game or has used the wrong tactics, but not only will your opinion be worthless, it wount even be read by anyone even remotely connected to the club. Comparing the 2 doesn't really work TBF
Wouldn't be surprised if David Moyes DOES read up for ideas online. I mean he clearly doesn't know what he's doing.
On December 03 2013 23:51 sc2pal wrote: Mech is pretty strong, I've played myself vs some people who use thors hellbats and ghosts in addition to tanks and its very hard to beat it so I would say you should explore it more before you go into altering balance
Did you really just tell a professional gamer, who is known for playing Mech nearly exclusively, to try and figure his playstyle out a little more because someone on the ladder has beaten you with it?
It boggles the mind...
Some people are talking as if giving advise to a bronze player. Explore more, make Ghosts, mech is strong i use it/ get beaten by it, it's like 2010 all over again. I get that we all want to believe that our own play has some sort of significance on balance/ pro play, but this is getting ridiculous lol
Yeah, although I don't think that buffing tanks is the way to make mech viable, I don't tell players to " try ghosts". I think a ghost buff might help mech or some hellbat love. Tank just a little ore time to do their dark business to be super viable.
Maybe so, although i tend to think the Tank is the problem because it is supposed to be the main "anti ground" unit. Most units in a mech composition seem to do their job OK: Hellbats with light units, Vikings with air, mines with a bit of defence; it's the Tank that get's walked over by big ground units, creating an imbalance IMO.
The more I'm thinking about it the more I'm wondering if its a splash issue. The falloff in splash damage within the radius is pretty harsh.
Improve that, maybe a slight damage buff, maybe even AoE increase. Then good to go?
being "strong" only if you are behind a wall of Barracks, PFs, sensor towers and a multi-layer turret ring is not very good design, don't you agree?
That's my favourite thing about Terran. That whereever the army goes, buildings follow. Turrets, Bunkers, Planetaries, Sensor Tower, Depots, Barracks, Auto Turret/PDD. To a lesser extend Widow Mines.
I hope all the tosses in this thread realise that you AREN'T supposed to beat sieged tanks straight up. If so then that would be utterly pointless. Why would you make a unit that has terrible mobility and can be crushed by a far more mobile army? Give me a good reason why.
What is a good counter to tanks other than immortals? Chargelots. Blink stalkers. MSC recall for the mobility. Phoenixes. VRs. Tempests. Carriers. These units tend to suck against Bio, and I have no comment about Bio's balance, but make no mistake, Toss is not short on options, especially against mech.
On December 03 2013 23:19 pmp10 wrote: I think suggestions of this type have been thrown at Blizzard for years. It's just not happening. 10% tank buff is about as much as they are willing to consider.
I think they are worried about making swarm hosts part 2 with tanks and creating more "passive gameplay". I think tanks could use some love, but I can see why blizzard is slow to buff them.
Yeah, except SHs have like over 20 range if locusts are on creep and they don't need any support, whereas tanks by themselves are pretty shit (they are bad even with proper support TBH) and P and Z (and bio T as well) have PLENTY of tools to abuse/slow down a meching Terran, it's just happens that everybody is bad at using them because they never have to.
So, so many things wrong with this statement. Lemme shed some insight as a master Z swarmhost player.
1. Swarmhost NEED support. Without support, they are even worse than unsupported and unsieged tanks, as any tyype of fast moving unit(marine, marauder, hellion, stalker, chargelot, ling, roach) will just kite or ignore the locus and kill off the swartmhost. Also, hellions(not hellbats!) hardcounters swarmhost as hard as immortals hardcounter siegetanks. 2. Whats the point in slowing down a mech terran? Mech in TvZ is all about reaching a high raven/viking count, as trading with that as zerg, is neigh impossible(if you try to use infestors, the terran can just drop 20 auto turrets, and if corruptors come too close, they get seeker missiled while taking dmg from auto turret and getting their attacks negated by pedition turret).
And before you say viper hydra roach, i will remind you, that vipers are super squeeshy, and can be killed off by either ghost, viking, raven or thors.
On December 04 2013 00:51 shadymmj wrote: I hope all the tosses in this thread realise that you AREN'T supposed to beat sieged tanks straight up. If so then that would be utterly pointless. Why would you make a unit that has terrible mobility and can be crushed by a far more mobile army? Give me a good reason why.
What is a good counter to tanks other than immortals? Chargelots. Blink stalkers. MSC recall for the mobility. Phoenixes. VRs. Tempests. Carriers. These units tend to suck against Bio, and I have no comment about Bio's balance, but make no mistake, Toss is not short on options, especially against mech.
You make a comment about how you're "supposed" to lose to siege tanks...then name four air units which are "supposed" to be a direct counter to the power of something like mech?
I suggested this awhile back, but I'm not Goody so no one listened...
manniefresh United States. September 04 2013 04:23. Posts 18 PM Profile Quote Edit # On September 04 2013 03:18 manniefresh wrote: Tanks need a buff!
My suggested tank buff is called "Double Shot", researched from armory, it would be an upgrade:
It would allow tanks two shots from siege mode for half damage
this would:
1) make tanks viable in tvp vs immortals 2) not really change/make them worse in tvz cause they wouldn't 1 shot banes or lings 3) hopefully not change tvt
On December 03 2013 23:42 Big J wrote: GoOdy, you may want to add this to the OP:
A modified Unit Tester is finished an published on EU and AM
Name: GoOdy's Tank Tester by Jay
Changes: The Sieged Tank's damage has been changed to be applied twice. Damage changed to 18 (+7vs armored). Vehicle Upgrade changed to +2(+1vs armored) for the Sieged Tank
reasoning for those values is: 35+15 halved would be 17.5+12.5 - which is both clunky and may cause weird effects (e.g. with the insta-1health healing of zerg units) the damage amount is now 36+14 which is a supertiny buff (34+16 would be problematic since then the tank can't oneshot zerglings). doubling the attack (making the armor apply twice) is a supertiny nerf. In some cases (like when the zergling has a +1armor advantage) those balance out marvelously anyways
The upgrade changes are the standard ones in line with all other units. Leaving the Upgrades with +3(+2) would certainly be too strong, since they are applied twice.
If someone tries it and finds a bug, please PM me!
Edit: And as a little spoiler - even in this version immortals still counter tanks. So stop the panic and try it.
I would like to bump this because it seems everyone skips it.
On December 03 2013 23:51 sc2pal wrote: Mech is pretty strong, I've played myself vs some people who use thors hellbats and ghosts in addition to tanks and its very hard to beat it so I would say you should explore it more before you go into altering balance
Did you really just tell a professional gamer, who is known for playing Mech nearly exclusively, to try and figure his playstyle out a little more because someone on the ladder has beaten you with it?
It boggles the mind...
Some people are talking as if giving advise to a bronze player. Explore more, make Ghosts, mech is strong i use it/ get beaten by it, it's like 2010 all over again. I get that we all want to believe that our own play has some sort of significance on balance/ pro play, but this is getting ridiculous lol
You don't need to have pro player skill to give intelligent suggestions/opinions on the game. As with regular sports, people who watch passionately and pay attention to the game can often have very intelligent and meaningful discussions about high level play regardless of their actual ability.
I'm not saying we can't have an opinion, but telling a pro player "just build Ghosts" or "mech is strong i get beaten by it" is so stupid it's insulting and probably a big reason pro players don't like posting much. In "real"sports you can scream all you want that David Moyes has chosen the wrong team for a game or has used the wrong tactics, but not only will your opinion be worthless, it wount even be read by anyone even remotely connected to the club. Comparing the 2 doesn't really work TBF
On December 03 2013 23:51 sc2pal wrote: Mech is pretty strong, I've played myself vs some people who use thors hellbats and ghosts in addition to tanks and its very hard to beat it so I would say you should explore it more before you go into altering balance
Did you really just tell a professional gamer, who is known for playing Mech nearly exclusively, to try and figure his playstyle out a little more because someone on the ladder has beaten you with it?
It boggles the mind...
Some people are talking as if giving advise to a bronze player. Explore more, make Ghosts, mech is strong i use it/ get beaten by it, it's like 2010 all over again. I get that we all want to believe that our own play has some sort of significance on balance/ pro play, but this is getting ridiculous lol
Yeah, although I don't think that buffing tanks is the way to make mech viable, I don't tell players to " try ghosts". I think a ghost buff might help mech or some hellbat love. Tank just a little ore time to do their dark business to be super viable.
Maybe so, although i tend to think the Tank is the problem because it is supposed to be the main "anti ground" unit. Most units in a mech composition seem to do their job OK: Hellbats with light units, Vikings with air, mines with a bit of defence; it's the Tank that get's walked over by big ground units, creating an imbalance IMO.
1. If the main problem with your army, is that protoss have a single unit with special shield, and you have the option to make a unit that REMOVES said shield, and you STILL don't build it, then you can not be taken seriously by any standard pro or not.
2. So your idea of a proper tank, is one that WILL kill all types ground units if high enough number? That sure seems balanced, wonder why blizz havn't done it yet...
3. Mvp always used ghost with his mech builds in TvP.
The technology isn't there yet. Or better yet, replace the removed Siege Mode upgrade with this as an upgrade! Allow tanks to switch between single shot and double shot! edit: ninja'd with the idea
On December 04 2013 01:12 DinosaurPoop wrote: The technology isn't there yet. Or better yet, replace the removed Siege Mode upgrade with this as an upgrade! Allow tanks to switch between single shot and double shot!
Oooh...and give the single shot better AoE scaling!
On December 04 2013 00:31 -Celestial- wrote: Highly amusing comment. You're comparing apples to oranges. A mech army doesn't NEED to "wander around the map".
Fair enough, I enjoy defensive play since brood war.
On December 04 2013 00:31 -Celestial- wrote: Hell, Terran as a race doesn't need to "wander around the map" with the whole army. Small Terran forces tend to comfortably outmatch any similarly sized small force from either Zerg or Protoss, which makes them very cost effective.
This only applies to bio and to very niche situations as mech, in TvP, small mech forces can be dealt with (most of the time) by the mineral only-warpin anywhere-chargelots.
On December 04 2013 00:31 -Celestial- wrote: On the other hand pretty much the only way to move around the map as Protoss is with your entire army or, as you put it, "wander around the map". Alternatively you could peel parts off your Protoss army to send them out and lose them in grossly cost-ineffective engagements that they have little to no chance to run away from (no medivacs, remember?).
Wrong, Zealot warpins are insanely powerful vs mech (hell, even against bio they are very good), they require no micro or baby sitting (warpin/rally), it's VERY easy to lose the game because a single warp prism found a hole in your defenses (which is supposed to be your strong point) and 4 high hp zealots are ruining your supply depots, armories and reactors. Tanks won't do shit in that situation, Hellions are too slow to go from your choke to your main, hellions can beat zealots but they need to be microed and they are too slow at killing them, I won't even mention Thors.
They don't even need to get away because losing 400~600 minerals is OK because you'll be ahead in economy anyway and more often than not your Zealots will more than pay forthemselves in this kind of harass, which again, is very easy to pull off.
On December 04 2013 00:31 -Celestial- wrote: More to the point and I know I'm repeating myself here, mech is a defensive composition. A Protoss army is slow but fundamentally offensive in nature. So you're comparing two completely different things. Hell you can expand those principles to the races as a whole and even how they win games.
Ok, I don't mind playing 40+ minute matches every time, but a lot of people find that "boring/dull" or whatever, so for the sake of viewership it would be cool for mech to have better agressive options (I said BETTER, I'm not saying these options don't exist). A lot of my games I'll pretty much know I have it won from the 20minute mark but I can't actually close the deal until I'm 200/200 with 3-3 and 15ravens. This is also especially true for TvZ, which is the matchup that generates the most rage for me, because Zergs will be forced into 1hour games but they actually have no chance of winning since mid-game due to bad compositions/engagements/etc but I can't actually punish them for that until I have an ultimate army and 4/5 bases.
On December 04 2013 00:31 -Celestial- wrote: And your last part is entirely subjective and down to whether you think particular units are stronger or weaker than they need to be.
I guess it's subjective, and so is the opinion of Goody or any other progamer or community figure, it just happens that everyone who wants mech to be viable agrees with this last point I made.
I'm a Masters league mech player, if my opinion is not good enough for you than watch some mech streamers, or hell, even ask any of the semi/pro level mechers what they of this post and I'm pretty sure they'll agree with me.
On December 04 2013 01:12 DinosaurPoop wrote: The technology isn't there yet. Or better yet, replace the removed Siege Mode upgrade with this as an upgrade! Allow tanks to switch between single shot and double shot!
Oooh...and give the single shot better AoE scaling!
Now we're getting somewhere.
Better AOE scaling could break TvT or TvZ (although personally I don't mind Terran being a mech only race, fuck bio), I'd happy to see that but I doubt Blizz would do it.
On December 03 2013 22:15 ChadMann wrote: idk.. I think Immortals are supposed to kill mech..... Maybe you should just make ghosts?
The idea that you need ghost to play mech TvP is exactly why Mech TvP doesn't work.
How is that a reasonable statement? Why is it unfair mech would need to EMP
Because they are not part of the mech-tech tree, and unlike the other 2 races, the Terran tech tree and production is not flexible. Barracks and Ghosts are a big investment (you need the structure AND the upgrades), and then you are left with a unit that's expensive, squishy, with no weapon or armor upgrades in which the only purpose is to...remove shields, something which just the force protoss to move away to quickly regenerate.
On December 03 2013 22:15 ChadMann wrote: idk.. I think Immortals are supposed to kill mech..... Maybe you should just make ghosts?
The idea that you need ghost to play mech TvP is exactly why Mech TvP doesn't work.
How is that a reasonable statement? Why is it unfair mech would need to EMP
When did he say its "unfair"? I think he wants to say: the ghost is no mech unit. But if I want to win i am forced to do bio units nonetheless. Or: I need to play 1h games. I have to agree to an earlier post: U can't play mech offensively at all. Changing that would be healthy for the game imo.
On December 03 2013 22:15 ChadMann wrote: idk.. I think Immortals are supposed to kill mech..... Maybe you should just make ghosts?
The idea that you need ghost to play mech TvP is exactly why Mech TvP doesn't work.
How is that a reasonable statement? Why is it unfair mech would need to EMP
When did he say its "unfair"? I think he wants to say: the ghosts is no mech unit. But if I want to win i am forced to do bio units nonetheless. Or: I need to play 1h games. I have to agree to an earlier post: U can't play mech offensively at all. Changing that would be healty for the game imo.
I believe avilo would have a few words to say about that Anyways, as a random zerg I approve of this idea.
I prefer having the immortal only do weaker damage to Terran mechanical units. Maybe half damage or 2/3rds of the original damage value. This will fix it quick, because Terran mech won't die too quick, Zerg and Protoss armored units still get hit with bonus damage, and the Immortal itself will still be alright due to its hardened shields and decent HP.
On December 03 2013 23:35 TrumpetWilli wrote: 1. Remove Thor energy (and alongside the Strike Cannon ability, it's never used anyways)
2. Make Hellbats mech only and not bio-mech. It just makes no sense that they are Bio, Hellions aren't Bio so why should Hellbats be. This ways they would no longer get completely shredded by Archons.
3. Nerf Ravens! Mass Ravens is just ridiculous, against Protoss as well as against Zerg.
4. Use Ghosts and Immortal shields are no longer a problem.
5. Hooray!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think these would be little changes, creating great effect. There are many other things wrong in this game but this does not belong here.
You are wrong. Thors don't have energy bars in HoTS and the rest of your suggestions are off-topic, unhelpful and ridiculous all at once.
On December 03 2013 22:15 ChadMann wrote: idk.. I think Immortals are supposed to kill mech..... Maybe you should just make ghosts?
The idea that you need ghost to play mech TvP is exactly why Mech TvP doesn't work.
How is that a reasonable statement? Why is it unfair mech would need to EMP
Because they are not part of the mech-tech tree, and unlike the other 2 races, the Terran tech tree and production is not flexible. Barracks and Ghosts are a big investment (you need the structure AND the upgrades), and then you are left with a unit that's expensive, squishy, with no weapon or armor upgrades in which the only purpose is to...remove shields, something which just the force protoss to move away to quickly regenerate.
And...? lol I'm confused as to why this is a huge deal. When the game goes on long enough, it's stupid to not invest in something as useful as the Ghost imo
They shouldn't be NEEDED as your mech army is building, but they should be in the late game
On December 03 2013 22:15 ChadMann wrote: idk.. I think Immortals are supposed to kill mech..... Maybe you should just make ghosts?
The idea that you need ghost to play mech TvP is exactly why Mech TvP doesn't work.
How is that a reasonable statement? Why is it unfair mech would need to EMP
Because they are not part of the mech-tech tree, and unlike the other 2 races, the Terran tech tree and production is not flexible. Barracks and Ghosts are a big investment (you need the structure AND the upgrades), and then you are left with a unit that's expensive, squishy, with no weapon or armor upgrades in which the only purpose is to...remove shields, something which just the force protoss to move away to quickly regenerate.
And...? lol I'm confused as to why this is a huge deal. When the game goes on long enough, it's stupid to not invest in something as useful as the Ghost imo
They shouldn't be NEEDED as your mech army is building, but they should be in the late game
In the late late game Ravens are better, they can actually kill stuff with Seeker, can help you vs Tempest/VR/Carrier (all of which Ghosts are useless against), they provide detection, auto turrets can be used to harass bases or create on-the-go chokepoints for your armies...and list goes on. Wasting resources and, more importantly, supply, on ghosts might is not as good as you make it out to be.
Anyway, I commend goody on creating this thread, awesome initiative, I'm done posting here.
On December 03 2013 23:51 sc2pal wrote: Mech is pretty strong, I've played myself vs some people who use thors hellbats and ghosts in addition to tanks and its very hard to beat it so I would say you should explore it more before you go into altering balance
Did you really just tell a professional gamer, who is known for playing Mech nearly exclusively, to try and figure his playstyle out a little more because someone on the ladder has beaten you with it?
It boggles the mind...
Some people are talking as if giving advise to a bronze player. Explore more, make Ghosts, mech is strong i use it/ get beaten by it, it's like 2010 all over again. I get that we all want to believe that our own play has some sort of significance on balance/ pro play, but this is getting ridiculous lol
You don't need to have pro player skill to give intelligent suggestions/opinions on the game. As with regular sports, people who watch passionately and pay attention to the game can often have very intelligent and meaningful discussions about high level play regardless of their actual ability.
I'm not saying we can't have an opinion, but telling a pro player "just build Ghosts" or "mech is strong i get beaten by it" is so stupid it's insulting and probably a big reason pro players don't like posting much. In "real"sports you can scream all you want that David Moyes has chosen the wrong team for a game or has used the wrong tactics, but not only will your opinion be worthless, it wount even be read by anyone even remotely connected to the club. Comparing the 2 doesn't really work TBF
On December 04 2013 00:07 Plansix wrote:
On December 04 2013 00:02 Sapphire.lux wrote:
On December 03 2013 23:53 Big J wrote:
On December 03 2013 23:51 sc2pal wrote: Mech is pretty strong, I've played myself vs some people who use thors hellbats and ghosts in addition to tanks and its very hard to beat it so I would say you should explore it more before you go into altering balance
Did you really just tell a professional gamer, who is known for playing Mech nearly exclusively, to try and figure his playstyle out a little more because someone on the ladder has beaten you with it?
It boggles the mind...
Some people are talking as if giving advise to a bronze player. Explore more, make Ghosts, mech is strong i use it/ get beaten by it, it's like 2010 all over again. I get that we all want to believe that our own play has some sort of significance on balance/ pro play, but this is getting ridiculous lol
Yeah, although I don't think that buffing tanks is the way to make mech viable, I don't tell players to " try ghosts". I think a ghost buff might help mech or some hellbat love. Tank just a little ore time to do their dark business to be super viable.
Maybe so, although i tend to think the Tank is the problem because it is supposed to be the main "anti ground" unit. Most units in a mech composition seem to do their job OK: Hellbats with light units, Vikings with air, mines with a bit of defence; it's the Tank that get's walked over by big ground units, creating an imbalance IMO.
1. If the main problem with your army, is that protoss have a single unit with special shield, and you have the option to make a unit that REMOVES said shield, and you STILL don't build it, then you can not be taken seriously by any standard pro or not.
2. So your idea of a proper tank, is one that WILL kill all types ground units if high enough number? That sure seems balanced, wonder why blizz havn't done it yet...
3. Mvp always used ghost with his mech builds in TvP.
1. ghosts are of course a good addition to TvP mech but they don't solve the immortal problem. Just like with HT it's too hard to always emp everything. Besides tank range outranges emp so the shields will typicall still absorb a few shots before the emp lands. Pro korean play has shown plenty of times mech just doesn't work well enough even if you use ghosts. Sure it may win occasionally but it's just not as good.
2. There shouldn't be too much of a problem with mech dominating all ground armies if in high enough numbers. The downsides are low mobility, having to siege up, air and very slow buildtime. That provides the fun play from BW where the mech player has the stronger straight up army but the other player tries to win on economy, with harass, good surprise manouvers or air switches.
3. Of course ghosts are mandatory for mech later on that shouldn't change. Buffing the ghost would be an option too, before that would offset bio tvp but now it's probably fine to do so. Still I prefer a tank buff like mentioned here as it will make fights resolve less around just emp, the spell is already so important in TvP.
On December 03 2013 22:15 ChadMann wrote: idk.. I think Immortals are supposed to kill mech..... Maybe you should just make ghosts?
The idea that you need ghost to play mech TvP is exactly why Mech TvP doesn't work.
How is that a reasonable statement? Why is it unfair mech would need to EMP
Because they are not part of the mech-tech tree, and unlike the other 2 races, the Terran tech tree and production is not flexible. Barracks and Ghosts are a big investment (you need the structure AND the upgrades), and then you are left with a unit that's expensive, squishy, with no weapon or armor upgrades in which the only purpose is to...remove shields, something which just the force protoss to move away to quickly regenerate.
And...? lol I'm confused as to why this is a huge deal. When the game goes on long enough, it's stupid to not invest in something as useful as the Ghost imo
that's true, but ghosts are one of the most expensive units in the game and you need multiple of them to reasonably allow Mech to break even with Immortal/Archon based armies. Thing being, that said Mech army also has to be built and it just does not work out that you have such an army when you need it. Yeah, after 20mins I think Ghost/Mech is quite OK in groundwars vs Protoss. Just that Protoss dominates the game before that on the ground. And guess how long an average SC2 game is? 11-15mins. And even if it isn't over by that (e.g. because you play a stubborn turtle style), it is often decided during that periode of time. Which more often than not is bad for the guy with the weaker and more immobile army at that point in time.
On December 04 2013 01:12 DinosaurPoop wrote: The technology isn't there yet. Or better yet, replace the removed Siege Mode upgrade with this as an upgrade! Allow tanks to switch between single shot and double shot!
Oooh...and give the single shot better AoE scaling!
Now we're getting somewhere.
Better AOE scaling could break TvT or TvZ (although personally I don't mind Terran being a mech only race, fuck bio), I'd happy to see that but I doubt Blizz would do it.
It'd make the tanks stronger but I don't think it'd have a gamebreaking effect. Not if applied carefully anyway. Might need tweaking.
Honestly I'm still convinced a big part of the problem for tanks isn't that they're particularly easy to counter but more that they don't do enough damage before dying. Even buffing them so they're not quite as weak against counters wouldn't be enough unless you make them so strong that counters just...don't anymore. Which is a bit silly.
To put it another way I'm more inclined to take the DOTA-like route of buffing its strengths rather than lessening weaknesses.
On December 03 2013 23:42 Big J wrote: GoOdy, you may want to add this to the OP:
A modified Unit Tester is finished an published on EU and AM
Name: GoOdy's Tank Tester by Jay
Changes: The Sieged Tank's damage has been changed to be applied twice. Damage changed to 18 (+7vs armored). Vehicle Upgrade changed to +2(+1vs armored) for the Sieged Tank
reasoning for those values is: 35+15 halved would be 17.5+12.5 - which is both clunky and may cause weird effects (e.g. with the insta-1health healing of zerg units) the damage amount is now 36+14 which is a supertiny buff (34+16 would be problematic since then the tank can't oneshot zerglings). doubling the attack (making the armor apply twice) is a supertiny nerf. In some cases (like when the zergling has a +1armor advantage) those balance out marvelously anyways
The upgrade changes are the standard ones in line with all other units. Leaving the Upgrades with +3(+2) would certainly be too strong, since they are applied twice.
If someone tries it and finds a bug, please PM me!
Edit: And as a little spoiler - even in this version immortals still counter tanks. So stop the panic and try it.
I would like to bump this because it seems everyone skips it.
this deserves a bump indeed. Works perfectly from what i've seen and these upgrade values are great. Huge buff against immortals but pretty much the same if EMP is applied first, small buff against archons/zealots and pretty much the same everywhere else. Immortals still do well agianst tanks but you can't just a-move into a tank line anymore. Simple implementation, relatively elegant and fixes exactly a problem that exists while practically not mattering anywhere else. Only thing I don't really know if the splash really get's worse in battles where the first shot kills something and thus the second shot doesn't splash anymore or if the second shot still splashes, hard to tell quickly from testing just a few matchups. Hopefully David kim picks up on this.
On December 04 2013 02:14 TAMinator wrote: nah, just make ghosts. This change will make the match up look very boring. Massing tanks is equivalent to swarm host play.
Ofc ghosts are good, but the problem is, that you dont have time to go for everything, you want a mech army, upgrades some expos and on top of that ghosts, then the toss player has to much time and can just go to air and it is really hard to play vs tempest/storm, so with this buff you could go for stronger midgame timings to force the toss player to delay air transitions, because now he has to worry about some good pushes.
Guys watch avilo's stream before saying "make ghost it's ez". 10 immortals stilll steamroll 15 tanks no problem even after being EMP with ground avantage etc. + Ghost doesn't benefit of upgrade while playing mech so it's really a dead unit after launching EMP.
And why the protoss in this thread are so angry about this suggestion ? It's not like mech is viable currently and this change won't even be enough so don't be so self centered.
On December 04 2013 02:14 TAMinator wrote: nah, just make ghosts. This change will make the match up look very boring. Massing tanks is equivalent to swarm host play.
tanks would spawn free units?
well swarm hosts make free units, but not free damage :p that's like saying tanks have free damage because their ammunition rounds are free o.o
I am in favor of this suggestion. Immortals should not hard counter mech (which is essentially tanks). They should be good vs, but really the hardened shield and their dps vs armored is insanely good and way more cost efficient vs tanks. Also we haven't even seen the potential of warp prism immortal play vs mech because protoss simply does not need to do stuff like that to beat a tank line. Just 1 a and make sure your units fire.
Making this change for tanks would make them almost 2x better vs immortals and would make immortals more of a soft counter that can be used as a tool instead of an end all. We would see more micro from protoss players as they attempt to utilize other units like the warp prism.
Tanks already suck vs ultras in seige mode so the 2x attack concept wouldn't really make them that much worse vs armored, even without the upgrade buff. Plus we might see more unseiged tank action in TvT with this change.
On December 03 2013 21:55 shadymmj wrote: A more elegant solution will be to make attacks that do under 30 damage be reduced to 10 damage against hardened shields, and those that do 31 and over be reduced to 20 damage. Just an alternative idea.
Good discussion so far. I especially like the collection of naive posts about why mech is already good and the responses showing why they are wrong.
I don't really like pushing things in the direction of making tanks better against immortals. You don't want tanks to be able to do decently against immortals in a straight up fight even in a balanced situation, or else battles becoming uninteresting. Instead, I think a better direction to go is to give terrans more tools to either 1) deal with immortals, or 2) help the tanks shoot other units instead of immortals.
For 1), I have a few suggestions for what could be good changes.
--The first is changing the immortal so that more of its health is in shields compared to hp than currently (maybe a 4 to 1 ratio). This way, when the shields are stripped from an immortal it can no longer take much punishment, so landing 2 EMPs on an immortal effectively kills it.
-- The second is changing the ghost tech tree to make them more accessible to mech players: maybe make the ghost academy a 50/50 addon to the armory. This way, scv time and space are saved, as well as making the building cheaper.
-- The third is changing ghosts from slow, tanky units to fast, squishy units and lowering their cost to something like 50/100. Ghosts should be fragile and require protection, but should be given more tools to be slippery. I've never understood what blizzard was thinking with the sc2 ghost design.
For 2), I have one unorthodox and major suggestion. What about a mechanic that allows the player to dynamically tell their units what units should be prioritized in a battle? I don't know exactly how it would work, but for example you could select your units and view their unit type targeting priority list (say where the unit portraits currently are) and then drag and drop unit types within the list. I think this mechanic would add a lot of interesting gameplay across all races.
Also, I'll just throw out a few ideas relating to terran upgrade mechanics.
-- One of the big problems with terran has always been keeping up in upgrades. So I wonder whether adding a new type of command center upgrade, "research facility", that devotes all of its energy to boosting all current upgrade speeds by 10% (this number could be balanced) would add some interesting gameplay. Now when you make your third CC, there is an interesting choice to be made: you can use it for short term gain (drop mules, scan) or long term gain (speed up research).
-- Add a reactor core addon to armories and ebays that allow 2 upgrades to be researched at once
-- Add a 4th or even 5th upgrade tier to armories (perhaps for ground only). This would make mech a strong late game choice that terrans could transition to even in its current state, and would make terran scarier in late game situations (where they have always had problems against both races).
On December 03 2013 22:15 ChadMann wrote: idk.. I think Immortals are supposed to kill mech..... Maybe you should just make ghosts?
Except, immortals are not the counter to mech. They counter siege tanks (which in itself is uneeded-tpss has many toolks at their disposal to deal with mech besides this abomination of design).
Even after emp, they have a large enough health pool to soak and dish out damage. Ghosts are a very soft counter to a very hard "deterrent" counter
Tanks should actually receive an armored damage buff. They need to burst down immortals effectivly after the immortal's shields have been depleted. The same could be said of the thor-which suffers massivly from poor mobility and unit size.
This "solution" just jumps around the fact- and makes the attack not do so hot against high value, armored (native amor) units (interestingly- the thing tanks are supposed to be great at!)
On December 04 2013 02:14 TAMinator wrote: nah, just make ghosts. This change will make the match up look very boring. Massing tanks is equivalent to swarm host play.
tanks would spawn free units?
No, but they don't drop 35-50 damage aoes either. Buffing the tank does have the risk of more passive play. No one wants swarm host part 2, now with AOE and scans.
For 2), I have one unorthodox and major suggestion. What about a mechanic that allows the player to dynamically tell their units what units should be prioritized in a battle? I don't know exactly how it would work, but for example you could select your units and view their unit type targeting priority list (say where the unit portraits currently are) and then drag and drop unit types within the list. I think this mechanic would add a lot of interesting gameplay across all races.
Yes, let's add another button to the command card called "Attack Move". You can quickly set the priority of what you're attacking by clicking on the unit itself! Focus firing is a thing of the past!...... oh wait.
changing a units attack speed and damage to same dps makes a huge difference in almost all situations. for lower damage units armor is a huge deal for higher damage units kiting ability is a huge deal tanks cant kite obviously but they are a huge damage burst unit and a change like this would change that dynamic of the tank. example of damage burst; if you put out all damage in front every few seconds compared to smaller damage over time makes you destroy units of your opponent before they are able to fire.
there are many things like this just few examples of that you cant simply change a units fire rate and damage even if it has same dps because it changes so many things
im surprised by the amount of people who think this is a good idea or think that this wouldnt change situations outside immortal vs tank
even if this change would go through immortal shields would still be a hard counter to siege tanks and be terrible inefficient to fight immortals without emp. emp would still be the absolute best choice against immortal shields
edit: sorry i misunderstood the suggestion, i thought he wanted the tank to attack every 1.5 seconds with 50% damage and not fire twice every 3 seconds at the same time with 50% damage
Great point @Goody. SC2 will be a better game if more diverse builds are available. The viability of mech against protoss and zerg will make the game better and more enjoyable to watch instead of just bio almost every game.
On December 04 2013 03:04 MorroW wrote: changing a units attack speed and damage to same dps makes a huge difference in almost all situations. for lower damage units armor is a huge deal for higher damage units kiting ability is a huge deal tanks cant kite obviously but they are a huge damage burst unit and a change like this would change that dynamic of the tank. example of damage burst; if you put out all damage in front every few seconds compared to smaller damage over time makes you destroy units of your opponent before they are able to fire.
there are many things like this just few examples of that you cant simply change a units fire rate and damage even if it has same dps because it changes so many things
I think you missinterprete what he suggested.
- The idea is to have it like a Zealot who attacks twice (once with each hand ) when he attacks and does 8*2 damage. Which also does not trigger hardened shields, despite it being 16damage! - Or a Colossus that fires two LAZORZ at once. - Or a Phoenix that fires two lasers at once.
So the attack periodes and the damage would stay the same. In essence you still do 35+15 every 2.8seconds.
I'd rather that instead of changing the basic tank functionality, there be a techlab researchable upgrade that makes the tank stronger by giving it extra attacks. Something like what the warhound had that is good at bringing down shields in multiple parts.
200/200 70s Cluster Shards -- Each shot in siege mode releases 4 additional very small AoE detonations of 5 damage each.
^ The shards would be randomly dispersed around the target so you'd probably hit only 1 or 2 on the actual unit that the tank was shooting at. Gets much stronger against masses with multiple tanks shooting. This allows for smart engagement micro to minimize the boost of the upgrade. (Flanking with some solitary units to draw shots... like BW.)
On December 04 2013 03:04 MorroW wrote: changing a units attack speed and damage to same dps makes a huge difference in almost all situations. for lower damage units armor is a huge deal for higher damage units kiting ability is a huge deal tanks cant kite obviously but they are a huge damage burst unit and a change like this would change that dynamic of the tank. example of damage burst; if you put out all damage in front every few seconds compared to smaller damage over time makes you destroy units of your opponent before they are able to fire.
there are many things like this just few examples of that you cant simply change a units fire rate and damage even if it has same dps because it changes so many things
im surprised by the amount of people who think this is a good idea or think that this wouldnt change situations outside immortal vs tank
even if this change would go through immortal shields would still be a hard counter to siege tanks and be terrible inefficient to fight immortals without emp. emp would still be the absolute best choice against immortal shields
How shooting twice at the same firerate will change everything ? It's not like Goody said to divide the attack by 2 double the firerate but hitting twice at the same time, like the banshee actually. It won't change a thing in other situation, at least I don't see any.
On December 04 2013 03:04 MorroW wrote: changing a units attack speed and damage to same dps makes a huge difference in almost all situations. for lower damage units armor is a huge deal for higher damage units kiting ability is a huge deal tanks cant kite obviously but they are a huge damage burst unit and a change like this would change that dynamic of the tank. example of damage burst; if you put out all damage in front every few seconds compared to smaller damage over time makes you destroy units of your opponent before they are able to fire.
there are many things like this just few examples of that you cant simply change a units fire rate and damage even if it has same dps because it changes so many things
im surprised by the amount of people who think this is a good idea or think that this wouldnt change situations outside immortal vs tank
even if this change would go through immortal shields would still be a hard counter to siege tanks and be terrible inefficient to fight immortals without emp. emp would still be the absolute best choice against immortal shields
I agree it's not a good change, but I think you misunderstand. He's saying same attack speed and same damage, but the attack damage is split in 2 hits... unless I misunderstood yours or his post lol
On December 04 2013 03:04 MorroW wrote: changing a units attack speed and damage to same dps makes a huge difference in almost all situations. for lower damage units armor is a huge deal for higher damage units kiting ability is a huge deal tanks cant kite obviously but they are a huge damage burst unit and a change like this would change that dynamic of the tank. example of damage burst; if you put out all damage in front every few seconds compared to smaller damage over time makes you destroy units of your opponent before they are able to fire.
there are many things like this just few examples of that you cant simply change a units fire rate and damage even if it has same dps because it changes so many things
im surprised by the amount of people who think this is a good idea or think that this wouldnt change situations outside immortal vs tank
even if this change would go through immortal shields would still be a hard counter to siege tanks and be terrible inefficient to fight immortals without emp. emp would still be the absolute best choice against immortal shields
How shooting twice at the same firerate will change everything ? It's not like Goody said to divide the attack by 2 double the firerate but hitting twice at the same time, like the banshee actually. It won't change a thing in other situation, at least I don't see any.
oh im sorry i misunderstood what he was suggesting, ill edit my main post
On December 03 2013 21:55 Green_25 wrote: Why not just give tanks some kind of upgrade which boosts damage versus protoss shields?
because they already really strong vs every protoss unit expect the immortel, and then it would be totaly broken
Huh? Chargelots demolish tanks if controlled properly, colossus with lance can kite them easily. Void rays take them out in seconds. Tanks are very shaky against protoss overall.
I thought the point of this idea was on using tanks in an army composition, not just mass tank. There's this unit which you might consider getting as part of a mech composition called a Hellbat and its pretty good against Zealots. Sieged Tanks are range 13 whilst Colossi are range 9 with thermal lance. Not sure where the whole "kite them easily" is coming from; hell even unsieged they're range 7, which outranges non-thermal lance colossi (6 range).
Hellbats can't cover every angle, only a couple of Zealots getting into melee-range of the tanks can completely change the outcome of an engagement to the protoss side, all it takes is a bit of flanking, and this is why you have to posture yourself defensively at all times as a meching player if you want an even/favourable engagement. Check out's MVP's mech game on WW vs Hero, all it took was a few zealots coming from the side to completely negate hellbats.
Welcome to the wonderful world of "powerful but positionally vulnerable" compositions. Similar to that of virtually every Protoss composition since the release of WoL. Something crucial slightly out of position? Boom, there it goes.
Mech is a fundamentally defensive composition given its slow speed and the nature of siege tanks. If the enemy manages to get units into your defensive position then: 1. You screwed up somewhere and 2. Its going to hurt
Same reason Medivac drops in your base are really effective if you don't have something already in place to deal with it (as any race, incidentally).
Edit: That being said I think avilo's got a good point with respect to the armoury. Perhaps a cost reduction and even a build time buff would help there?
I've actually felt for a while the tank needs a buff. But I'm not sure that going after special cases like "two shots to kill immortals better" or "anti-shield shells" is the way to go. I think a flat increase in damage across the board would help. Or perhaps a boost in splash damage within the radius?
I still think my Factory upgrade that gives tanks more armor and hp but prevents them from siegeing is the way to go. Unsieged tanks look really freakin' cool, and it kind of sucks how a TANK is completely useless unless it's stationary.
That, plus Avilo's point about upgrade disadvantage. That's a really solid point.
On December 03 2013 21:55 Green_25 wrote: Why not just give tanks some kind of upgrade which boosts damage versus protoss shields?
because they already really strong vs every protoss unit expect the immortel, and then it would be totaly broken
Huh? Chargelots demolish tanks if controlled properly, colossus with lance can kite them easily. Void rays take them out in seconds. Tanks are very shaky against protoss overall.
I thought the point of this idea was on using tanks in an army composition, not just mass tank. There's this unit which you might consider getting as part of a mech composition called a Hellbat and its pretty good against Zealots. Sieged Tanks are range 13 whilst Colossi are range 9 with thermal lance. Not sure where the whole "kite them easily" is coming from; hell even unsieged they're range 7, which outranges non-thermal lance colossi (6 range).
Hellbats can't cover every angle, only a couple of Zealots getting into melee-range of the tanks can completely change the outcome of an engagement to the protoss side, all it takes is a bit of flanking, and this is why you have to posture yourself defensively at all times as a meching player if you want an even/favourable engagement. Check out's MVP's mech game on WW vs Hero, all it took was a few zealots coming from the side to completely negate hellbats.
Welcome to the wonderful world of "powerful but positionally vulnerable" compositions. Similar to that of virtually every Protoss composition since the release of WoL. Something crucial slightly out of position? Boom, there it goes.
Mech is a fundamentally defensive composition given its slow speed and the nature of siege tanks. If the enemy manages to get units into your defensive position then: 1. You screwed up somewhere and 2. Its going to hurt
Same reason Medivac drops in your base are really effective if you don't have something already in place to deal with it (as any race, incidentally).
Edit: That being said I think avilo's got a good point with respect to the armoury. Perhaps a cost reduction and even a build time buff would help there?
I've actually felt for a while the tank needs a buff. But I'm not sure that going after special cases like "two shots to kill immortals better" or "anti-shield shells" is the way to go. I think a flat increase in damage across the board would help. Or perhaps a boost in splash damage within the radius?
Yeah, because just like Protoss, my mech army can wander around the map and if something goes wrong I just recall to the nearest command center....oh wait!
Also this "powerful but positionally vulnerable" is not as powerful as it's vulnerable, as it stands, it either needs to be more powerful or less vulnerable, being "strong" only if you are behind a wall of Barracks, PFs, sensor towers and a multi-layer turret ring is not very good design, don't you agree?
Highly amusing comment. You're comparing apples to oranges. A mech army doesn't NEED to "wander around the map". Hell, Terran as a race doesn't need to "wander around the map" with the whole army. Small Terran forces tend to comfortably outmatch any similarly sized small force from either Zerg or Protoss, which makes them very cost effective. On the other hand pretty much the only way to move around the map as Protoss is with your entire army or, as you put it, "wander around the map". Alternatively you could peel parts off your Protoss army to send them out and lose them in grossly cost-ineffective engagements that they have little to no chance to run away from (no medivacs, remember?).
Terran is good in small supply fights only with bio. Mech needs a critical mass to be able to even move out from the base. If you want to attack, mech basically has to move round like a protoss deathball except it is less mobile (since tanks need to be sieged) and it is less powerful in direct engagement than protoss army.
On December 03 2013 21:55 Green_25 wrote: Why not just give tanks some kind of upgrade which boosts damage versus protoss shields?
because they already really strong vs every protoss unit expect the immortel, and then it would be totaly broken
Huh? Chargelots demolish tanks if controlled properly, colossus with lance can kite them easily. Void rays take them out in seconds. Tanks are very shaky against protoss overall.
I thought the point of this idea was on using tanks in an army composition, not just mass tank. There's this unit which you might consider getting as part of a mech composition called a Hellbat and its pretty good against Zealots. Sieged Tanks are range 13 whilst Colossi are range 9 with thermal lance. Not sure where the whole "kite them easily" is coming from; hell even unsieged they're range 7, which outranges non-thermal lance colossi (6 range).
Hellbats can't cover every angle, only a couple of Zealots getting into melee-range of the tanks can completely change the outcome of an engagement to the protoss side, all it takes is a bit of flanking, and this is why you have to posture yourself defensively at all times as a meching player if you want an even/favourable engagement. Check out's MVP's mech game on WW vs Hero, all it took was a few zealots coming from the side to completely negate hellbats.
Welcome to the wonderful world of "powerful but positionally vulnerable" compositions. Similar to that of virtually every Protoss composition since the release of WoL. Something crucial slightly out of position? Boom, there it goes.
Mech is a fundamentally defensive composition given its slow speed and the nature of siege tanks. If the enemy manages to get units into your defensive position then: 1. You screwed up somewhere and 2. Its going to hurt
Same reason Medivac drops in your base are really effective if you don't have something already in place to deal with it (as any race, incidentally).
Edit: That being said I think avilo's got a good point with respect to the armoury. Perhaps a cost reduction and even a build time buff would help there?
I've actually felt for a while the tank needs a buff. But I'm not sure that going after special cases like "two shots to kill immortals better" or "anti-shield shells" is the way to go. I think a flat increase in damage across the board would help. Or perhaps a boost in splash damage within the radius?
I still think my Factory upgrade that gives tanks more armor and hp but prevents them from siegeing is the way to go. Unsieged tanks look really freakin' cool, and it kind of sucks how a TANK is completely useless unless it's stationary.
That idea just creates warhound 2.0, epitome of a-move type unit.
IMHO the unit to change should be the Hellbat and not the Siegetank. A while ago I posted a few suggestions in the battle.net forum.
"I think it is save to say that the introduction of the Hellbat with HotS has not worked as intended. The unit was meant as damage-tank but was and is mainly used as a gimmicky damage dealer and as harassment unit. I think with a few adjustments the Hellbat could be the key unit to make mech a valid play-style in TvP and also in TvZ.
The idea behind this is to create a stronger synergy between Hellbats and Siegetanks without making the units in isolation stronger. The biggest problem of mech in TvP right now is that tank+HB is just not strong enough in straight up fights against chargelot, archon, immortal.
Changes to Hellbat:
remove Biotag +no medivacs needed, more gas for other stuff +takes less damage from archons -Less effective drops
Increase health and armor, reduce DPS +the hellbat will stay alive for longer -the hellbat itself will kill less The hellbat should be a unit that stands in front of other units to eat damage while the other units are able to deal damage. This creates an interesting dynamic that forces both sides to micro and think about their positioning
Give Hellbats an immunity to friendly splash damage +call it "shin guard" or "spall liner" +creates synergy with tanks
Split the attack in two attacks +more damage to the shields of immortals -less damage against armored units
Give Hellions an out of combat health regeneration similar to reapers +will enable hellbats to regenerate health out of combat between army clashes Maybe this should require the transformation upgrade if it is too powerful in the early game.
Reduce the time needed for the transformation from HB to hellion form +will make it possible to retreat with hellbats
I do not understand why the hellbat once again has to be a unit with rather low health (compared to roaches and zealots) and high damage. All terran units seem to be like that. IMHO terran could really use a unit to stand in front of the otherwise rather fragile army.
I'm looking forward to hear your opinion on this! "Link
Overall the Hellbat could be a unit that deals with the weaknesses of the siegetank in direct confrontations.
On December 03 2013 21:55 Green_25 wrote: Why not just give tanks some kind of upgrade which boosts damage versus protoss shields?
because they already really strong vs every protoss unit expect the immortel, and then it would be totaly broken
Huh? Chargelots demolish tanks if controlled properly, colossus with lance can kite them easily. Void rays take them out in seconds. Tanks are very shaky against protoss overall.
I thought the point of this idea was on using tanks in an army composition, not just mass tank. There's this unit which you might consider getting as part of a mech composition called a Hellbat and its pretty good against Zealots. Sieged Tanks are range 13 whilst Colossi are range 9 with thermal lance. Not sure where the whole "kite them easily" is coming from; hell even unsieged they're range 7, which outranges non-thermal lance colossi (6 range).
Hellbats can't cover every angle, only a couple of Zealots getting into melee-range of the tanks can completely change the outcome of an engagement to the protoss side, all it takes is a bit of flanking, and this is why you have to posture yourself defensively at all times as a meching player if you want an even/favourable engagement. Check out's MVP's mech game on WW vs Hero, all it took was a few zealots coming from the side to completely negate hellbats.
Welcome to the wonderful world of "powerful but positionally vulnerable" compositions. Similar to that of virtually every Protoss composition since the release of WoL. Something crucial slightly out of position? Boom, there it goes.
Mech is a fundamentally defensive composition given its slow speed and the nature of siege tanks. If the enemy manages to get units into your defensive position then: 1. You screwed up somewhere and 2. Its going to hurt
Same reason Medivac drops in your base are really effective if you don't have something already in place to deal with it (as any race, incidentally).
Edit: That being said I think avilo's got a good point with respect to the armoury. Perhaps a cost reduction and even a build time buff would help there?
I've actually felt for a while the tank needs a buff. But I'm not sure that going after special cases like "two shots to kill immortals better" or "anti-shield shells" is the way to go. I think a flat increase in damage across the board would help. Or perhaps a boost in splash damage within the radius?
I still think my Factory upgrade that gives tanks more armor and hp but prevents them from siegeing is the way to go. Unsieged tanks look really freakin' cool, and it kind of sucks how a TANK is completely useless unless it's stationary.
That idea just creates warhound 2.0, epitome of a-move type unit.
Yes and no. It is a strategic decision that completely prevents you from making tanks able to siege for the rest of the game. So yes, it creates an A-move unit, but at what cost? Against Protoss, not much. Against Zerg? Could be a very bad decision. Additionally, you could offer a "siege-only" upgrade that further increases the capabilities of a sieged tank but prevents them from becoming battletanks.
Sort of like a mutually-exclusive talent tree for tanks.
On December 04 2013 03:24 submarine wrote: IMHO the unit to change should be the Hellbat and not the Siegetank. A while ago I posted a few suggestions in the battle.net forum.
"I think it is save to say that the introduction of the Hellbat with HotS has not worked as intended. The unit was meant as damage-tank but was and is mainly used as a gimmicky damage dealer and as harassment unit. I think with a few adjustments the Hellbat could be the key unit to make mech a valid play-style in TvP and also in TvZ.
The idea behind this is to create a stronger synergy between Hellbats and Siegetanks without making the units in isolation stronger. The biggest problem of mech in TvP right now is that tank+HB is just not strong enough in straight up fights against chargelot, archon, immortal.
Changes to Hellbat:
remove Biotag +no medivacs needed, more gas for other stuff +takes less damage from archons -Less effective drops
Increase health and armor, reduce DPS +the hellbat will stay alive for longer -the hellbat itself will kill less The hellbat should be a unit that stands in front of other units to eat damage while the other units are able to deal damage. This creates an interesting dynamic that forces both sides to micro and think about their positioning
Give Hellbats an immunity to friendly splash damage +call it "shin guard" or "spall liner" +creates synergy with tanks
Split the attack in two attacks +more damage to the shields of immortals -less damage against armored units
Give Hellions an out of combat health regeneration similar to reapers +will enable hellbats to regenerate health out of combat between army clashes Maybe this should require the transformation upgrade if it is too powerful in the early game.
Reduce the time needed for the transformation from HB to hellion form +will make it possible to retreat with hellbats
I do not understand why the hellbat once again has to be a unit with rather low health (compared to roaches and zealots) and high damage. All terran units seem to be like that. IMHO terran could really use a unit to stand in front of the otherwise rather fragile army.
I'm looking forward to hear your opinion on this! "Link
Overall the Hellbat could be a unit that deals with the weaknesses of the siegetank in direct confrontations.
I like this guy's idea. Remove the friendly-damage immunity and maybe make the upgrade a slow to the hellbat fire? Could be super OP though.
For 2), I have one unorthodox and major suggestion. What about a mechanic that allows the player to dynamically tell their units what units should be prioritized in a battle? I don't know exactly how it would work, but for example you could select your units and view their unit type targeting priority list (say where the unit portraits currently are) and then drag and drop unit types within the list. I think this mechanic would add a lot of interesting gameplay across all races.
Yes, let's add another button to the command card called "Attack Move". You can quickly set the priority of what you're attacking by clicking on the unit itself! Focus firing is a thing of the past!...... oh wait.
This is getting a little off topic, but I think this is one type of change that would help address the immortal issue so I'll respond.
Manual focus firing would still be important in order to take units out one at a time, or shoots units in clumps, etc.
Is having to manually focus your units on units of a particular type (e.g. carriers) and otherwise rely on the built-in AI an interesting mechanic? I think being able to specify that more precisely would add a higher strategic skillcap to the game. It would reward players more for watching and micromanaging a battle by constantly updating unit attack priorities instead of the current clunky and effectively impossible method of manually targeting individual units throughout a battle (and hence it's often best to just let the AI do its thing... relating to day9's classic video about how micro in sc2 isn't that rewarding). I think a player that is capable of effectively managing a battle this way would have to be very fast and think quickly, but would be able to decimate a lesser player's army (similar to how effective good micro was in bw).
It might make sc2 too different to be worth considering, I'm not sure. But let me emphasize this point. I think adding these types of dynamic strategic commands would give players back the ability to strongly influence the course of a battle, which sc2 neutered when unit AIs became so much better as compared to bw. That is, this type of direct strategic control over units to override the AI's stupid tendencies is analogous to effectively moving units around in bw to overcome the AI's stupid pathing.
Here's an example of the sort of play that could happen. A terran player brings scvs with their mech army to repair their units during the battle. The protoss player selects a group of oracles and tells them to prioritize scvs, then attacks with the whole army. Now oracles can be used as assasination squads that make an impact before dying instead of trying to attack other units that laugh at them. But the terran player can observe this and tell their thors or ghosts (for example) to attack oracles first. But now if the protoss observes this the oracles can be spread and microed at a safe distance to distract the thors while the rest of the army moves in. Etc etc...
On December 03 2013 21:55 Green_25 wrote: Why not just give tanks some kind of upgrade which boosts damage versus protoss shields?
because they already really strong vs every protoss unit expect the immortel, and then it would be totaly broken
Huh? Chargelots demolish tanks if controlled properly, colossus with lance can kite them easily. Void rays take them out in seconds. Tanks are very shaky against protoss overall.
I thought the point of this idea was on using tanks in an army composition, not just mass tank. There's this unit which you might consider getting as part of a mech composition called a Hellbat and its pretty good against Zealots. Sieged Tanks are range 13 whilst Colossi are range 9 with thermal lance. Not sure where the whole "kite them easily" is coming from; hell even unsieged they're range 7, which outranges non-thermal lance colossi (6 range).
Hellbats can't cover every angle, only a couple of Zealots getting into melee-range of the tanks can completely change the outcome of an engagement to the protoss side, all it takes is a bit of flanking, and this is why you have to posture yourself defensively at all times as a meching player if you want an even/favourable engagement. Check out's MVP's mech game on WW vs Hero, all it took was a few zealots coming from the side to completely negate hellbats.
Welcome to the wonderful world of "powerful but positionally vulnerable" compositions. Similar to that of virtually every Protoss composition since the release of WoL. Something crucial slightly out of position? Boom, there it goes.
Mech is a fundamentally defensive composition given its slow speed and the nature of siege tanks. If the enemy manages to get units into your defensive position then: 1. You screwed up somewhere and 2. Its going to hurt
Same reason Medivac drops in your base are really effective if you don't have something already in place to deal with it (as any race, incidentally).
Edit: That being said I think avilo's got a good point with respect to the armoury. Perhaps a cost reduction and even a build time buff would help there?
I've actually felt for a while the tank needs a buff. But I'm not sure that going after special cases like "two shots to kill immortals better" or "anti-shield shells" is the way to go. I think a flat increase in damage across the board would help. Or perhaps a boost in splash damage within the radius?
I still think my Factory upgrade that gives tanks more armor and hp but prevents them from siegeing is the way to go. Unsieged tanks look really freakin' cool, and it kind of sucks how a TANK is completely useless unless it's stationary.
That idea just creates warhound 2.0, epitome of a-move type unit.
Right which then would be the Terran equivalent of a Colossus.... we don't want that
At this point I just want Blizzard to some something drastic to encourage mech play so people can really start figuring out the TvP mech meta. Its been 3 years and its never actually been viable to the point where timings and counterstrats could be really figured out.
With the combined upgrades it feels mech is getting pretty close to being viable, but its still ridiculously unforgiving and doesnt feel like it packs the punch that it gives up in mobility compared to bio.
I would not call that a good thought^^ He is just saying he has to scaut, if both options are possible and toss has a lot of different options to scaut: MSC, Obs, hallu, Oracle and it is very easy to scaut what composition the terran player is using, if there are 2+ Fax it is mech and if there are 2+ Rax its bio and then toss has still a lot of time to react^^ And you cant just tech switch like a zerg and fake a 5 rax opening and then go for mech^^
The cost of health and dps is much less for protoss units than for terran units across the board. This is why mech has always been bad against protoss. A protoss simply can produce units which do more dps and have more hp than any mech army a terran can make at any early phase in the game until Terran can use the entire tech tree and sacrifice workers to have a larger army supply than the opponent.
The most obvious example of this is the need for terran bio armies to kite protoss units. Despite having much higher DPS than an equivalent Mech army the Bio player has to kite in order to prevent from being steamrolled by zealots. (which have insane dps/health for cost) It makes sense that the meching player, who cannot kite, will just get steamrolled even worse because it does less damage and only has slightly better resiliency.
As long as Protoss retains their economic unit efficiency advantage. By not losing units before the main battle. (Every mineral and gas a protoss spends is better in most aspects than a terran mineral or gas on meching units) They are completely fine. The type of unit really doesn't matter all that much.
The worst part of meching is that the Terran has little ability to make up for this disadvantage in micro during battles and multitask between battles. Its counterpart, 3M gives plenty of opportunities and probably is the greatest factor in who wins a normal looking TvP. How much good multitask/micro did the terran do? The terran has to do an increasing amount of good stuff here to beat better protoss opponents.
This is glaringly obvious in all match-ups for all races, but when talking about mech, something that has little to no micro/multitaks opportunities. Against a race who's units are "inherently" more cost effective (without micro/multitask) there isn't really much that Mech can do. Increasing the effectiveness of the tank against a single protoss unit is a good suggestion. It also gives the terran more micro opportunities/decisions in battle. Do I target-fire the immortals with tanks? That's not a decision we even can think about making in the current balance.
On December 04 2013 03:58 GoOdy wrote: I would not call that a good thought^^ He is just saying he has to scaut, if both options are possible and toss has a lot of different options to scaut: MSC, Obs, hallu, Oracle and it is very easy to scaut what composition the terran player is using, if there are 2+ Fax it is mech and if there are 2+ Rax its bio and then toss has still a lot of time to react^^ And you cant just tech switch like a zerg and fake a 5 rax opening and then go for mech^^
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that if Mech and Bio are both favored when protoss does the wrong comp and equal when protoss does the best anti- Mech/Bio build that's appropriate, then you have a dynamic that favors terran: the same dynamic that caused such serious problems in PvZ.
Consider: Protoss has two choices of general compositions in PvT: Anti-Bio and Anti-Mech. If you buff mech to be a 50% winrate vs. Anti-Mech, you get the following results: Anti-Bio, Equal vs. Bio, Weak vs. Mech. Anti-Mech, Equal vs. Mech, Weak vs. Bio. Terran side: Mech: Equal vs. Anti-Mech, Strong vs. Anti-Bio. Bio: Equal vs. Anti-Bio, Strong vs. Anti-Mech.
That's a dynamic that flat out favors the terran: it creates a game where terran gets a huge advantage through denial of scouting, hiding or disguising tech paths. Protoss compositions will be at best equal, and Terran is the race that makes all the decisions: toss just reacts constantly. Unless it becomes impossible for terran to ever deny scouting from Protoss (I see the first observer get sniped all the time) or to hide buildings so that toss can perfectly scout, it's gonna favor terran here. Now, I know you're thinking "Well toss does this all the time!" Yeah, toss hides tech to get a short term compositional advantage, often for a timing or all-in, but in Toss's case it's very short term and it's currently balanced that way (winrates, etc.) Throw in Terran doing it too and I dunno how you're going to compensate Toss for Terran's additional strength.
Then, throw in maps that make Mech stronger than average, and you'll wind up having games where toss just all-ins every game.
It's a good thought because the consequences of the buff without any nerf to bio to compensate for the overall increase in terran strength is non-trivial, and it's very hard to nerf bio without breaking everything all over the place.
In short, Nony is basically saying: If you buff Mech with no other changes to terran, you are giving terran a flat out buff as a cohesive race. This can break the game in several ways, and it's likely to force Protoss into doing a hell of a lot of all-ins in the long run. Unless you want to force Protoss players to just all-in most games, especially on mech preferred maps, you can't just buff mech flat out.
On December 04 2013 03:58 GoOdy wrote: I would not call that a good thought^^ He is just saying he has to scaut, if both options are possible and toss has a lot of different options to scaut: MSC, Obs, hallu, Oracle and it is very easy to scaut what composition the terran player is using, if there are 2+ Fax it is mech and if there are 2+ Rax its bio and then toss has still a lot of time to react^^ And you cant just tech switch like a zerg and fake a 5 rax opening and then go for mech^^
Yeah, Nony's video is horrible and biased, I honestly expected more out of him
proposes nothing, wants to nerf bio while talking about mech? i am sorry but that were 8 minutes wasted, because bio is equal and mech is inferior, not how he described it at all!
also toss has no problem scouting and already has strong allins while msc offers protection... so i dont even get the point of his rambling, of course i am biased but the lack of actual content in favor of fortunetelling is apparent... especially his "antimech army loses to bio army" where would terran be allowed to techswitch unscouted over the course of 10 minutes to 3/3 200/200 bio? its unfathomable.
On December 04 2013 03:10 EatThePath wrote: I'd rather that instead of changing the basic tank functionality, there be a techlab researchable upgrade that makes the tank stronger by giving it extra attacks. Something like what the warhound had that is good at bringing down shields in multiple parts.
200/200 70s Cluster Shards -- Each shot in siege mode releases 4 additional very small AoE detonations of 5 damage each.
^ The shards would be randomly dispersed around the target so you'd probably hit only 1 or 2 on the actual unit that the tank was shooting at. Gets much stronger against masses with multiple tanks shooting. This allows for smart engagement micro to minimize the boost of the upgrade. (Flanking with some solitary units to draw shots... like BW.)
This would only help tanks against immortals when there is a deathball of tanks, which is not really what we want imo.
That brings me to another point about tanks. Having one or two stationed somewhere for defense isn't very effective unless getting in range to kill them is very costly (like when they are behind a pf, or protected by a group of battle hellions). So most of the time you have to keep them all together in your army. But in bw, if you set up a a few mines and turret on a ramp and put a couple tanks behind, this was enough to defend an expansion against small attacks and allowed the vultures to be part of the main army (or used to harass), which is one very important use of tanks that I think people forget.
In sc2, defending a base with small supply as terran requires a PF, but this limits where tanks can be placed and forces the terran to take an economic hit. I'd love to see some kind of new tool for terrans that synergizes with tanks to fortify a base against light attacks without committing a lot of supply or taking a long-term economic hit.
On December 04 2013 03:58 GoOdy wrote: I would not call that a good thought^^ He is just saying he has to scaut, if both options are possible and toss has a lot of different options to scaut: MSC, Obs, hallu, Oracle and it is very easy to scaut what composition the terran player is using, if there are 2+ Fax it is mech and if there are 2+ Rax its bio and then toss has still a lot of time to react^^ And you cant just tech switch like a zerg and fake a 5 rax opening and then go for mech^^
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that if Mech and Bio are both favored when protoss does the wrong comp and equal when protoss does the best anti- Mech/Bio build that's appropriate, then you have a dynamic that favors terran: the same dynamic that caused such serious problems in PvZ.
Consider: Protoss has two choices of general compositions in PvT: Anti-Bio and Anti-Mech. If you buff mech to be a 50% winrate vs. Anti-Mech, you get the following results: Anti-Bio, Equal vs. Bio, Weak vs. Mech. Anti-Mech, Equal vs. Mech, Weak vs. Bio. Terran side: Mech: Equal vs. Anti-Mech, Strong vs. Anti-Bio. Bio: Equal vs. Anti-Bio, Strong vs. Anti-Mech.
That's a dynamic that flat out favors the terran: it creates a game where terran gets a huge advantage through denial of scouting, hiding or disguising tech paths. Protoss compositions will be at best equal, and Terran is the race that makes all the decisions: toss just reacts constantly.
Then, throw in maps that make Mech stronger than average, and you'll wind up having games where toss just all-ins every game.
It's a good thought because the consequences of the buff without any nerf to bio to compensate for the overall increase in terran strength is non-trivial, and it's very hard to nerf bio without breaking everything all over the place.
thats how it should be, if u play bio with double starport vs storm u are behind, if u make the right units its equal, thats why u have to scaut
On December 04 2013 03:58 GoOdy wrote: I would not call that a good thought^^ He is just saying he has to scaut, if both options are possible and toss has a lot of different options to scaut: MSC, Obs, hallu, Oracle and it is very easy to scaut what composition the terran player is using, if there are 2+ Fax it is mech and if there are 2+ Rax its bio and then toss has still a lot of time to react^^ And you cant just tech switch like a zerg and fake a 5 rax opening and then go for mech^^
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that if Mech and Bio are both favored when protoss does the wrong comp and equal when protoss does the best anti- Mech/Bio build that's appropriate, then you have a dynamic that favors terran: the same dynamic that caused such serious problems in PvZ.
Consider: Protoss has two choices of general compositions in PvT: Anti-Bio and Anti-Mech. If you buff mech to be a 50% winrate vs. Anti-Mech, you get the following results: Anti-Bio, Equal vs. Bio, Weak vs. Mech. Anti-Mech, Equal vs. Mech, Weak vs. Bio. Terran side: Mech: Equal vs. Anti-Mech, Strong vs. Anti-Bio. Bio: Equal vs. Anti-Bio, Strong vs. Anti-Mech.
That's a dynamic that flat out favors the terran: it creates a game where terran gets a huge advantage through denial of scouting, hiding or disguising tech paths. Protoss compositions will be at best equal, and Terran is the race that makes all the decisions: toss just reacts constantly.
Then, throw in maps that make Mech stronger than average, and you'll wind up having games where toss just all-ins every game.
It's a good thought because the consequences of the buff without any nerf to bio to compensate for the overall increase in terran strength is non-trivial, and it's very hard to nerf bio without breaking everything all over the place.
This is incredibly naive and shows you don't play Terran at all..... Bio essentially has a 4-5 minute window to do sufficient damage to stay in the late game at best. Protoss force vses Terran force is not 50% right now.... its about the timings of the match up and your percentage to win at specific times of the game vsesthe percentage you will take the game further not about this army could go either way vs this army LOL Honestly thats the way it should be but its definitely not.... Also we as terran already have this problemw ith protoss so why not give this tool to terran? If we build Vikings when you went robo what percentage are vikings going to win against Templar tech? Between all of the mechanics protoss has to scout you most certainly will be able to transition into what you need to so that you can stay in teh game and still be greedy with the protection of the sacred MSC........
Edit: and Proof of this is definitely in the pudding that something needs to be done otherwise we wouldn't have even see the invention of the SCV pull where the only reason its performed is because a Bio Force vses Protoss Force is significantly in the favor of protoss...... So when a terran is ahead they try to take advantage of that because their chance to win will drastically decrease as the protoss gains a bigger army......
On December 04 2013 03:58 GoOdy wrote: I would not call that a good thought^^ He is just saying he has to scaut, if both options are possible and toss has a lot of different options to scaut: MSC, Obs, hallu, Oracle and it is very easy to scaut what composition the terran player is using, if there are 2+ Fax it is mech and if there are 2+ Rax its bio and then toss has still a lot of time to react^^ And you cant just tech switch like a zerg and fake a 5 rax opening and then go for mech^^
Yeah, Nony's video is horrible and biased, I honestly expected more out of him
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
This idea is genuinely genious. Maybe alongside with removing the bio tag from hellbats, which actually makes them worse against archons, it might cause us to see some mech against p.
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
I like your idea, Goody. And I don't think it would make mech too OP. I still like the really old idea of Lalush the best though. Make hardened shield a weaker, active ability that also protects units around the immortal, somewhat like guardian shield. Maybe with a slight buff of tanks. That would turn a fight against a mech army into more than just a-move.
On December 03 2013 22:15 ChadMann wrote: idk.. I think Immortals are supposed to kill mech..... Maybe you should just make ghosts?
I think most people would agree that super-hardcounters are bad for the game, and that is pretty much what Immortals is to Tanks. They are insanely good.
I don't agree with him at all. His main point is that the current situation (Bio=Antibio; Bio>Antimech; Mech>Antibio; Mech<Antimech) is fine, because Terran is favored in 2 of 4 cases. He somehow thinks its fine to be favored as Toss if you are are able to identify a Mech build. This may sound hard, but IMHO scouting the general tech choice of a Terran should be not a problem for any Toss above Gold liga. This should not be something that puts you ahead like it does right now if you scout Mech. I also don't understand his fear of map specific play-style choice.
If Mech was a real alternative the game would be better. Balance is really not an issue here.
This hadn't any substance according the issue that we'r talking about here. The terran tech switching is the slowest and resource hogging thing to do. In case that you really do it you'll need to have it planned out by situation. Generally it just doesn't work.
That bullcrap about all-inning was just plain dumb. Have Nony watched FE. avilo ever? He has the meta in somewhat shape, and prob one of the minor ppl who can play mech even though he gets opponent that just purely meta-games his builds. But sometimes the harrashment from P and the immobility just rips you apart. Only way to properly mech is turtle like a cunt. Although the TvP meching is really inconsistent and risky but it can be done, but not whitout superior effort. The dependency of ravens is just silly.
Once more, i think we just need to sit and wait for the LOTV to see if they even bother to revive mech. They have just given us blank words and done nothing to fix it.
On December 04 2013 03:58 GoOdy wrote: I would not call that a good thought^^ He is just saying he has to scaut, if both options are possible and toss has a lot of different options to scaut: MSC, Obs, hallu, Oracle and it is very easy to scaut what composition the terran player is using, if there are 2+ Fax it is mech and if there are 2+ Rax its bio and then toss has still a lot of time to react^^ And you cant just tech switch like a zerg and fake a 5 rax opening and then go for mech^^
Exactly this. It's the same in TvT where the bio player starts to "adapt" by adding Marauders and less Marines, it's the same in TvZ where Zerg goes Roach Hidra Viper or SH instead of ling muta...
You scout Terran and adapt. Or i'm completely misunderstanding Nony.
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
It's Plansix, he's platinium and doesn't undestand the game very well, he doesn't see that there is a problem in TvP actually. Like MMA losing 3-1 ton San against proxy oracle vsreaper expand and he couldn't do a thing even after scouting it.
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
I am just pointing out that we are all bias towards our own race. If nony sees flaws with having tow perfectly viable play styles and that it could be hard for Protoss deal with. If people are going to calm bias, then we should just ignore everyone because we all want our race to be super awesome.
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
It's Plansix, he's platinium and doesn't undestand the game very well, he doesn't see that there is a problem in TvP actually. Like MMA losing 3-1 ton San against proxy oracle vs oracle expand and he couldn't do a thing even after scouting it.
Yeah this guy is in the hall of fame on biased flaming on this site, so i wouldn't take his words too seriously.
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
It's Plansix, he's platinium and doesn't undestand the game very well, he doesn't see that there is a problem in TvP actually. Like MMA losing 3-1 ton San against proxy oracle vs oracle expand and he couldn't do a thing even after scouting it.
Yeah, but I know why I am in the league I am in, unlike some players who will blame everything else but themselves for their own mistakes.
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
I am just pointing out that we are all bias towards our own race. If nony sees flaws with having tow perfectly viable play styles and that it could be hard for Protoss deal with. If people are going to calm bias, then we should just ignore everyone because we all want our race to be super awesome.
I just want it to be balance, a game too easy is not interesting at all. And there are some heavy evidence right now that point toward the fact that it's not the case at all.
On December 03 2013 22:15 ChadMann wrote: idk.. I think Immortals are supposed to kill mech..... Maybe you should just make ghosts?
I think most people would agree that super-hardcounters are bad for the game, and that is pretty much what Immortals is to Tanks. They are insanely good.
Agreed. I don't mind Immortals being good vs mech, but the way they work right now makes breaking tank-line a bit too effortless. I would prefer if Protoss had to use their mobility with warp-prisms and maybe stargate units in multiple locations to wear a mech player down rather than just ball up enough Immortals and walk through tank fire. Assuming you have Ghosts and EMP all of them, Immortals aren't absolutely terrible against tanks even then.
Also, I personally think the general idea of having mech depend on ghosts (which makes your composition very gas heavy, especially considering you will most likely be exapading slower than the toss with mech) is a bit weird.
I am just pointing out that we are all bias towards our own race. If nony sees flaws with having tow perfectly viable play styles and that it could be hard for Protoss deal with. If people are going to calm bias, then we should just ignore everyone because we all want our race to be super awesome.
Its not about super awesome its about viability..... we are saying not viable you are saying play better! Or Koreans (Taeja, Bomber, MMA, MVP, etc) don't know what they are doing thats why they aren't going mech in the highest level of play!
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
I am just pointing out that we are all bias towards our own race. If nony sees flaws with having tow perfectly viable play styles and that it could be hard for Protoss deal with. If people are going to calm bias, then we should just ignore everyone because we all want our race to be super awesome.
I just want it to be balance, a game too easy is not interesting at all. And there are some heavy evidence right now that point toward the fact that it's not the case at all.
You mean like the last three events won by a Terran, and Protoss and a Zerg? The game is in a good state balance wise. Nif people want more styles, that's great, but let's make more styles viable for all races, not just Terran.
Edit: fuck you auto correct, why would I want to type "mew"
In fact i would see rather an upgrade for tanks adding 10/15 damage vs shields. And adding ground vikings to factory - then removing their armored tag (ground mode only) Flying would be unlocked till transformation servos completed.
In fact double inflicting damage causes also double armor calculation into damage.
Early Roaches, Lategame ultras and.... Locusts would propably be more dangerous.
On December 03 2013 22:15 ChadMann wrote: idk.. I think Immortals are supposed to kill mech..... Maybe you should just make ghosts?
I think most people would agree that super-hardcounters are bad for the game, and that is pretty much what Immortals is to Tanks. They are insanely good.
Agreed. I don't mind Immortals being good vs mech, but the way they work right now makes breaking tank-line a bit too effortless. I would prefer if Protoss had to use their mobility with warp-prisms and maybe stargate units in multiple locations to wear a mech player down rather than just ball up enough Immortals and walk through tank fire. Assuming you have Ghosts and EMP all of them, Immortals aren't absolutely terrible against tanks even then.
Also, I personally think the general idea of having mech depend on ghosts (which makes your composition very gas heavy, especially considering you will most likely be exapading slower than the toss with mech) is a bit weird.
+1 this Agreed that hard counters are bad for the game. It was more beneficial to have armies that complimented each other rather then countered your opponent......
ok, didn't read 9 pages, but isn't it bad against everything except immortals? ultras especially because of the high armor value? double attack means double the armor on every unit…
In fact i would see rather an upgrade for tanks adding 10/15 damage vs shields. And adding ground vikings to factory - then removing their armored tag (ground mode only) Flying would be unlocked till transformation servos completed.
Interesting Idea but to be honest would wreck TvP lol Colossus timings would reign supreme vs Terran... lol
On December 04 2013 03:58 GoOdy wrote: I would not call that a good thought^^ He is just saying he has to scaut, if both options are possible and toss has a lot of different options to scaut: MSC, Obs, hallu, Oracle and it is very easy to scaut what composition the terran player is using, if there are 2+ Fax it is mech and if there are 2+ Rax its bio and then toss has still a lot of time to react^^ And you cant just tech switch like a zerg and fake a 5 rax opening and then go for mech^^
That's a dynamic that flat out favors the terran: it creates a game where terran gets a huge advantage through denial of scouting, hiding or disguising tech paths. Protoss compositions will be at best equal, and Terran is the race that makes all the decisions: toss just reacts constantly. Unless it becomes impossible for terran to ever deny scouting from Protoss (I see the first observer get sniped all the time) or to hide buildings so that toss can perfectly scout, it's gonna favor terran here. Now, I know you're thinking "Well toss does this all the time!" Yeah, toss hides tech to get a short term compositional advantage, often for a timing or all-in, but in Toss's case it's very short term and it's currently balanced that way (winrates, etc.) Throw in Terran doing it too and I dunno how you're going to compensate Toss for Terran's additional strength.
This just blows me away. We are not talking about hiding a stargate in an obscure corner or a Spire under an Overlord, we are talking about the entire production infrastructure of a race. Disguise tech? Like what? Build 3 factories to fool him and secretly go bio?
Come on now, i love Nony but this is not very well thought out. Even if there might be some "i didn't know he was going mech" type of loses, it would only be for a short time until builds get maped out and scouting becomes more precise.
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
I am just pointing out that we are all bias towards our own race. If nony sees flaws with having tow perfectly viable play styles and that it could be hard for Protoss deal with. If people are going to calm bias, then we should just ignore everyone because we all want our race to be super awesome.
I just want it to be balance, a game too easy is not interesting at all. And there are some heavy evidence right now that point toward the fact that it's not the case at all.
You mew like the last three events won by a Terran, and Protoss and a Zerg? The game is in a good state balance wise. Nif people want more styles, that's great, but let's make more styles viable for all races, not just Terran.
It's not because Taeja is godlike that the game is even, look at a bigger sample, like Aligulac November results for exemple. Or the GM league racial distribution. Look at all the whine on the forum, look everywhere goddamit.
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
I am just pointing out that we are all bias towards our own race. If nony sees flaws with having tow perfectly viable play styles and that it could be hard for Protoss deal with. If people are going to calm bias, then we should just ignore everyone because we all want our race to be super awesome.
I don't see how it WOULD be hard to deal with, though. Scouting that a Terran is going mech is going to take you ten seconds with a hallucinated phoenix. Mech should build up too slowly to be a threat before long after you've already scouted it. If someone ever gets blind-sided by mech, I think he's doing it wrong.
And besides, Terran already have to deal with a whole bunch of different Protoss openers the way things work now, and even after that Protoss can choose to go HT or Colossus first, prompting different responses from the Terran. Terran used to have the option to go Bio+Hellbat at least, but that was before Hellbats were nerfed to the point of barely ever being used in the match-up.
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
I am just pointing out that we are all bias towards our own race. If nony sees flaws with having tow perfectly viable play styles and that it could be hard for Protoss deal with. If people are going to calm bias, then we should just ignore everyone because we all want our race to be super awesome.
I just want it to be balance, a game too easy is not interesting at all. And there are some heavy evidence right now that point toward the fact that it's not the case at all.
You mew like the last three events won by a Terran, and Protoss and a Zerg? The game is in a good state balance wise. Nif people want more styles, that's great, but let's make more styles viable for all races, not just Terran.
It's not because Taeja is godlike that the game is even, look at a bigger sample, like Aligulac November results for exemple. Or the GM league racial distribution. Look at all the whine on the forum, look everywhere goddamit.
Taeja is just good at winning, but that doesn't make him magic. He still won against skilled opponents using Terran. And balance whine on forums does prove anything. That's like saying a lot of people agreed with Idra, so Zerg must be weak.
On December 04 2013 03:58 GoOdy wrote: I would not call that a good thought^^ He is just saying he has to scaut, if both options are possible and toss has a lot of different options to scaut: MSC, Obs, hallu, Oracle and it is very easy to scaut what composition the terran player is using, if there are 2+ Fax it is mech and if there are 2+ Rax its bio and then toss has still a lot of time to react^^ And you cant just tech switch like a zerg and fake a 5 rax opening and then go for mech^^
That's a dynamic that flat out favors the terran: it creates a game where terran gets a huge advantage through denial of scouting, hiding or disguising tech paths. Protoss compositions will be at best equal, and Terran is the race that makes all the decisions: toss just reacts constantly. Unless it becomes impossible for terran to ever deny scouting from Protoss (I see the first observer get sniped all the time) or to hide buildings so that toss can perfectly scout, it's gonna favor terran here. Now, I know you're thinking "Well toss does this all the time!" Yeah, toss hides tech to get a short term compositional advantage, often for a timing or all-in, but in Toss's case it's very short term and it's currently balanced that way (winrates, etc.) Throw in Terran doing it too and I dunno how you're going to compensate Toss for Terran's additional strength.
This just blows me away. We are not talking about hiding a stargate in an obscure corner or a Spire under an Overlord, we are talking about the entire production infrastructure of a race. Disguise tech? Like what? Build 3 factories to fool him and secretly go bio?
Come on now, i love Nony but this is not very well thought out. Even if there might be some "i didn't know he was going mech" type of loses, it would only be for a short time until builds get maped out and scouting becomes more precise.
Yeah, it's not like terran already scout for everything like baws and guess what shit will comes at them. I imagine the protoss at 17min : "OMG I DIDNT KNOW HE WAS GOING MECH LOL". Terran just CAN'T switch tech except lategame => Skyterran and still, very hard to do.
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
I am just pointing out that we are all bias towards our own race. If nony sees flaws with having tow perfectly viable play styles and that it could be hard for Protoss deal with. If people are going to calm bias, then we should just ignore everyone because we all want our race to be super awesome.
I just want it to be balance, a game too easy is not interesting at all. And there are some heavy evidence right now that point toward the fact that it's not the case at all.
You mew like the last three events won by a Terran, and Protoss and a Zerg? The game is in a good state balance wise. Nif people want more styles, that's great, but let's make more styles viable for all races, not just Terran.
It's not because Taeja is godlike that the game is even, look at a bigger sample, like Aligulac November results for exemple. Or the GM league racial distribution. Look at all the whine on the forum, look everywhere goddamit.
Taeja is just good at winning, but that doesn't make him magic. He still won against skilled opponents using Terran. And balance whine on forums does prove anything. That's like saying a lot of people agreed with Idra, so Zerg must be weak.
And GM racial distribution ? Aligulac stats ? Not relevent either ?
I really like the suggestion. It helps really only versus immortals and doesn't effect the other matchups too adversely.
That being said, I didn't see if Mvp tried this or not when he tried Mech vP at IEM but I feel like a handful of ghosts could make a world of difference. Again, not sure if this has been tried but it's food for thought.
Alternatively, this solution is a little more "elegant" but would get the job done all the same.
On December 03 2013 21:55 shadymmj wrote: A more elegant solution will be to make attacks that do under 30 damage be reduced to 10 damage against hardened shields, and those that do 31 and over be reduced to 20 damage. Just an alternative idea.
Personally, I'd like to see an upgrade that maybe makes them stronger versus shields and does something else, to replace the lost siege mode upgrade. This might help too, but would have to be tuned more carefully.
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
I am just pointing out that we are all bias towards our own race. If nony sees flaws with having tow perfectly viable play styles and that it could be hard for Protoss deal with. If people are going to calm bias, then we should just ignore everyone because we all want our race to be super awesome.
I don't see how it WOULD be hard to deal with, though. Scouting that a Terran is going mech is going to take you ten seconds with a hallucinated phoenix. Mech should build up too slowly to be a threat before long after you've already scouted it. If someone ever gets blind-sided by mech, I think he's doing it wrong.
And besides, Terran already have to deal with a whole bunch of different Protoss openers the way things work now, and even after that Protoss can choose to go HT or Colossus first, prompting different responses from the Terran. Terran used to have the option to go Bio+Hellbat at least, but that was before Hellbats were nerfed to the point of barely ever being used in the match-up.
We would have to see the timings people would come up with, but I could see Protoss being stuck acting with limited information. It's not bad that bad with the MSC, but Protoss can get pretty rail roaded once they decide on a tech path. It could be the same problems Terran has sniffing out proxy star gates, that it cost to much to do it so early in the game. Bit that is just my thoughts.
As I said before, I am pro Terran being able to go mech, as long as it makes Protoss more fun to play too.
Taeja is just good at winning, but that doesn't make him magic. He still won against skilled opponents using Terran. And balance whine on forums does prove anything. That's like saying a lot of people agreed with Idra, so Zerg must be weak.
Lets put it this way even if marines had 1 HP and tanks did 1 DMG Taeja would micro the tanks and slow push you with bunkers to win....... I don't believe you could ever throw something at the Terran race that would make him fall off the scene giving his current state of play LOL
I personally think looking at 2 things screams something is wrong to me.... #1 Foreign Terrans don't make it anywhere in tournaments #2 Racial distribution is so skewed for Terrans vs Toss that it should say something......
On December 03 2013 21:55 shadymmj wrote: A more elegant solution will be to make attacks that do under 30 damage be reduced to 10 damage against hardened shields, and those that do 31 and over be reduced to 20 damage. Just an alternative idea.
It's a cool idea, but it also makes the mechanics regarding the Hardened shields a bit more complicated. I'm pretty sure Blizzard have said that they prefer for the basic game mechanics to be fairly simple and not rely on intricate rules and exceptions, so I doubt they will implement something like that.
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
I am just pointing out that we are all bias towards our own race. If nony sees flaws with having tow perfectly viable play styles and that it could be hard for Protoss deal with. If people are going to calm bias, then we should just ignore everyone because we all want our race to be super awesome.
I just want it to be balance, a game too easy is not interesting at all. And there are some heavy evidence right now that point toward the fact that it's not the case at all.
You mew like the last three events won by a Terran, and Protoss and a Zerg? The game is in a good state balance wise. Nif people want more styles, that's great, but let's make more styles viable for all races, not just Terran.
It's not because Taeja is godlike that the game is even, look at a bigger sample, like Aligulac November results for exemple. Or the GM league racial distribution. Look at all the whine on the forum, look everywhere goddamit.
Taeja is just good at winning, but that doesn't make him magic. He still won against skilled opponents using Terran. And balance whine on forums does prove anything. That's like saying a lot of people agreed with Idra, so Zerg must be weak.
And GM racial distribution ? Aligulac stats ? Not relevent either ?
Nope, GM proves very little because it is first come, first served, rather than a flat out rank. And monthly numbers are just that, monthly trends. As long as the pros are winning, we all have something to shoot for with each of our races.
I dunno.... I'd have to disagree with Nony. An anti-bio composition vs anti-mech composition for protoss come out of the same production facilities minus the stargate. You can almost immediately go anti-mech off the old infrastructure so the switch would not be that hard.
Further, protoss has many many ways of cheap scouting including hallucinations and observers that zergs never had in the old ZvP matchup before speed ovies and overlord speed upgrade change in HoTs.
Map balance should be a consideration not in the balance of units, but of the maps themselves. This can be implemented by tournaments and is not actually a factor here as long as there are vetos. There are already maps that are more advantaged for certain compositions.
That said: bio = antibio (with protoss favored because of the all ins beginning game imo) bio> antimech, mech< antimech mech = antibio (that's what I would argue with the easy infrastructure swap for toss)
Edit: occurred to me that it may be possible to balance mech and keep bio the same if you made mech = antimech and > antibio by just leaving protoss be as they are right now. Lets face it, HoTs protoss has had many buffs compared to the WoL PvT matchup, and the new oracles might be the balancing act they need.
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
I am just pointing out that we are all bias towards our own race. If nony sees flaws with having tow perfectly viable play styles and that it could be hard for Protoss deal with. If people are going to calm bias, then we should just ignore everyone because we all want our race to be super awesome.
I just want it to be balance, a game too easy is not interesting at all. And there are some heavy evidence right now that point toward the fact that it's not the case at all.
You mew like the last three events won by a Terran, and Protoss and a Zerg? The game is in a good state balance wise. Nif people want more styles, that's great, but let's make more styles viable for all races, not just Terran.
It's not because Taeja is godlike that the game is even, look at a bigger sample, like Aligulac November results for exemple. Or the GM league racial distribution. Look at all the whine on the forum, look everywhere goddamit.
Taeja is just good at winning, but that doesn't make him magic. He still won against skilled opponents using Terran. And balance whine on forums does prove anything. That's like saying a lot of people agreed with Idra, so Zerg must be weak.
And GM racial distribution ? Aligulac stats ? Not relevent either ?
Nope, GM proves very little because it is first come, first served, rather than a flat out rank. And monthly numbers are just that, monthly trends. As long as the pros are winning, we all have something to shoot for with each of our races.
And how comes only protoss are the "first-comers" ? Because there are less terrans in High Master ? Why ?
Nony's point is valid in theory but it's so easy to scout mech that it's not too relevant. The anti-bio and anti-mech strategy have enough overlap that you can pretty much always scout before the point of divergence. For example a standard expo build into stargate, robo or even blink works fine against both styles and by the time you make further decisions you will pretty much know what terran is doing since it's the easiest thing to scout in all of starcraft probably, 2+ factories mech, 2+ rax bio.
Of course there will still be advantages from having two viable styles, which I think will mostly be apparent in all-ins actually. For example a 2 base colossus all-in is a decent choice now that is often an ok choice if you know they teched late, because it has a good shot to straight up win against bio and if they do go mech that style is bad enough to make up the deficit. If mech was good though that all-in would be too risky because it doesn't break anything with tanks. All-ins becoming slightly worse is not so bad though but for overall balance there would of course have to be some compensation.
The issue is too minor to be relevant though. If terran get's an advantage eventually because they have 2 viable styles which require vastly different responses it's not too hard to nerf them both a little bit later (medivac would be a simple choice). The theoretical problem that the game becomes too much guessing is exagerated I think. It could be that a matchup is balanced because player A has to guess what B is doing, if he guesses right he is favored and if he does not the other is favored averaging out as balanced (PvP had this, I don't get why nony claims this for PvZ in the past?). This issue only pops up if the cost of scouting is too high, for example in PvP before you generally couldn't scout the tech choice except with your own tech choice at which point you already made the decision. Protoss however has no problem scouting terran whatsoever, especially with stargate play now and Zerg doesn't face this problem of having to guess at all because they can choose very late what unit to go for.
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
I am just pointing out that we are all bias towards our own race. If nony sees flaws with having tow perfectly viable play styles and that it could be hard for Protoss deal with. If people are going to calm bias, then we should just ignore everyone because we all want our race to be super awesome.
I don't see how it WOULD be hard to deal with, though. Scouting that a Terran is going mech is going to take you ten seconds with a hallucinated phoenix. Mech should build up too slowly to be a threat before long after you've already scouted it. If someone ever gets blind-sided by mech, I think he's doing it wrong.
And besides, Terran already have to deal with a whole bunch of different Protoss openers the way things work now, and even after that Protoss can choose to go HT or Colossus first, prompting different responses from the Terran. Terran used to have the option to go Bio+Hellbat at least, but that was before Hellbats were nerfed to the point of barely ever being used in the match-up.
We would have to see the timings people would come up with, but I could see Protoss being stuck acting with limited information. It's not bad that bad with the MSC, but Protoss can get pretty rail roaded once they decide on a tech path. It could be the same problems Terran has sniffing out proxy star gates, that it cost to much to do it so early in the game. Bit that is just my thoughts.
As I said before, I am pro Terran being able to go mech, as long as it makes Protoss more fun to play too.
I see what you're saying, but if anything, Terran is the race that is rail roaded the most in tech, almost no matter what. They generally require more production facilities + add-ons than toss and don't have the versatility of the warp-gate to compensate, either. Proxy Stargates are hard to find because they happen in the early game, when what you have is a reaper and maybe an SCV if you can spare one. Mech is not going to suddenly hit you at 7 minutes. With Oracles, observers and hallucinated phoenixes you should be able to find out what composition the Terran is doing long before a mech army becomes a threat. The only thing I can think of that would be problematic to scout for is banshee openings, but that's not really any worse than a proxy stargate.
And yeah, I think Protoss would be more fun to play if mech was better. Stargate play, warp-prism harass and attacking from multiple sides rather than focusing on one big engagement would probably be the way to go. I'm no Protoss but that seems ok to me, entertainment wise.
As opposed to this thread where people want a flat out buff to Terran? I think new comps and styles are cool, but it's still a buff that makes terrans better.
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
I am just pointing out that we are all bias towards our own race. If nony sees flaws with having tow perfectly viable play styles and that it could be hard for Protoss deal with. If people are going to calm bias, then we should just ignore everyone because we all want our race to be super awesome.
I just want it to be balance, a game too easy is not interesting at all. And there are some heavy evidence right now that point toward the fact that it's not the case at all.
You mew like the last three events won by a Terran, and Protoss and a Zerg? The game is in a good state balance wise. Nif people want more styles, that's great, but let's make more styles viable for all races, not just Terran.
It's not because Taeja is godlike that the game is even, look at a bigger sample, like Aligulac November results for exemple. Or the GM league racial distribution. Look at all the whine on the forum, look everywhere goddamit.
Taeja is just good at winning, but that doesn't make him magic. He still won against skilled opponents using Terran. And balance whine on forums does prove anything. That's like saying a lot of people agreed with Idra, so Zerg must be weak.
And GM racial distribution ? Aligulac stats ? Not relevent either ?
Nope, GM proves very little because it is first come, first served, rather than a flat out rank. And monthly numbers are just that, monthly trends. As long as the pros are winning, we all have something to shoot for with each of our races.
And how comes only protoss are the "first-comers" ? Because there are less terrans in High Master ? Why ?
Because Protoss is the ez pz race and only Koreans can make Terran good? Not your to busy whining at platinum scrubs like me and not working on getting better?
Because Protoss is the ez pz race and only Koreans can make Terran good? Not your to busy whining at platinum scrubs like me and now working on getting better?
Hey Hey i'm neglecting my work duties for this thats why i'm not on the ladder getting better and instead whining at platinum scrubs like you hahahaha Plansix we all agree you have passion but I dont know about your take on situations on this .....
On December 03 2013 22:10 KnowMe wrote: i think you should also put tiny emps in tankshots so you dont need many shots for archons any more.
seriously goody: mech is quite strong against protoss as it is. immortals are supposed to give protoss a fighting chance. also you usually add ghosts very quickly anyway. no need to buff you any further
LOL nice joke. tvp mech strong apparently according to this guy.
I hope one day 1-2 pro gamers will start open and play only air toss and queue up 5 carriers / stargate then make threads suggesting how a buff to stargate units would make it a viable standard opening . Only then shall we have a game with completly different openings and styles !
On December 04 2013 05:14 xsnac wrote: I hope one day 1-2 pro gamers will start open and play only air toss and queue up 5 carriers / stargate then make threads suggesting how a buff to stargate units would make it a viable standard opening . Only then shall we have a game with completly different openings and styles !
The same exact thing could be done whit bcs (= What if the scenario was that the WG units would dominate, and the robo play was lacking something big time, so much that it wouldnt be used much in competitive play. Wouldnt you adress that, no?
Because Protoss is the ez pz race and only Koreans can make Terran good? Not your to busy whining at platinum scrubs like me and now working on getting better?
Hey Hey i'm neglecting my work duties for this thats why i'm not on the ladder getting better and instead whining at platinum scrubs like you hahahaha Plansix we all agree you have passion but I dont know about your take on situations on this .....
I would be way better if I could play sc2 on my lunch break. Sadly my wood PC is only capable of writing word docs and emails. And no cases were harmed due to this discussion.
The true solution: make hellbat a transform 10 times faster and be able to jump down cliffs(but not up). Dukes of hazard style.
On December 04 2013 04:28 Pirfiktshon wrote: [quote]
Thats the point of a Buff no? to make something better LOL That is why they gave a buff to oracle correct? To make it better?
I'm sure your next statement will be about how the top koreans are winning tournaments... so just play better LOL
Instead of David kim saying that to people that lost the oracle he said ok here is a buff LOL when there was no need for it .....
I am just pointing out that we are all bias towards our own race. If nony sees flaws with having tow perfectly viable play styles and that it could be hard for Protoss deal with. If people are going to calm bias, then we should just ignore everyone because we all want our race to be super awesome.
I just want it to be balance, a game too easy is not interesting at all. And there are some heavy evidence right now that point toward the fact that it's not the case at all.
You mew like the last three events won by a Terran, and Protoss and a Zerg? The game is in a good state balance wise. Nif people want more styles, that's great, but let's make more styles viable for all races, not just Terran.
It's not because Taeja is godlike that the game is even, look at a bigger sample, like Aligulac November results for exemple. Or the GM league racial distribution. Look at all the whine on the forum, look everywhere goddamit.
Taeja is just good at winning, but that doesn't make him magic. He still won against skilled opponents using Terran. And balance whine on forums does prove anything. That's like saying a lot of people agreed with Idra, so Zerg must be weak.
And GM racial distribution ? Aligulac stats ? Not relevent either ?
Nope, GM proves very little because it is first come, first served, rather than a flat out rank. And monthly numbers are just that, monthly trends. As long as the pros are winning, we all have something to shoot for with each of our races.
And how comes only protoss are the "first-comers" ? Because there are less terrans in High Master ? Why ?
Because Protoss is the ez pz race and only Koreans can make Terran good? Not your to busy whining at platinum scrubs like me and not working on getting better?
Edit: ok lunch break over. Back to ruining lives.
Oh man.
I really, REALLY wish people would stop using this worthless "You are just no focusing on improving enough, dürp"-excuse as soon as someone makes a statement on balance. It's a generic, lazy accusation that is based on broken logic (complaining on a forum AND trying to improve are not mutually exclusive, gasp), and in this particular case it doesn't even make any sense. The post you replied to doesn't even have anything to do with how any individual player on this forum is doing in TvP, it was based on objective, pro-level statistics and GM race distributions. Protoss won't disappear from GM because the guy above you focuses on improving. No idea why you would bring that up.
I hope one day 1-2 pro gamers will start open and play only air toss and queue up 5 carriers / stargate then make threads suggesting how a buff to stargate units would make it a viable standard opening . Only then shall we have a game with completly different openings and styles !
Stargate is already a viable opening.... You are disproving your own point while thinking you are disproving ours.... hahaha
I would be way better if I could play sc2 on my lunch break. Sadly my wood PC is only capable of writing word docs and emails. And no cases were harmed due to this discussion.
The true solution: make hellbat a transform 10 times faster and be able to jump down cliffs(but not up). Dukes of hazard style.
I approve this but only if we get the horn chime to go with it
as a protoss who struggles against mech currently, i approve of this message, looks like a solid change to force the protoss to have to micro either air units or more wp/drop play.
On December 04 2013 02:14 TAMinator wrote: nah, just make ghosts. This change will make the match up look very boring. Massing tanks is equivalent to swarm host play.
tanks would spawn free units?
No, but they don't drop 35-50 damage aoes either. Buffing the tank does have the risk of more passive play. No one wants swarm host part 2, now with AOE and scans.
This is exactly why optimal mech right now is passive play. Blizzard are gunshy about making the tank a fearsome unit, so the only current way to really play mech vs P is to sit and turtle because any "attack" you attempt is going to end up being horribly cost inefficient.
If tanks were actually strong enough to be used to leapfrog or perform attacks, we would see viable attacking mech and "slow pushes" like in brood war. The way it is right now though, if you try to "slow push" you just get 1A'd by immortals.
So i don't think buffing tanks has any risk of passive play. Mech right now already is 100% forced to passive play. If anything, buffing the tank vs Protoss will allow aggressive play.
Even if the Terran does play defensive mech, Protoss still has all of the tools to play late game and harrass vs that style of mech.
While I even hate to say it Avilo is 100% correct. The only thing I hate about buffing tanks is it would be washing any bio play against mech almost completely.... lol
On December 04 2013 02:14 TAMinator wrote: nah, just make ghosts. This change will make the match up look very boring. Massing tanks is equivalent to swarm host play.
tanks would spawn free units?
No, but they don't drop 35-50 damage aoes either. Buffing the tank does have the risk of more passive play. No one wants swarm host part 2, now with AOE and scans.
This is exactly why optimal mech right now is passive play. Blizzard are gunshy about making the tank a fearsome unit, so the only current way to really play mech vs P is to sit and turtle because any "attack" you attempt is going to end up being horribly cost inefficient.
If tanks were actually strong enough to be used to leapfrog or perform attacks, we would see viable attacking mech and "slow pushes" like in brood war. The way it is right now though, if you try to "slow push" you just get 1A'd by immortals.
So i don't think buffing tanks has any risk of passive play. Mech right now already is 100% forced to passive play. If anything, buffing the tank vs Protoss will allow aggressive play.
Even if the Terran does play defensive mech, Protoss still has all of the tools to play late game and harrass vs that style of mech.
Avilo, just endorse my dark future of cliff jumping, fast transforming hellbats. Where is that test map? That is a buff even Protoss would endorse, with a "fuck, that shit is to awesome not to be in the game"
thats actually quite a cool suggestion! but what about this; nerf the immortal, buff GW units, remove WG mechanic and nerf/remove forcefields and nerf colossus? :D
On December 04 2013 05:34 aZealot wrote: Let's keep trying to stuff a square peg into a round hole, shall we? >_<
TvP meta has to be changed eventually, or do you think people will still want to watch medivac timing attacks that either win or lose the game for terran 3 years from now?
On December 04 2013 05:38 NEEDZMOAR wrote: thats actually quite a cool suggestion! but what about this; nerf the immortal, buff GW units, remove WG mechanic and nerf/remove forcefields and nerf colossus? :D
Remove swarm host, add lurker. Bring back dragoons. Making pathing worse and 12 unit select. Did I miss anything?
On December 04 2013 03:58 GoOdy wrote: I would not call that a good thought^^ He is just saying he has to scaut, if both options are possible and toss has a lot of different options to scaut: MSC, Obs, hallu, Oracle and it is very easy to scaut what composition the terran player is using, if there are 2+ Fax it is mech and if there are 2+ Rax its bio and then toss has still a lot of time to react^^ And you cant just tech switch like a zerg and fake a 5 rax opening and then go for mech^^
Exactly. A lot of nony's "anti-bio" or "anti-mech" arguments are the Protoss not scouting and blindly countering one...
Just seems like he's trying to create an argument against not making mech viable -_- I find it hard to believe a Protoss will not scout into the Terran's base in HOTS and see, "oh 5 factories," or "oh 5 barracks."
It's interesting because for example on ladder right now...there are Protoss players that rarely if ever scout and they will do as Nony described...they'll play anti-bio and not scout a thing and then be "surprised" when the Terran has 6 tanks and 10 hellbats...that's not a mech or bio issue lol. That's a "i didn't bother to scout anything" issue.
On December 04 2013 05:38 NEEDZMOAR wrote: thats actually quite a cool suggestion! but what about this; nerf the immortal, buff GW units, remove WG mechanic and nerf/remove forcefields and nerf colossus? :D
Buff GW units and remove Warp gate? So we can have 200/200 deathballs of unkillable Zealots? No thanks.
Two attacks would make it still perform differently against units with higher armor value, such as Ultralisks. Even Zerglings as a matter of fact, a +1 tank should 1 shot a Zergling even with +3 armor currently. Not even sure how the attacks would scale with upgrades granted it's +3 vs nonarmored atm.
Correct me if I'm wrong: if the tanks are 18+7, doesn't that mean they do 24 damage per shot to a 1 armored target? So three double shots does 144 damage? So a 0/0 roach is left with 1 hp, when they used to be three-shotted?
On December 04 2013 05:54 iggym wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong: if the tanks are 18+7, doesn't that mean they do 24 damage per shot to a 1 armored target? So three double shots does 144 damage? So a 0/0 roach is left with 1 hp, when they used to be three-shotted?
On December 04 2013 05:54 iggym wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong: if the tanks are 18+7, doesn't that mean they do 24 damage per shot to a 1 armored target? So three double shots does 144 damage? So a 0/0 roach is left with 1 hp, when they used to be three-shotted?
That sounds like a problem for early game.
Yeah, the effects of this change would lead to some stuff like this. In the particular case of roaches, though, they tend to clump up so much that the splash damage should make this irrelevant in most real situations. Hopefully.
On December 03 2013 22:15 ChadMann wrote: idk.. I think Immortals are supposed to kill mech..... Maybe you should just make ghosts?
The idea that you need ghost to play mech TvP is exactly why Mech TvP doesn't work.
How is that a reasonable statement? Why is it unfair mech would need to EMP
When did he say its "unfair"? I think he wants to say: the ghost is no mech unit. But if I want to win i am forced to do bio units nonetheless. Or: I need to play 1h games. I have to agree to an earlier post: U can't play mech offensively at all. Changing that would be healthy for the game imo.
You can't play offensive swarmhost play either...
Edit: Every single ZvP where zerg goes swarmhost, will last atleast another, unless protoss surrender out of pure boredom.
On December 03 2013 22:15 ChadMann wrote: idk.. I think Immortals are supposed to kill mech..... Maybe you should just make ghosts?
The idea that you need ghost to play mech TvP is exactly why Mech TvP doesn't work.
How is that a reasonable statement? Why is it unfair mech would need to EMP
When did he say its "unfair"? I think he wants to say: the ghost is no mech unit. But if I want to win i am forced to do bio units nonetheless. Or: I need to play 1h games. I have to agree to an earlier post: U can't play mech offensively at all. Changing that would be healthy for the game imo.
You can't play offensive swarmhost play either...
Yes you can, Nydus SH of 3 bases with Hydras/Queens/Spore for exemple is very aggressive for exemple.
On December 04 2013 05:38 NEEDZMOAR wrote: thats actually quite a cool suggestion! but what about this; nerf the immortal, buff GW units, remove WG mechanic and nerf/remove forcefields and nerf colossus? :D
Remove swarm host, add lurker. Bring back dragoons. Making pathing worse and 12 unit select. Did I miss anything?
Replace all 1v1 ladder maps with Fighting Spirit, and replace all team game and FFA maps with BGH.
On December 04 2013 06:00 Eatme wrote: I'd prefer some thor buff. It's prettymuch underused and therefor has potential for an interesting buff.
I wouldn't mind something being done about Thors either, but buffing tanks seems more urgent since it would (hypothetically) allow Terrans to create tank lines that Protoss can't just break by balling up their units and a-moving. Forcing Protoss to be the multi-tasking harass-based race for once would be pretty cool, and tanks are better suited for that than Thors.
I feel as if we need some room to breathe gas wise in the early game. We can't get the ghosts out in time while having a decent army to contest for new expansions and hold up against P shenanigans. Everything just feels so damn tight. Facts, Starports, Armories, Mech units, Air units, Upgrades, Ghost academy, Sensor Towers, Ghosts...maybe even a raven. We're cutting everything so thin on the gas front even with the combined upgrades on our armories, it's still damn tight. It's getting the required 6 gases without dying that is the issue imo.
If there was a way for us to get some more ghosts out earlier the protoss wouldn't be able to just 1a into our tank lines without suffering the consequences. But what is DKim really going to do? Shave off 25/50 gas off things here and there? haha I don't know Just my 2c's.
On December 03 2013 22:23 deacon.frost wrote: I can't believe what I see. Just out of curiosity - how am I supposed to kill a meching player without immortals? It would be nice to see this answer from goody himself, since he's suggesting this buff
The same way that Protoss killed mech in Brood War, just amplified.
There was an awesome game by WhiteRa in the HOTS beta that demonstrates the mass gateway style against mech, and it looked AWESOME (as in, Protoss never plays like this and it was sweet as fuck). Stop looking for simple counter and units and start thinking complex, overarching gameplans -_-.
On December 03 2013 22:23 deacon.frost wrote: I can't believe what I see. Just out of curiosity - how am I supposed to kill a meching player without immortals? It would be nice to see this answer from goody himself, since he's suggesting this buff
The same way that Protoss killed mech in Brood War, just amplified.
There was an awesome game by WhiteRa in the HOTS beta that demonstrates the mass gateway style against mech, and it looked AWESOME (as in, Protoss never plays like this and it was sweet as fuck). Stop looking for simple counter and units and start thinking complex, overarching gameplans -_-.
It's not like Immortals would be useless if this change occure, just less OP against tanks.
Well I got my surprise for the day. I was going to say something along the lines of "balance suggestions are for the Blizzard forums" but then I realized it's Mr. Mech's balance suggestion about mech. Thread didn't disappoint on the quality front, though; just on the first page there are 3 people telling Goody himself to "just use ghosts", as if the solution was actually that simple.
On December 04 2013 06:50 woopr wrote: blizzard needs to just make tanks 2 supply already. the immortal isn't the only problem with mech.
Would totally break tvz and tvt.
can't break a mirror and tanks already suck in tvz.
Uh, you absolutely can break a mirror. Remember the days when PvP was 4gate only? When TvT was Hellbat drops only?
edited already.
those game breaking things were in the early game. a change in tank supply from 2-3 makes a difference in a mid-late game comp and is completely different in how it affects the match up. it's not a buff directly to the tank, it's a buff to the late-game army.
Goody wants to add a odd attack split to balance a odd ability called hardened shield. Why not just remove the odd ability instead? While they are at it they could even give it a proper turret to make kiting better.
Immortal changed -hardened shield removed -Shield increased from 100 to 150
IMHO the immortal would still be strong against thors, tanks and ultras, but less of an hardcounter. I would really like to play around with these numbers in the Unit tester.
As a mech follower who has watched and collected more than 100 games of mech TvP, I don't agree with either Nony or Goody.
I feel the actual problem of mech is not the strength of mech army vs protoss in the mid-to-late-game. Tank+Ghost+Hellbat can win most ground to ground big engagement with the same supply or cost. The true problem of mech is two-fold: 1, Protoss's effective capitalization of the immobility of mech. 2, Protoss' air transition. Of course, David Kim can buff the damages or HP of mech armies like crazy and it will obvious help. But the true solution lies in solving these two issues for mech.
The solution for the first weakness, I feel, is to give Terran mech some sort of map control. If there is vulture, mech will probably work in SC2 because the power of map control from vulture will diminish the power of Protoss's capitalization of the immobility of other mech units. But of course, vulture will never be reintroduced. So, the more realistic solution I have is to give Terran a buff to base defense such as a buff to the planetary fortress or gives planetary fortress an ability to call down fire turrets that stick onto Terran buildings for 1 minutes or something. This is because most Protoss' effective capitalization on mech's immobility depends on attacking your base from multiple locations while your slow mech army moves out. The fire turret is crucial because most such counterattack depends on spamming zealots.
The solution for the second weakness, I feel, is obviously to make anti-air stronger. The solution I feel should be to extend the range to Thor's single-shot mode from 10 to 12 or 13. BTW, Thor's single-shot has the same range of Thor's splash missiles.
Supply would not affect mech a huge amount. It would only make a serious difference at 200 supply.
I think reducing Ghost's EMP radius a small amount and allowing snipe to function on non-biological units would be nice. I think it should definitely do more damage to Bio, but it's silly for it to not work versus other Protoss units. Think how cool it'd be to use snipe on colossus! Ghosts at least require some decent micro mechanics to use. They could probably reduce the resource costs for Ghosts as well and it wouldn't make anything too OP.
Widow mines should be changed since they are a badly designed unit in the first place. What mech actually needs is the Goliath. A unit that can attack air well and the ground DPS is a bit more than a stimmed marine. It costs 150M 50G, which would work just fine for Mech. Hellbats are pretty bad versus anything that isn't biological and they are not a microable unit for the most part (you pretty much A-move them like a zealot) For some retarded-ass reason, Blizzard thought they should add a unit called the Warhound instead of just using the units ALREADY IN THEIR GAME. Hell, they could add Diamondbacks to the game too and it wouldn't hurt anything. They aren't really that strong in the campaigns after all.
The key problem with Mech versus Protoss is that the army is so immobile and has so many weaknesses that can be exploited. A warp prism can warp in 10 zealots into the Terran's main and it'll take at least 1 minute before the Terran could actually clean it up. Mech is almost forced to get vikings for the added vision to siege tanks, and if they don't, voidrays could probably clean them up.
Since Ghosts are never actually used in any of the match ups except against Protoss with storms, they might as well just change/buff the unit.
But honestly, who gives a shit about Mech vs Protoss when the game has so many OTHER bad things in it? Blizz needs to give their units some actual depth. Shit man, just look at their Oracle change. They actually think that increasing the movement speed to 10000 adds to the unit. They kill workers way too fast, making them the type of unit where you either get enough defense so that it does NO damage or it just kills you outright. Nothing can actually kill it if the Protoss is paying any attention to it at all, which is bad. I would actually say that DECREASING it's movement speed would make the unit better. I'd so much rather see changes to the currently used units so that the game doesn't suck as much than see one build be viable versus Protoss...
While I think that GoOdy's idea would help a lot in TvP mech, I am a bit worried that it makes tanks even worse in TvZ given that tanks do not do so well against ultralisks. This biggest issue I have is that the ultralisk would have twice the armor reuction against the tank making it even worse (typically I use thors to deal with ultras if I mech). Maybe a buff against massive would be in order to deal with this extra reduction. Sure it makes thors and colosi worse against tanks, but massive units tend to have more armor anyways, so the extra reduction from armor by having two shots might balance out an extra damage to massive buff to tanks.
not that I even agree with his main premise, which seems to be that protoss has to go especially far out of their way to counter mech (gateway+robo+ht tech does well vs both) but his line of reasoning seems to suggest that both players make their armies in a vacuum. He didn't even touch on the topic of scouting until half way through the video. Mech takes such a long time to build up, that it's easily scouted and exploited by the protoss, and terran can't flip/flop between mech and bio without adding on a lot of production, which is also scoutable. So even if there is some kind of inequality between standard and anti-mech protoss builds, it shouldn't be a big problem for a competent player
I might be misunderstanding, but isn't he just saying it's bad for P to have to play a reactionary game? When that's what every single T, Z, or, hell, even P has to do vs. P all-ins in the game right now, or get rolled?
its amazing that something like this hasnt been tried, just to see if it could work. Seriously, what does the balance team have to lose by giving something like this a shot? if it doesnt work, then fine, but how they can ignore constant petitioning to make mech viable tvp is beyond me.
On December 04 2013 07:59 Aveng3r wrote: its amazing that something like this hasnt been tried, just to see if it could work. Seriously, what does the balance team have to lose by giving something like this a shot? if it doesnt work, then fine, but how they can ignore constant petitioning to make mech viable tvp is beyond me.
One would think that changes like these is what the test maps were intended for. Meaningful changes, not just giving tanks 0.2 seconds faster attack.
On December 04 2013 07:59 Aveng3r wrote: its amazing that something like this hasnt been tried, just to see if it could work. Seriously, what does the balance team have to lose by giving something like this a shot? if it doesnt work, then fine, but how they can ignore constant petitioning to make mech viable tvp is beyond me.
One would think that changes like these is what the test maps were intended for. Meaningful changes, not just giving tanks 0.2 seconds faster attack.
A lot of the Viking's assault mode also gets massively improved if you made it 6x2 damage instead of 12 flat damage.
- tanks dont really feel "tanky" anymore - they are supposed to be slow and hard hitting - winning fights is not the problem of mech if you do it correctly and have the right composition (even tempests shouldnt be a problem, PDD guys) - it is immobility and the time it needs to reproduce army.
my suggestion would be to make the thor cheaper (or slighly buff it) and introduce Tech Lab Reactors for 100/50 at armory tech. Furthermore, i would buff SCV's from 45 to 50 HP.
On December 03 2013 21:30 ( bush wrote: Just add a bonus against protoss shields, while making tanks ignore (or at least being stronger) the immortal's hardened shields.
Let's just make Tanks launch nukes while they're at it.
On December 04 2013 08:17 KalWarkov wrote: i dont like this idea - for 2 reasons.
- tanks dont really feel "tanky" anymore - they are supposed to be slow and hard hitting - winning fights is not the problem of mech if you do it correctly and have the right composition (even tempests shouldnt be a problem, PDD guys) - it is immobility and the time it needs to reproduce army.
my suggestion would be to make the thor cheaper (or slighly buff it) and introduce Tech Lab Reactors for 100/50 at armory tech. Furthermore, i would buff SCV's from 45 to 50 HP.
would be worth a try i think.
A.) Tanks are not very fast, nor do they deal much damage. B.) PDD is useless because stalkers suck up their energy too quickly. Dark Swarm only worked because you couldn't "drain it" with a critical mass of troops.
Also, the last thing Terran needs is more reasons to pull SCVs
And what's the point of Armory reactors? if you don't like add-ons, don't play terran.
On December 04 2013 08:17 KalWarkov wrote: - winning fights is not the problem of mech if you do it correctly and have the right composition (even tempests shouldnt be a problem, PDD guys) - it is immobility and the time it needs to reproduce army.
Not saying you are wrong but immobility and production time are not something that are going to go away, so mech armies should to be accordingly powerful to compensate for this.
So instead of "mech can beat any army if it gets the perfect engagement" it should be "the other guy needs to get a perfect flank to beat a mech army if he failed to do econ damage".
On December 04 2013 07:49 Lunareste wrote: since Seeker Missile and Yamato are overlapping so much, remove Seeker Missile and give EMP
also increase Raven acceleration speed
Imo this by itself would fix the immortal issue. EMPing + target firing + not having to go barracks/ghost academy to counter them would be huge for my personal meching. Plus I'd go in line with blizzards idea to make mech into air or a mech/air army THE army to go for when you mech that they started to establish by combining upgrades.
On December 04 2013 07:49 Lunareste wrote: since Seeker Missile and Yamato are overlapping so much, remove Seeker Missile and give EMP
also increase Raven acceleration speed
Why would you want to do that? You would be making Ravens more or less useless vs Z and T, in order to get them to perform as slower, more expensive, non-cloaking flying Ghosts. What's the point?
I mean, sure, you'd prefer to build Ravens rather than Ghosts when goiong mech, but why remove it from the othet two MUs?
Besides, Yamato and Seeker don't really overlap. One has splash, the other does not.
On December 04 2013 08:17 KalWarkov wrote: i dont like this idea - for 2 reasons.
- tanks dont really feel "tanky" anymore - they are supposed to be slow and hard hitting - winning fights is not the problem of mech if you do it correctly and have the right composition (even tempests shouldnt be a problem, PDD guys) - it is immobility and the time it needs to reproduce army.
my suggestion would be to make the thor cheaper (or slighly buff it) and introduce Tech Lab Reactors for 100/50 at armory tech. Furthermore, i would buff SCV's from 45 to 50 HP.
would be worth a try i think.
A.) Tanks are not very fast, nor do they deal much damage. B.) PDD is useless because stalkers suck up their energy too quickly. Dark Swarm only worked because you couldn't "drain it" with a critical mass of troops.
Also, the last thing Terran needs is more reasons to pull SCVs
And what's the point of Armory reactors? if you don't like add-ons, don't play terran.
You took what he said completely out of context; he said to use PDD to counteract Tempest shots, e.g. when a Protoss player is trying to snipe your units from far away. If you're engaging an army that includes a large quantity of Stalkers, i.e. enough to quickly suck up PDD energy, then you don't just use one PDD, you use enough to absorb a significant number of projectiles.
I'm not agreeing with the guy you quoted by any means, because, frankly, his balance suggestions are pretty outrageous. It's just that the fact that there are players who think PDD is useless is quite baffling, to me.
As for the proposed Siege Tank buff, it's quote interesting. As long as it was one instantaneous shot with 2 "attacks", it sounds like it would, at te very least, be worth testing. I doubt this proposal has gone under Blizzard's radar by now. I have faith in their attention to the community.
How about for LOTV we just do a complete protoss overhaul to fix the TvP mech problem, rather than a band aid fix for mech right now?
I'm pretty sure if you made warp gate way later, nerfed immortals a bit, put them down to 3 supply and put them back on the gateway where they were originally intended to be, made warp gates produce slower than gateways so it's a choice which one, and did a few other changes, mech wouldn't be as weak vs. toss.
Because the problem here isn't the mech units really, it's that their counters are too strong. Vs. zerg swarm hosts and vipers are a problem, vs. protoss immortals are an issue.
if tank direct damage becomes 50 flat damage .. i mean whats the big effect about it ? if tvt is concered i think tanks are strong vs bio due to splash also in tvz .. so it wouldt have any difference right if tank have 50 flat damage ? since its splash is the problem in tvt and tvz ..
and i disagree with people saying that immortal should hardcounter tanks .. at least it would be a fine hardcounter but the tanks right now in small number wont have any effect in tvp which makes them obsolete
On December 04 2013 09:34 Whitewing wrote: How about for LOTV we just do a complete protoss overhaul to fix the TvP mech problem, rather than a band aid fix for mech right now?
I'm pretty sure if you made warp gate way later, nerfed immortals a bit, put them down to 3 supply and put them back on the gateway where they were originally intended to be, made warp gates produce slower than gateways so it's a choice which one, and did a few other changes, mech wouldn't be as weak vs. toss.
Because the problem here isn't the mech units really, it's that their counters are too strong. Vs. zerg swarm hosts and vipers are a problem, vs. protoss immortals are an issue.
mech would still be lame thoough as it has no way realy way of putting pressure on opponent (can only turtle).
The real thing mech needs (besides immortal nerf) is a buff to hellions. Vultures in espeically TvP were much much stronger than hellions. Imagine 75 mineral hellions that does like 20 damage to shield and 3 mines. This means they easily can kill archons, they can also take out statisc defense and they aren't particularly cost inefficeint against Stalkers. Then ofc you would nerf its damage vs light a bit so they don't rape light units too badly.
But that would totally change the game. Now you would actually use your Hellions for other stuff than just mienral dumbing. You may actually have a compostiion that is like 70% hellions and 30% tanks - That really opens up for aggressive play rather than just "sit back and turtle" -forever.
I'd rather like to see some kind of shield bleedthrough, including hardened shield. For example in siege mode 20% damage would ignore shields. That would be a slight general TvP buff while making siege tanks a lot more effective against immortals before you get to ghosts. Or instead of buffing the siege tank you could nerf the immortal, for example change the way hardened shield works.
While I may not agree with the changes goody has proposed, I still feel that mech could use some slight help vs Protoss. After reading through much of the thread I think I have a possible solution which would help make TvP and TvT more interesting.
LOCKDOWN- an offensive spell cast by the Terran Ghost which shorts out the target's circuitry, rendering it immobile for 60 seconds. During this time the unit can be attacked, repaired and destroyed, but it cannot return fire, move, or respond to any orders. Lockdown can only be cast on mechanical units
This skill if added to the ghosts would allow Terran to lockdown every protoss unit besides templar, zealot, and archon and could be used in TvT for any unit from factory or starport. I realize that this would probably make bio a lot better to use over mech vs P, but I believe there would be ways around it... off the top of my head I would make sure that a full energy ghost cannot use 1 emp and 1 lockdown. There are many more small tweaks i'm sure a team who worked hard on it could solve in a jiffy.
Though a bit off topic I figured I would speak of the effects that lockdown would have on TvT. With any unit from factory or starport being vulnerable to lockdown, breaking tank lines with bio becomes a bit easier, swinging a viking battle in your favor by locking down a viking or two or even the raven to stop the use of a PDD. Those are just a few uses in TvT that I thought of while typing.
On December 04 2013 07:59 Aveng3r wrote: its amazing that something like this hasnt been tried, just to see if it could work. Seriously, what does the balance team have to lose by giving something like this a shot? if it doesnt work, then fine, but how they can ignore constant petitioning to make mech viable tvp is beyond me.
One would think that changes like these is what the test maps were intended for. Meaningful changes, not just giving tanks 0.2 seconds faster attack.
On December 04 2013 10:57 Ouija wrote: While I may not agree with the changes goody has proposed, I still feel that mech could use some slight help vs Protoss. After reading through much of the thread I think I have a possible solution which would help make TvP and TvT more interesting.
LOCKDOWN- an offensive spell cast by the Terran Ghost which shorts out the target's circuitry, rendering it immobile for 60 seconds. During this time the unit can be attacked, repaired and destroyed, but it cannot return fire, move, or respond to any orders. Lockdown can only be cast on mechanical units
This skill if added to the ghosts would allow Terran to lockdown every protoss unit besides templar, zealot, and archon and could be used in TvT for any unit from factory or starport. I realize that this would probably make bio a lot better to use over mech vs P, but I believe there would be ways around it... off the top of my head I would make sure that a full energy ghost cannot use 1 emp and 1 lockdown. There are many more small tweaks i'm sure a team who worked hard on it could solve in a jiffy.
Though a bit off topic I figured I would speak of the effects that lockdown would have on TvT. With any unit from factory or starport being vulnerable to lockdown, breaking tank lines with bio becomes a bit easier, swinging a viking battle in your favor by locking down a viking or two or even the raven to stop the use of a PDD. Those are just a few uses in TvT that I thought of while typing.
As a Terran myself, this version of lockdown would be way too strong vs Colossi, you won't even need Vikings which means mass ghosts counters the dual AoE of Protoss.
On December 04 2013 10:57 Ouija wrote: While I may not agree with the changes goody has proposed, I still feel that mech could use some slight help vs Protoss. After reading through much of the thread I think I have a possible solution which would help make TvP and TvT more interesting.
LOCKDOWN- an offensive spell cast by the Terran Ghost which shorts out the target's circuitry, rendering it immobile for 60 seconds. During this time the unit can be attacked, repaired and destroyed, but it cannot return fire, move, or respond to any orders. Lockdown can only be cast on mechanical units
This skill if added to the ghosts would allow Terran to lockdown every protoss unit besides templar, zealot, and archon and could be used in TvT for any unit from factory or starport. I realize that this would probably make bio a lot better to use over mech vs P, but I believe there would be ways around it... off the top of my head I would make sure that a full energy ghost cannot use 1 emp and 1 lockdown. There are many more small tweaks i'm sure a team who worked hard on it could solve in a jiffy.
Though a bit off topic I figured I would speak of the effects that lockdown would have on TvT. With any unit from factory or starport being vulnerable to lockdown, breaking tank lines with bio becomes a bit easier, swinging a viking battle in your favor by locking down a viking or two or even the raven to stop the use of a PDD. Those are just a few uses in TvT that I thought of while typing.
As a Terran myself, this version of lockdown would be way too strong vs Colossi, you won't even need Vikings which means mass ghosts counters the dual AoE of Protoss.
I pulled that definition straight from the BW liquidpedia so it may not fit well into Starcraft 2, but making small tweaks to make it work does not seem like a tough thing to complete.
Ideas for making it work in SC2 - Lockdown cost 200/200 at ghost academy - Reduce range of skill from 8 to 7 making it harder to hit units such as collosus and safely feedback with a single templar if they try to get in close. (or even make the ghost a light unit allowing more dmg from collosus) - 150 energy cost to use skill
Just a few I could think of off the top of my head. An actual balance team could do way better than I.
On December 04 2013 10:57 Ouija wrote: While I may not agree with the changes goody has proposed, I still feel that mech could use some slight help vs Protoss. After reading through much of the thread I think I have a possible solution which would help make TvP and TvT more interesting.
LOCKDOWN- an offensive spell cast by the Terran Ghost which shorts out the target's circuitry, rendering it immobile for 60 seconds. During this time the unit can be attacked, repaired and destroyed, but it cannot return fire, move, or respond to any orders. Lockdown can only be cast on mechanical units
This skill if added to the ghosts would allow Terran to lockdown every protoss unit besides templar, zealot, and archon and could be used in TvT for any unit from factory or starport. I realize that this would probably make bio a lot better to use over mech vs P, but I believe there would be ways around it... off the top of my head I would make sure that a full energy ghost cannot use 1 emp and 1 lockdown. There are many more small tweaks i'm sure a team who worked hard on it could solve in a jiffy.
Though a bit off topic I figured I would speak of the effects that lockdown would have on TvT. With any unit from factory or starport being vulnerable to lockdown, breaking tank lines with bio becomes a bit easier, swinging a viking battle in your favor by locking down a viking or two or even the raven to stop the use of a PDD. Those are just a few uses in TvT that I thought of while typing.
As a Terran myself, this version of lockdown would be way too strong vs Colossi, you won't even need Vikings which means mass ghosts counters the dual AoE of Protoss.
I pulled that definition straight from the BW liquidpedia so it may not fit well into Starcraft 2, but making small tweaks to make it work does not seem like a tough thing to complete.
Ideas for making it work in SC2 - Lockdown cost 200/200 at ghost academy - Reduce range of skill from 8 to 7 making it harder to hit units such as collosus and safely feedback with a single templar if they try to get in close. (or even make the ghost a light unit allowing more dmg from collosus) - 150 energy cost to use skill
Just a few I could think of off the top of my head. An actual balance team could do way better than I.
Sounds fine if you move EMP to the Raven and also make the Raven require a fusion core.
Not a bad idea however you failed to account for the fact that units with +1 armor now get twice the reduction in damage as in, 50 damage before, 49 with +1 armor etc... now it becomes 48 with +1 armor and when you get to +3 armor(assuming tank is still at 25x2), it's 44 damage. I think that can have a big impact in other matchups but someone will need to test it first to make sure of this.
I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals.
On December 04 2013 12:47 lost_artz wrote: I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals.
Thanks Mr. Expert in TvP Mech, I don't know what us, poor mech terran players, woulld do without your incredible hindsight of the matchup.
On December 04 2013 12:47 lost_artz wrote: I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals.
Thanks Mr. Expert in TvP Mech, I don't know what us, poor mech terran players, woulld do without your incredible hindsight of the matchup.
You're welcome, but really it's not as if Ghosts are some unobtainable solution all you need is a Barracks (+tech lab ofc), 150/50 and 40 secs for an Academy. Ghosts themselves build in 40secs for 200/100 and start with 50 energy - 75 is needed for EMP.
In less than 90 seconds real time you can already have ghosts to counter Immortals (or sentries/HT if that's an issue which I highly doubt). Getting in the habit of instantly going for a few Ghosts when you see Immortals isn't that unreasonable.
On December 04 2013 12:47 lost_artz wrote: I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals.
When pro players "refuse" to use a certain unit that may feel like an obvious solution, theres usually plenty of reasons why they choose not to. You obviously have no idea what they are but they are there, trust me.
In cases like this its better not to act like a smartass unless you yourself can prove everyone wrong and make it work in actual games against top protosses. Can you?
On December 04 2013 12:47 lost_artz wrote: I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals.
When pro players "refuse" to use a certain unit that may feel like an obvious solution, theres usually plenty of reasons why they choose not to. You obviously have no idea what they are but they are there, trust me.
In cases like this its better not to act like a smartass unless you yourself can prove everyone wrong and make it work in actual games against top protosses. Can you?
It doesn't matter if I can, nor do I play Terran. I suppose we should all just go back to the days of thinking Marines can't be split vs. Banelings too. All it takes is for someone to actually TRY rather than complain about how X needs to be changed because of Y. As I've already said you have the solution try actually using it and see how that works out for you. Until then there's no need to change the game.
On December 04 2013 12:47 lost_artz wrote: I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals.
When pro players "refuse" to use a certain unit that may feel like an obvious solution, theres usually plenty of reasons why they choose not to. You obviously have no idea what they are but they are there, trust me.
In cases like this its better not to act like a smartass unless you yourself can prove everyone wrong and make it work in actual games against top protosses. Can you?
It doesn't matter if I can, nor do I play Terran. I suppose we should all just go back to the days of thinking Marines can't be split vs. Banelings too. All it takes is for someone to actually TRY rather than complain about how X needs to be changed because of Y. As I've already said you have the solution try actually using it and see how that works out for you. Until then there's no need to change the game.
On December 04 2013 12:47 lost_artz wrote: I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals.
When pro players "refuse" to use a certain unit that may feel like an obvious solution, theres usually plenty of reasons why they choose not to. You obviously have no idea what they are but they are there, trust me.
In cases like this its better not to act like a smartass unless you yourself can prove everyone wrong and make it work in actual games against top protosses. Can you?
It doesn't matter if I can, nor do I play Terran. I suppose we should all just go back to the days of thinking Marines can't be split vs. Banelings too. All it takes is for someone to actually TRY rather than complain about how X needs to be changed because of Y. As I've already said you have the solution try actually using it and see how that works out for you. Until then there's no need to change the game.
And what makes you think people haven't tried?
Nothing, nonetheless the game has changed. Each race has had their respective buffs and nerfs and with the most recent buffs to Mech it's stronger than ever before. The added DPS on air units (upgrades) vs. Colossi and Siege Tanks (increased ROF) vs. ground units can more than make up for investing a few supply into Ghosts.
On December 04 2013 12:47 lost_artz wrote: I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals.
When pro players "refuse" to use a certain unit that may feel like an obvious solution, theres usually plenty of reasons why they choose not to. You obviously have no idea what they are but they are there, trust me.
In cases like this its better not to act like a smartass unless you yourself can prove everyone wrong and make it work in actual games against top protosses. Can you?
It doesn't matter if I can, nor do I play Terran. I suppose we should all just go back to the days of thinking Marines can't be split vs. Banelings too. All it takes is for someone to actually TRY rather than complain about how X needs to be changed because of Y. As I've already said you have the solution try actually using it and see how that works out for you. Until then there's no need to change the game.
And what makes you think people haven't tried?
Nothing, nonetheless the game has changed. Each race has had their respective buffs and nerfs and with the most recent buffs to Mech it's stronger than ever before. The added DPS on air units (upgrades) vs. Colossi and Siege Tanks (increased ROF) vs. ground units can more than make up for investing a few supply into Ghosts.
Innovation did ghosts, Avilo does ghosts, Thorzain does ghosts. While playing mech. They don't win much more. With mech.
I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
Just out of curiosity, what stopped that boringness from happening in BW? Was it the fact that turtling on 3 base meant giving up income? Was it the fact that no mobile alternative existed for Terran, but Protoss had enough tools for backstabbing to make the matchup fun to watch? Or some combination thereof?
I am kind of lost. Last couple pages has been about mech viability/why terrans don't use ghosts/etc. Regardless of what people 'think' or 'theorize' the viability of mech, that's not something that has to be answered now. Obviously, it can be up for a discussion but this is for players to decide, learn, and adapt. (a.k.a. there's no point in talking about future meta)
Goody's main point was the discussion of changing the tank's each attack to be 2 shots. And this doesn't seem like anyone is having a problem with. TvZ will be barely affected, in TvT tanks are used generally to splash marines in marine & tank comp or in mech both sides have same 'buffed' unit so there shouldn't be a balance whine on that. It will change TvP, esp the fact that toss just can't mass immortal and a-move into a well position line of tanks.
imo, I don't think this will suddenly make mech comp hugely superior to bio and people only start using mech cuz it's going to give them 90% win rates. This will allow diversity to toss as well since now they can pull off air-toss and they are not 'forced' to turtle every game from the 2 medi timing since only hellion harrass will come from a mech user (which can be dealt with like how it is now, cannons, msc). They can do a faster expo when they think/know terran is going mech and it won't be always terran trying to bash toss's face early/mid game then toss coming out of base with deathball and trying to kill terran. So there can be two sides within each map as who get to be the defender/aggressor due to the builds they chose, not due to the race they chose.
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
I don't think so. Macro TvP can be a huge turtlefest, but even so there are opportunities for both players to make the game exciting with harass. I'm not saying we should aspire to macro TvP, but that it's possible to do turtle games badly and still not lead to Infestor/Broodlord style awfulness.
Mech should win head-on fights, but leave room for the opponent to harass. Similarly mech should have lots of consistent harass options, like what Vultures were in BW. With joined upgrades, Banshees look like an ideal candidate for the job, honestly.
On December 03 2013 23:57 Salient wrote: Shouldn't this be in the "Dedicated Balance Discussion" thread?
How is this a thread, not to sound mean but this shouldn't be here, how as admin not moved... TL has made a big deal about threads like this. (Dedicated Balance Discussion) is where this belongs
Balancing Thread esp one like this just creates a flame war
I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
I have to disagree with you here. When meching against a protoss you need to attack all the time. You need to be the one not allowing protoss to get up to 5 effective bases, because skytoss is a way superior late game composition and the tank buff doesn't change that. Whenever I run into mech in ladder the only way it ever "works" is if my opponent constantly attacks me with hellions and banshees. A turtling mech player is an auto win for the protoss.
I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
Just out of curiosity, what stopped that boringness from happening in BW? Was it the fact that turtling on 3 base meant giving up income? Was it the fact that no mobile alternative existed for Terran, but Protoss had enough tools for backstabbing to make the matchup fun to watch? Or some combination thereof?
There were timing which mech is incredibly powerful so they can do timing. In sc2, there just so many unit that counter mech that there are literally no timing window for mech to be aggressive. Protoss has some vulnerability timing to tanks but it not that big of a timing and largely figured out (notice how 1-1-1 was powerful can be). Vulture also give terran some sort of map control so terran is always moving around the map.
BW mech was less boring because you had more option to be aggressive. You can also do drop which were really powerful. Having 1 tank + 2 vulture inside your base and you wana just rip your computer screen off. Vulture drop mine to secure position for tank. This also make cannon not shut down harassment. Doing a tank drop in sc2 is a joke and is one of the most cost ineffective thing in the game due to warpin and many other factor. Therefore once protoss put cannon, they are pretty much safe since the only form of harassment is hellion and sometime banshee but warpin shut down both.
Largely I think what make bw mech more interesting is because protoss are afraid of the terran mech ball. So they have to be aggressive either by expanding and abusing their map control early on. They cant just make X unit to counter mech. They have to abuse mobility and therefore is more form of aggression. They fear the mech ball so much that they have to delay the terran tank from getting into good position and seiging their base so they most always have to force terran to slowly seige push across map.
Hello, Zerglings do have 35 Hp, so they get oneshotted by a Tank now unless they have a Armor upgrade. Why does this matter? On 2.8 Atk Speed Siege tanks can take 2 Shots on Zerglings, therefore 2 times Zerglings die. With 1.4 and less Damage they could take 3 Shots which doesnt kill Zerglings on the 3rd Shot. (Why can they take 2 before and now only 3 shots? First shot Happens instantly so CD doesn't matter on the first Shot. So if you have 2.8 after this, the new version shots 2 times in that time and the old one 1 time in that time.) This would reduce the dmg dealt versus Zerglings signifcantly and would be a huge Nerf to mech/siegetankcompositions in TvZ.
You can't simply reduce the Dmg and keep it on the same DPS you have to see the Shots taken to kill something. The Instant first shot is very Important for Siege tanks in TvZ.
Next example: Roaches have 145 HP(Armored) and need 3 Shots to be killed now. (5.6 Seconds in Siege Tank range) New Siege Tank: 6 Shots (7 Seconds in Siege Tank range)
Infestor 90 HP(Armored): 2 Shots Old Siege Tank (2.8) 4 Shots New Siege Tank (4.2)
Broodling 30HP: 1 Shot Old Siege Tank 2 Shots New Siege Tank (1.4)
Baneling 30Hp: 1 Shot Old Siege Tank 2 Shots New Siege Tank (1.4)
TvT:
Marine 55HP(Combat Shield not Stimmed): 2 Shots Old Siege Tank (2.8) 4 Shots New Siege Tank (4.2)
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
I actually enjoyed BL/Infestor, but that's because I saw infestors as tanks and ling/creep as spider mines/vulture.
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
I actually enjoyed BL/Infestor, but that's because I saw infestors as tanks and ling/creep as spider mines/vulture.
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
I actually enjoyed BL/Infestor, but that's because I saw infestors as tanks and ling/creep as spider mines/vulture.
imo the best kind of infestor bl ZvT were the uber fast hive into broodlord infestors. terran bio can actually fight toe to toe due to better upgrades, drops are extremely deadly because zerg rushed hive and GS and BL and won't have spines and spores to defend all the drops and the 4th is hard to hold for zerg.
it's awesome to watch a terran cracking the zerg's slow deathball defense and break the whole defense wall down with drops, surrounds etc
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
This surely is the reasoning of the blizzard developers. My only counter-thought is that early/mid game terran isn't nearly as safe as Zerg was in WoL on that particular map pool - and that could create a dynamic wherein terran could be manoeuvred around before they hit the ideal 1a army. On the other hand, hitting 200/200 in sc2 is orders of magnitude easier than in broodwar. Perhaps viable bio-mech is a more realistic goal that pure mech.
Edit: gifting goody gold has granted me super santa. Nothing can stop me now.
I just watched the tail end of Avilo's stream and he basically ranted/whined about Protoss the entire time. My question is, are a lot of people like that? Is that something common in the SC2 community? I get wanting to vent and stuff, but the amount was so staggering, haha.
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
I actually enjoyed BL/Infestor, but that's because I saw infestors as tanks and ling/creep as spider mines/vulture.
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
I actually enjoyed BL/Infestor, but that's because I saw infestors as tanks and ling/creep as spider mines/vulture.
imo the best kind of infestor bl ZvT were the uber fast hive into broodlord infestors. terran bio can actually fight toe to toe due to better upgrades, drops are extremely deadly because zerg rushed hive and GS and BL and won't have spines and spores to defend all the drops and the 4th is hard to hold for zerg.
it's awesome to watch a terran cracking the zerg's slow deathball defense and break the whole defense wall down with drops, surrounds etc
Wow I think we need BL-Infestor back then eh? The most hated comp in rts history....
Mech is boring to watch, boring to play against, and probably boring to play as well. I'd rather see a redesign of the way a different composition would work, rather than making it easier to play boring games. We've already got enough slow moving globular strats out there.
On December 04 2013 15:48 tshi wrote: I just watched the tail end of Avilo's stream and he basically ranted/whined about Protoss the entire time. My question is, are a lot of people like that? Is that something common in the SC2 community? I get wanting to vent and stuff, but the amount was so staggering, haha.
Avilo is known for behaving like that. He whined when terran was unanimously considered overpowered. He whines now. he will always whine.
The real problem with Tanks (in both TvP and TvZ) is that they are actually terrible at defending multiple locations WITH SMALL NUMBERS. They get wrecked against equal supplies of lings/roaches/hydras/zealots/stalkers/immortals until 50/60+ supply. If they did MORE damage with a single shot AND had a slower rate of fire two things would happen. 1. Better at defending in small numbers. 2. Not as good in huge fights due to slower rate of fire and severe overkill.
Please blizzard! Double the base attack while decreasinh the rate of fire by half.
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
I don't buy that Terran mech is like brood+infestor because it's 10x easier to take advantage of tanks/mech in SC2. Tanks can't shoot up, and vikings are always a liability because of how anti-air/anti-ground counters work in SC2.
The difference is brood/infestor with OP fungal in Wings you could not micro against at all. There was zero room once fungalled, and the composition consisted of all air units.
With Terran mech, you can micro vs tanks if you split up your units, flank, or make concaves. You can micro vs seeker missile, and you can also micro vs vikings.
Mech is very susceptible to air, whereas brood/infestor was not so much because of that insta-fungal on anti-air units like blink stalker or vikings.
Mech also has infinitely more counters than brood/infestor which had no counter. Blinding cloud, tempest, carriers, broodlords, swarmhosts, and the currently over-efficient-vs-tanks-immortal. The only thing that countered Wings brood/infestor was mass vikings + good seeker hits from Terran, or vortex from the mothership from Protoss. That was basically it.
The interesting thing about Terran mech being viable is Zerg and Protoss have to play differently against it than they do bio. The units you use vs mech are not always the same as vs bio. Roach/hydra/viper is good vs mech, but not so much vs bio/mine. Swarmhosts are amazing vs mech, not so much vs bio.
Same for Protoss. Immortals are probably too good vs mech right now, and air transitions are really good against mech. So is mass chargelot archon, and adding in a lot of warp prisms for harrass or dropping on top of the army (no one does mass prism vs mech yet because it's not discovered because mech is not as viable yet as bio).
Mech being viable opens up a lot more strategies for all 3 races.
On December 04 2013 15:51 Zorkmid wrote: Mech is boring to watch, boring to play against, and probably boring to play as well. I'd rather see a redesign of the way a different composition would work, rather than making it easier to play boring games. We've already got enough slow moving globular strats out there.
Bio becomes just as boring to watch when its the only strategy terran can do. Especially since bio doesn't really have any lategame transitions available, prompting terrans to go for a hyperaggressive midgame every single game.
Making mech viable as it is seems to be the easiest way to bring some options for terran. Anything else would require a full redesign of the race.
Also I don't think people hated BL/infestor for being a boring playstyle, people hated it because it was plain overpowered.
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
Pretty much this. I believe this is what NoNy was also alluding to in his V-log in terms of buffing Mech to real viability leading to endless Protoss all-ins. I don't believe we will see Mech as a style of play similar to BW from SC2 Terran (it may yet come from Zerg and Protoss). Not without radically changing the game - and frankly, I don't want that and nor does anyone who remembers the nerf/buff madness from most of WOL and the constantly fluctuating Metagame. That shit gets exhausting and does no-one any good. (So many wonky suggestions in these types of thread just because of some Factory fetish...)
If Mech is to be a viable play style, I'm happy to leave it to DK and Blizzard and maybe we will get there (even if it takes as long as LOTV). Sure, Mech would be nice to have in TvP, but it is not necessary to have. We can do without for a while yet.
On December 04 2013 15:28 Fegir wrote: Hello, Zerglings do have 35 Hp, so they get oneshotted by a Tank now unless they have a Armor upgrade. Why does this matter? On 2.8 Atk Speed Siege tanks can take 2 Shots on Zerglings, therefore 2 times Zerglings die. With 1.4 and less Damage they could take 3 Shots which doesnt kill Zerglings on the 3rd Shot. (Why can they take 2 before and now only 3 shots? First shot Happens instantly so CD doesn't matter on the first Shot. So if you have 2.8 after this, the new version shots 2 times in that time and the old one 1 time in that time.) This would reduce the dmg dealt versus Zerglings signifcantly and would be a huge Nerf to mech/siegetankcompositions in TvZ.
You can't simply reduce the Dmg and keep it on the same DPS you have to see the Shots taken to kill something. The Instant first shot is very Important for Siege tanks in TvZ.
Next example: Roaches have 145 HP(Armored) and need 3 Shots to be killed now. (5.6 Seconds in Siege Tank range) New Siege Tank: 6 Shots (7 Seconds in Siege Tank range)
Infestor 90 HP(Armored): 2 Shots Old Siege Tank (2.8) 4 Shots New Siege Tank (4.2)
Broodling 30HP: 1 Shot Old Siege Tank 2 Shots New Siege Tank (1.4)
Baneling 30Hp: 1 Shot Old Siege Tank 2 Shots New Siege Tank (1.4)
TvT:
Marine 55HP(Combat Shield not Stimmed): 2 Shots Old Siege Tank (2.8) 4 Shots New Siege Tank (4.2)
Goodbye Siege Tank <3
It's 2 instant shots, like banshee, it does the same amount of damage but in 2 parts, at the same fire rate.
On December 04 2013 15:51 Zorkmid wrote: Mech is boring to watch, boring to play against, and probably boring to play as well. I'd rather see a redesign of the way a different composition would work, rather than making it easier to play boring games. We've already got enough slow moving globular strats out there.
MVP vs Curious where real entertaining games, still he was playing mech.
On December 04 2013 06:00 Eatme wrote: I'd prefer some thor buff. It's prettymuch underused and therefor has potential for an interesting buff.
I wouldn't mind something being done about Thors either, but buffing tanks seems more urgent since it would (hypothetically) allow Terrans to create tank lines that Protoss can't just break by balling up their units and a-moving. Forcing Protoss to be the multi-tasking harass-based race for once would be pretty cool, and tanks are better suited for that than Thors.
Yeah thats why I didnt suggest how to buff thors. Plus me being a zerg player ofc.
Someone should really make a testmap of the twoshot so we can try it out. Another interesting thing would be to nerf hardend shield a bit, maybe so it takes 15 damage instead. Just play around with it from that angle would be good. It's not like you can go roach vs a few immortals anyway.
On December 04 2013 15:48 tshi wrote: I just watched the tail end of Avilo's stream and he basically ranted/whined about Protoss the entire time. My question is, are a lot of people like that? Is that something common in the SC2 community? I get wanting to vent and stuff, but the amount was so staggering, haha.
Avilo is known for behaving like that. He whined when terran was unanimously considered overpowered. He whines now. he will always whine.
Avilo is whiny, same as for example Idra always was, a bit biased (again, same as Idra) and his presentation when discussing balance is not the best, but he does have some good points and ideas about mech and he has much more experience with it than people who criticize him. People just immediately dismiss it because it comes from Avilo. For example, he was talking about reducing the cost of armories to make mech upgrades easier to obtain and Blizzard also approached mech issue with the idea of somehow making upgrades better.
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
I actually enjoyed BL/Infestor, but that's because I saw infestors as tanks and ling/creep as spider mines/vulture.
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
I actually enjoyed BL/Infestor, but that's because I saw infestors as tanks and ling/creep as spider mines/vulture.
imo the best kind of infestor bl ZvT were the uber fast hive into broodlord infestors. terran bio can actually fight toe to toe due to better upgrades, drops are extremely deadly because zerg rushed hive and GS and BL and won't have spines and spores to defend all the drops and the 4th is hard to hold for zerg.
it's awesome to watch a terran cracking the zerg's slow deathball defense and break the whole defense wall down with drops, surrounds etc
Wow I think we need BL-Infestor back then eh? The most hated comp in rts history....
The problem was that zerg tanks hit air, zerg spider mines were free, and zerg vultures cost 25 minerals each. Add to that the lategame switch to Infestor gave zerg a mobile tank force that could base race with crawling buildings following them.
The first 15-20 minutes of BL/Infestor was good when zerg was constantly spreading creep, dropping spines, and had to split infestors and lings to survive drops. It was the last 5-10 minutes where the army was mobile AND wouldn't die that sucked.
On December 04 2013 06:00 Eatme wrote: I'd prefer some thor buff. It's prettymuch underused and therefor has potential for an interesting buff.
I wouldn't mind something being done about Thors either, but buffing tanks seems more urgent since it would (hypothetically) allow Terrans to create tank lines that Protoss can't just break by balling up their units and a-moving. Forcing Protoss to be the multi-tasking harass-based race for once would be pretty cool, and tanks are better suited for that than Thors.
Yeah thats why I didnt suggest how to buff thors. Plus me being a zerg player ofc.
Someone should really make a testmap of the twoshot so we can try it out. Another interesting thing would be to nerf hardend shield a bit, maybe so it takes 15 damage instead. Just play around with it from that angle would be good. It's not like you can go roach vs a few immortals anyway.
Thors dont need a buff, they need an honest to god redesign. They don't provide anything that 3-4 Marauders don't already provide.
Imagine a job that a concept unit similar to a thor should fill that isn't already filled?
The problem with Thors is not that they are weak, the problem is that they don't give anything that isn't already filled but with a cheaper and faster to build unit. Find a fit, then balance him to work in that position.
My personal favorite is to make him a mobile "factory" where he is a spellcaster that uses minerals to cast his spells. A kind of "uber reaver." Maybe even make it a factory upgrade where instead of building a thor, the Factory morphs into a thor and instead of producing units it produces drones and specialized ammo.
On December 04 2013 16:44 KaizoOnFire wrote: i would say we also buff skytoss because its completely trash vs. bio
Sky toss will never work anyways since you dont have a cheap mineral fodder. Mech is on the rope of working and it just need an extra push. It also distinctively different style from bio so if mech is viable without affecting bio then it good for the over all game for making the game more diverse. Think of mech as a race rather than some sort of unit composition because it play completely different from traditional bio and other race act completely different against it. Will skytoss be different from traditional protoss deathball? No, it will probably just be another slow deathball unit composition like collosus/HT because the core unit in sky toss are slow and therefore offer no real difference from traditional protoss. Making mech work is good for the overall game by making the game more different. And guess what, sky toss is actually pretty good against mech and could be a possible future meta if mech is viable.
On December 04 2013 06:00 Eatme wrote: I'd prefer some thor buff. It's prettymuch underused and therefor has potential for an interesting buff.
I wouldn't mind something being done about Thors either, but buffing tanks seems more urgent since it would (hypothetically) allow Terrans to create tank lines that Protoss can't just break by balling up their units and a-moving. Forcing Protoss to be the multi-tasking harass-based race for once would be pretty cool, and tanks are better suited for that than Thors.
Yeah thats why I didnt suggest how to buff thors. Plus me being a zerg player ofc.
Someone should really make a testmap of the twoshot so we can try it out. Another interesting thing would be to nerf hardend shield a bit, maybe so it takes 15 damage instead. Just play around with it from that angle would be good. It's not like you can go roach vs a few immortals anyway.
Thors dont need a buff, they need an honest to god redesign. They don't provide anything that 3-4 Marauders don't already provide.
Imagine a job that a concept unit similar to a thor should fill that isn't already filled?
The problem with Thors is not that they are weak, the problem is that they don't give anything that isn't already filled but with a cheaper and faster to build unit. Find a fit, then balance him to work in that position.
My personal favorite is to make him a mobile "factory" where he is a spellcaster that uses minerals to cast his spells. A kind of "uber reaver." Maybe even make it a factory upgrade where instead of building a thor, the Factory morphs into a thor and instead of producing units it produces drones and specialized ammo.
The biggest gripe i had with thors is that they are slow and so boring. They are like reavers without their entartaining factors.
On December 04 2013 06:00 Eatme wrote: I'd prefer some thor buff. It's prettymuch underused and therefor has potential for an interesting buff.
I wouldn't mind something being done about Thors either, but buffing tanks seems more urgent since it would (hypothetically) allow Terrans to create tank lines that Protoss can't just break by balling up their units and a-moving. Forcing Protoss to be the multi-tasking harass-based race for once would be pretty cool, and tanks are better suited for that than Thors.
Yeah thats why I didnt suggest how to buff thors. Plus me being a zerg player ofc.
Someone should really make a testmap of the twoshot so we can try it out. Another interesting thing would be to nerf hardend shield a bit, maybe so it takes 15 damage instead. Just play around with it from that angle would be good. It's not like you can go roach vs a few immortals anyway.
Thors dont need a buff, they need an honest to god redesign. They don't provide anything that 3-4 Marauders don't already provide.
Imagine a job that a concept unit similar to a thor should fill that isn't already filled?
The problem with Thors is not that they are weak, the problem is that they don't give anything that isn't already filled but with a cheaper and faster to build unit. Find a fit, then balance him to work in that position.
My personal favorite is to make him a mobile "factory" where he is a spellcaster that uses minerals to cast his spells. A kind of "uber reaver." Maybe even make it a factory upgrade where instead of building a thor, the Factory morphs into a thor and instead of producing units it produces drones and specialized ammo.
I like how bold this idea is. People said the same thing for the mothership unit for being worth its costs -- like have the mothership be a mobile pylon and shit. Doing something with the thor that gave it a mechanic that helped out mech in some way would be cool.
On December 04 2013 06:00 Eatme wrote: I'd prefer some thor buff. It's prettymuch underused and therefor has potential for an interesting buff.
I wouldn't mind something being done about Thors either, but buffing tanks seems more urgent since it would (hypothetically) allow Terrans to create tank lines that Protoss can't just break by balling up their units and a-moving. Forcing Protoss to be the multi-tasking harass-based race for once would be pretty cool, and tanks are better suited for that than Thors.
Yeah thats why I didnt suggest how to buff thors. Plus me being a zerg player ofc.
Someone should really make a testmap of the twoshot so we can try it out. Another interesting thing would be to nerf hardend shield a bit, maybe so it takes 15 damage instead. Just play around with it from that angle would be good. It's not like you can go roach vs a few immortals anyway.
Thors dont need a buff, they need an honest to god redesign. They don't provide anything that 3-4 Marauders don't already provide.
Imagine a job that a concept unit similar to a thor should fill that isn't already filled?
The problem with Thors is not that they are weak, the problem is that they don't give anything that isn't already filled but with a cheaper and faster to build unit. Find a fit, then balance him to work in that position.
My personal favorite is to make him a mobile "factory" where he is a spellcaster that uses minerals to cast his spells. A kind of "uber reaver." Maybe even make it a factory upgrade where instead of building a thor, the Factory morphs into a thor and instead of producing units it produces drones and specialized ammo.
I like how bold this idea is. People said the same thing for the mothership unit for being worth its costs -- like have the mothership be a mobile pylon and shit. Doing something with the thor that gave it a mechanic that helped out mech in some way would be cool.
That just sounds like too much fun for Blizzard to implement it.
On December 04 2013 16:44 KaizoOnFire wrote: i would say we also buff skytoss because its completely trash vs. bio
Sky toss will never work anyways since you dont have a cheap mineral fodder. Mech is on the rope of working and it just need an extra push. It also distinctively different style from bio so if mech is viable without affecting bio then it good for the over all game for making the game more diverse. Think of mech as a race rather than some sort of unit composition because it play completely different from traditional bio and other race act completely different against it. Will skytoss be different from traditional protoss deathball? No, it will probably just be another slow deathball unit composition like collosus/HT because the core unit in sky toss are slow and therefore offer no real difference from traditional protoss. Making mech work is good for the overall game by making the game more different. And guess what, sky toss is actually pretty good against mech and could be a possible future meta if mech is viable.
why would you see it as a race? its just a techtree which has pros and cons just like everyething else. either you commit to it or not you can play mech vs. terran and zerg and usually not vs. protoss just like you can play skytoss vs. toss and zerg but not vs. bio. why should they buff it even more, just play bio then in that matchup. i've never seen anyone playing skytoss vs. bio and there are reasons for it btw, saying you can play skytoss vs mech is like saying you can play baneling vs. marines lol, like i said, all has pros and cons, thats the funny part of the game :-)
Yeah I think by making mech viable vs Protoss (and thus incredibly efficient) you absolutely kill their macro/late game. I think you'd end up swapping the positions of Terran and Protoss by making Protoss the aggressor and Terran the defender. Then, you'll then end up with games looking similar to PvZ, where Protoss goes crazy on timing attacks/all-ins and if they make it to the late game, Terran would have to squander their lead and create situations that the Protoss can take advantage of...
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
This. I have nothing against goody, but as a player, and as someone who watch a lot of stream and competition, I would just stop Starcraft because Goody's game are so boring to watch. And then I think about the caster who will have to comment a Sim City game, and I feel sorry for them.
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
This. I have nothing against goody, but as a player, and as someone who watch a lot of stream and competition, I would just stop Starcraft because Goody's game are so boring to watch. And then I think about the caster who will have to comment a Sim City game, and I feel sorry for them.
Mech needs a better and fun to watch harassment unit maybe...
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
This. I have nothing against goody, but as a player, and as someone who watch a lot of stream and competition, I would just stop Starcraft because Goody's game are so boring to watch. And then I think about the caster who will have to comment a Sim City game, and I feel sorry for them.
Mech needs a better and fun to watch harassment unit maybe...
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
I don't buy that Terran mech is like brood+infestor because it's 10x easier to take advantage of tanks/mech in SC2. Tanks can't shoot up, and vikings are always a liability because of how anti-air/anti-ground counters work in SC2.
The difference is brood/infestor with OP fungal in Wings you could not micro against at all. There was zero room once fungalled, and the composition consisted of all air units.
With Terran mech, you can micro vs tanks if you split up your units, flank, or make concaves. You can micro vs seeker missile, and you can also micro vs vikings.
Mech is very susceptible to air, whereas brood/infestor was not so much because of that insta-fungal on anti-air units like blink stalker or vikings.
Mech also has infinitely more counters than brood/infestor which had no counter. Blinding cloud, tempest, carriers, broodlords, swarmhosts, and the currently over-efficient-vs-tanks-immortal. The only thing that countered Wings brood/infestor was mass vikings + good seeker hits from Terran, or vortex from the mothership from Protoss. That was basically it.
The interesting thing about Terran mech being viable is Zerg and Protoss have to play differently against it than they do bio. The units you use vs mech are not always the same as vs bio. Roach/hydra/viper is good vs mech, but not so much vs bio/mine. Swarmhosts are amazing vs mech, not so much vs bio.
Same for Protoss. Immortals are probably too good vs mech right now, and air transitions are really good against mech. So is mass chargelot archon, and adding in a lot of warp prisms for harrass or dropping on top of the army (no one does mass prism vs mech yet because it's not discovered because mech is not as viable yet as bio).
Mech being viable opens up a lot more strategies for all 3 races.
Indeed, mech viability rewards more diversification, and personally I also wanna see mech buffed in an intelligent way, however, I think with the current setup, mech can never really be entertaining.
Your kinda talking about something that's balanced-related, but that's not really the point here. Instead, I believe Lalush argues the mech player is always incentivized to turtle. By playing a defensive static defense heavy style (mass OC/planetaries/turrets) you maximize your probability of winning. While you may enjoy that - most people don't, and it will create a very poor spectator experience.
Lalush's logic is that the economy in Sc2 makes it possible for the immobile army to obtain an almost similar economy as the mobile race. So even if we somehow buffed mech to make it strong in the midgame (so you could do timing attacks), you would almost always be better off just taking an extra base and turtle instead. This is ofc assuming doing both similoutaneously isn't doable (as you can't secure an extra base while moving out).
Now, I also believe there are other problems. For instance, the risk of counterattack is IMO too high due to the efficiency of army movement + the lack of spider mines. This once again incentivez the mech player for turtling. Further, terrans harass options are way too easily counterable by cannons + warp-ins --> hellions reduced to a gimmick. Vultures on the other hand were almost better in every single way in BW (esp since protoss also had no warp tech to easily defend drops). This created the opportunity for much more actionpacked games
Further, if we look at the Siege Tank, I believe Blizzard increased its supply from 2 to 3 due to the the introduction of the mule which allows terran to get a bigger army size while maintaining a similar economy. However, the mule also implies that if mech gets "balanced", then it needs to take advantage of the Mule. The best way to do that is simple to avoid army-trading, while playing a defensive mass OC style --> super boring for spectators.
Hellions and Hellbats aren't good enough?
No they aren't. Watch TvP in BW, and notice how many Vultures terran pro's actually get in TvP. A typical composition is actual more Vulture-heavy than Tank-heavy. In Sc2 - whenever you wanna try mech, you really don't want to many Hellions/hellbats as they simple are cost-inefficient vs anything that isn't light.
On December 04 2013 18:20 Littlesheep wrote: I don't understand whats wrong with Tanks being bad against their hard counter.
Terran has a lot of units that counter the Immortal.
Because this isn't a game of rock/paper/scissors where we only look at which unit hard counters what.
When a general playstyle like mech isn't viable you can make it viable by adjusting it against the units that gives it the most trouble. Immortals can and will still be a viable counter to tanks even if they were a softer counter than they currently are.
On December 04 2013 17:50 Big-t wrote: Sounds good to me tbh.
On December 04 2013 17:45 Vanadiel wrote:
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: I don't think you can make mech both viable and balanced in SC2, goody. Not without making the game incredibly boring and having it automatically nerfed 3-6 months later because of the community backlash.
I don't play the game anymore so I have no reason to be against mech or your style anymore.
This is my argument: Mech is a slow moving composition, the same sort of composition as Broodlord/Infestor. If you want to make a slow moving composition viable in an RTS game, you have to make the slow moving composition more efficient than the normal faster moving compositions.
We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
Unfortunately, you know just as well as me that when an objectively superior composition exists in SC2, players tend to always go for the 200 max out before they want to fight army vs army. This is what every shitty broodlord/infestor patchzerg did in 2011-2012. They took 3 bases and rushed for 200 while camping behind static defenses because they knew their composition was superior (it wasn't critical to stop opponent from expanding to 4-5 bases).
This is the same as your strategy with Mech vs zerg and probably versus terran as well. You slowly take 3-4 bases and camp until you are close to 200 before you allow any action to take place on the map. The only problem for you is that mech isn't as strong as BL/Infestor used to be, so you don't have a bunch of zergs and protosses suiciding into you in the midgame like people used to do versus BL/Infestor.
Now... if Blizzard were to buff mech even more and make it a viable composition... that would mean mech would have to be a more cost efficient composition than everything else because mech is slow moving... and that would mean every terran would go for the slow, safe, 200 goody game before they risked any big engagement.
You would see such an explosion of whine everywhere that mech would only last a maximum 3 months before being nerfed again. Because if you make mech viable in SC2, that means you have simply created the equivalent of BL/Infestor for Terran.
This. I have nothing against goody, but as a player, and as someone who watch a lot of stream and competition, I would just stop Starcraft because Goody's game are so boring to watch. And then I think about the caster who will have to comment a Sim City game, and I feel sorry for them.
Mech needs a better and fun to watch harassment unit maybe...
Hellions and Hellbats aren't good enough?
No the are by far not as good as an oracle or mutas, but they don´t need gas. And they are not fun to watch. It has been a while since I saw some hellions do some real harassment in a pro game...
Let's consider Mech gets balanced to the following scenarios: 1- Mech beats Antibio 2- Bio beats Antimech 3- Mech and Antimech are equal 4- Bio and Antibio are equal
This is of course a problem, since the 50:50 winrates of "proper" Protoss play gets skewed by the other Terran favored winrates. But there is various ways to solve this: - Allins (the one you talk about): I'm with you on what you say about Allins, but I think it is not the only possibility. - Scouting/Reacotionary tools: Something that is especially prominent in the ZvT when Zerg should fight Mech or Bio (in Broodwar, or in WoL, or in HotS). Basically, for as long as you can react properly, the Mech vs Antibio and Bio vs Antimech scenarios become unlikely to begin with. - Converging Compositions: Basically that though there may be imbalances at some point when playing in scenario 1 and 2, those imbalances get overthrown by having both playstyles come down to the same lateron. E.g. in WoL, Zerg opening with Muta/ling/bling against Mech was quite bad for Zerg, compared to a roachbased opening. What made it OK was that in both cases you could later on transition to Infestorbased armies. Similar things could happen for Protoss. Antibio-Opening with Colossus can quite easily transition into Immortalbased play, opening with Templars in Archon/Immortal based one. - Unit Balance: Making Mech viable on its own may be problematic because of 1 and 2. Yet, there can be certain balance tweaks done to easy the situation. E.g. if the Immortal is tweaked to be reasonable against both bio and Mech, or Skytoss compositions get tools to deal with bio as well.
I guess the big uncertainty in all of this is simply Blizzard... we don't know how far they are willing to go down that road, or whether they will simply stop at a certain point, instead of trying another tweak.
@Maps: I think you exaggerate the problem a little. If on some maps Mech (or bio) is too good for Protoss to handle, than the map is simply imbalanced for TvP. Just like how you don't take mutaliskplay out of the equation when considering ZvP mapbalance. If the map is just better for Mech than for Bio, but not imbalanced, it simply means that a Terran shoule be more likely (for his own good) to choose Mech there. But that's just a strategical choice of his, just like you choose strategies on any other map. (Something that I think currently is the case in TvT, where no matter how much you buff Mech, it won't be superior to Bio on Whirlwind. While I think Yeonsu is better for Mech than for Bio)
I still think the THOR needs some love. (I'd also lobby for the BC and Carrier to get buffed, but that's for another time.)
I think the first and easiest buff (that follows Blizzards upgrade theme) would be some sort of speed buff (or speed ability). HOWEVER... I really like the micro potential for thor+medivac/boost micro. I've seen it used in a few games and it's a really good way to let players show off some skill. With that in mind, what I'd REALLY like is a change to the way the thor does damage (just like goody's suggestion about increasing tank shots). Change the THOR ground attack from 30 (+3) x 2 to 15 (+2) x 4 (The attack would take twice as long so the cooldown from first shot to first shot would be a little longer and DPS should stay relatively similar even with the slight attack upgrade increase).
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
It kind of upsets me how almost everyone loses track of time less then a year after.
On topic, I'd really really love to see mech become viable, but I'd also love to see protoss get stronger gateway units, a less boring collosus, less stuff like blink, and the msc changed somehow. Could really make the game a lot more interesting.
On December 04 2013 18:40 DusTerr wrote: I still think the THOR needs some love. (I'd also lobby for the BC and Carrier to get buffed, but that's for another time.)
I think the first and easiest buff (that follows Blizzards upgrade theme) would be some sort of speed buff (or speed ability). HOWEVER... I really like the micro potential for thor+medivac/boost micro. I've seen it used in a few games and it's a really good way to let players show off some skill. With that in mind, what I'd REALLY like is a change to the way the thor does damage (just like goody's suggestion about increasing tank shots). Change the THOR ground attack from 30 (+3) x 2 to 15 (+2) x 4 (The attack would take twice as long so the cooldown from first shot to first shot would be a little longer and DPS should stay relatively similar even with the slight attack upgrade increase).
They could have easily scrapped the Thor for the Warhound had they actually made it anti-MECH, and not anti-ARMORED.
I know it's off topic - but the reason Warhounds were so OP when they got removed is because their attack which was meant to be anti-mechanical was actually X+X vs Armored rather than X+X vs Mechanical. This simple change would have completely changed how they were used.
On December 04 2013 14:43 LaLuSh wrote: We have one example in the history of SC2 where this was true for a composition: Broodlord/Infestor in 2011-2012.
It kind of upsets me how almost everyone loses track of time less then a year after.
On topic, I'd really really love to see mech become viable, but I'd also love to see protoss get stronger gateway units, a less boring collosus, less stuff like blink, and the msc changed somehow. Could really make the game a lot more interesting.
Blink is the only micro-intensive ability the Protoss have apart from Feedback, Storms, and clutch FFs, and the only one on par with what T and Z have to do in TvZ every single game, and you want to take it out?
On December 04 2013 18:40 DusTerr wrote: I still think the THOR needs some love. (I'd also lobby for the BC and Carrier to get buffed, but that's for another time.)
I think the first and easiest buff (that follows Blizzards upgrade theme) would be some sort of speed buff (or speed ability). HOWEVER... I really like the micro potential for thor+medivac/boost micro. I've seen it used in a few games and it's a really good way to let players show off some skill. With that in mind, what I'd REALLY like is a change to the way the thor does damage (just like goody's suggestion about increasing tank shots). Change the THOR ground attack from 30 (+3) x 2 to 15 (+2) x 4 (The attack would take twice as long so the cooldown from first shot to first shot would be a little longer and DPS should stay relatively similar even with the slight attack upgrade increase).
They could have easily scrapped the Thor for the Warhound had they actually made it anti-MECH, and not anti-ARMORED.
I know it's off topic - but the reason Warhounds were so OP when they got removed is because their attack which was meant to be anti-mechanical was actually X+X vs Armored rather than X+X vs Mechanical. This simple change would have completely changed how they were used.
/mini-rant
Warhounds weren't removed because they were OP, they were removed because they're the worst designed unit to come to SC2 so far, and that's saying a lot.
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless.
Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal?
I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them.
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless.
Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal?
I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them.
Terrans build their counters to immortals. Its called playing bio.
Even with ghosts, Mech does not get costefficient against immortals.
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless.
Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal?
I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them.
The amount of "you pro-gamers need to l2p"-posts is a bit disheartening. I expect this kind of crap on bnet forums, not here.
When mech is universally branded not viable against protoss, no amount of protoss icons telling terran progamers to "learn to build ghost" will fix that. The issue is a little more complex than that.
On December 04 2013 18:50 ottosec wrote: If only Terran would have a unit that could remove all shields on the Immortal in one shot... Hmmmm...
I really love comments like these cause if it were that easy then why arent pros doing it or why wouldnt goody try it out...... cause its not that easy one unit doesnt change everything. and also if you think its that simple by just adding ghost plz try and do it your self. go mech in tvp while trying to get an expo get upgrades get a mech army and ghost all at the same time plz do and tell me how easy it is. and to the OP i like the idea but doubt it will happen but nice post
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless.
Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal?
I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them.
Those silly Koreans, spending all that time practicing in team houses, and never realizing that they just needed to throw some Ghosts into their MechVP.
Someone tell Inno and MMA to stop going bio vs Protoss and losing, they've been doing it wrong.
The fact of the matter is that you CAN beat Immortals as Terran. It just requires using Ghosts well and fodder units. This suggestion is nothing more than asking for a buff to Terran where it caters to a specific style of play, namely turtle Mech Terran. Furthermore, this change would only serve to dumb the game down by making the tank impossible to deal with on the ground. Toss players will just go straight to air and then we'll have a new thread suggesting how to change the Carrier or the Voidray because mech isn't viable against these units.
*** IMMORTALS ARE NOT THE SOLE REASON MECH IS NOT VIABLE AGAINST PROTOSS ***
You can take this Protoss nerf/Terran buff, whatever you want to call it, and it will not change the fact that Bio is the strongest form of TvP. The REASON for Bio being superior is because of HIGH MOBILITY, drop harasses and forcing skirmishes where the Terran Bio army is favored. These factors force Protoss to play very defensive. NOW VS MECH,, TOSS DO WHATEVER HE WANTS AND TAKE 3 OR 4 BASE WITHOUT MUCH WORRY,,,, AND YOU WILL LOSE TO HIM BECAUSE YOU DON'T IMPEDE HIS TECH ETC,,AND IMMORTAL WILL STILL 3 SHOT YOUR TANKS
This KIND of posting from goOby is the reason why foreign scene is pathetic and failing to catch up to our Korean friends.
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless.
Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal?
I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them.
Terrans build their counters to immortals. Its called playing bio.
Even with ghosts, Mech does not get costefficient against immortals.
It does get. The problem is not mech units itself. Withouts shields, immortals are almost useless, they die so fast.
The problem is harrash. As mech player how do you stop protoss from harrashing your base? Ye its quite hard. Another thing is that mech is slow to rebuild. Hellbat, siegetank,ghost,raven, (thor) wins protoss army when sieged. But its slow to rebuild and very bad at defending several places at the same time.
On December 04 2013 19:14 TricksAre4Figs wrote: The fact of the matter is that you CAN beat Immortals as Terran. It just requires using Ghosts well and fodder units. This suggestion is nothing more than asking for a buff to Terran where it caters to a specific style of play, namely turtle Mech Terran. Furthermore, this change would only serve to dumb the game down by making the tank impossible to deal with on the ground. Toss players will just go straight to air and then we'll have a new thread suggesting how to change the Carrier or the Voidray because mech isn't viable against these units.
*** IMMORTALS ARE NOT THE SOLE REASON MECH IS NOT VIABLE AGAINST PROTOSS ***
You can take this Protoss nerf/Terran buff, whatever you want to call it, and it will not change the fact that Bio is the strongest form of TvP. The REASON for Bio being superior is because of HIGH MOBILITY, drop harasses and forcing skirmishes where the Terran Bio army is favored. These factors force Protoss to play very defensive. NOW VS MECH,, TOSS DO WHATEVER HE WANTS AND TAKE 3 OR 4 BASE WITHOUT MUCH WORRY,,,, AND YOU WILL LOSE TO HIM BECAUSE YOU DON'T IMPEDE HIS TECH ETC,,AND IMMORTAL WILL STILL 3 SHOT YOUR TANKS
This KIND of posting from goOby is the reason why foreign scene is pathetic and failing to catch up to our Korean friends.
If you want mech to be played aggressively (such as in BW) you can't make ghosts a requirement. Instead, ghosts just further rewards the whole turtle-passive deathball "mech".
In BW Tanks were cost-effective (even in small numbers) vs Dragoons. Now ofc SC2 works a bit differnetly as a normal protoss composition will consist of Stalkers + Immortals vs tanks. To make up for Stalkers being a bit weak, Immortals should indeed be more cost-effective than Dragoons, however the current strenght of the Immortals in small isolated numbers vs Tanks is absolutely laughable and it will always force úber turtling untill that gets fixed.
IMO hardened shield just needs to get removed in the next expansion and then the Immortal should be more microable (the whole turn around, move back thing takes way too long) and should receive sligthly better stats as a compensation. This makes it less of a hard-counter and more of a strong battle-oriented unit.
On December 04 2013 19:14 TricksAre4Figs wrote: The fact of the matter is that you CAN beat Immortals as Terran. It just requires using Ghosts well and fodder units. This suggestion is nothing more than asking for a buff to Terran where it caters to a specific style of play, namely turtle Mech Terran. Furthermore, this change would only serve to dumb the game down by making the tank impossible to deal with on the ground. Toss players will just go straight to air and then we'll have a new thread suggesting how to change the Carrier or the Voidray because mech isn't viable against these units.
*** IMMORTALS ARE NOT THE SOLE REASON MECH IS NOT VIABLE AGAINST PROTOSS ***
You can take this Protoss nerf/Terran buff, whatever you want to call it, and it will not change the fact that Bio is the strongest form of TvP. The REASON for Bio being superior is because of HIGH MOBILITY, drop harasses and forcing skirmishes where the Terran Bio army is favored. These factors force Protoss to play very defensive. NOW VS MECH,, TOSS DO WHATEVER HE WANTS AND TAKE 3 OR 4 BASE WITHOUT MUCH WORRY,,,, AND YOU WILL LOSE TO HIM BECAUSE YOU DON'T IMPEDE HIS TECH ETC,,AND IMMORTAL WILL STILL 3 SHOT YOUR TANKS
This KIND of posting from goOby is the reason why foreign scene is pathetic and failing to catch up to our Korean friends.
If you want mech to be played aggressively (such as in BW) you can't make ghosts a requirement. Instead, ghosts just further rewards the whole turtle-passive deathball "mech".
In BW Tanks were cost-effective (even in small numbers) vs Dragoons. Now ofc SC2 works a bit differnetly as a normal protoss composition will consist of Stalkers + Immortals vs tanks. To make up for Stalkers being a bit weak, Immortals should indeed be more cost-effective than Dragoons, however the current strenght of the Immortals in small isolated numbers vs Tanks is absolutely laughable and it will always force úber turtling untill that gets fixed.
IMO hardened shield just needs to get removed in the next expansion and then the Immortal should be more microable (the whole turn around, move back thing takes way too long) and should receive sligthly better stats as a compensation. This makes it less of a hard-counter and more of a strong battle-oriented unit.
If you're going to rework the Immortal then the Thor must be reworked.
Also, yes, that is my point, Mech can't be played aggressively. This is the main factor in Terran Bio always being the stronger style.
I would also suggest to Mech players that 2 Base Timing attacks with factory units is incredibly strong and IMO completely viable as a 2 Base All-in. Going past 2 Base with Mech Terran will always be inferior to Bio Terran in SC2.
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless.
Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal?
I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them.
Terrans build their counters to immortals. Its called playing bio.
Even with ghosts, Mech does not get costefficient against immortals.
It does get. The problem is not mech units itself. Withouts shields, immortals are almost useless, they die so fast.
The problem is harrash. As mech player how do you stop protoss from harrashing your base? Ye its quite hard. Another thing is that mech is slow to rebuild. Hellbat, siegetank,ghost,raven, (thor) wins protoss army when sieged. But its slow to rebuild and very bad at defending several places at the same time.
Mines, Missile Turrets and PFs? We're all aware Mechs slow to rebuild however if you roll your opponent the same thing is true for Toss. Sure they may have 10-15 gates + maybe 2 robos but it still takes time to rebuild their army too.
On December 04 2013 19:14 TricksAre4Figs wrote: The fact of the matter is that you CAN beat Immortals as Terran. It just requires using Ghosts well and fodder units. This suggestion is nothing more than asking for a buff to Terran where it caters to a specific style of play, namely turtle Mech Terran. Furthermore, this change would only serve to dumb the game down by making the tank impossible to deal with on the ground. Toss players will just go straight to air and then we'll have a new thread suggesting how to change the Carrier or the Voidray because mech isn't viable against these units.
*** IMMORTALS ARE NOT THE SOLE REASON MECH IS NOT VIABLE AGAINST PROTOSS ***
You can take this Protoss nerf/Terran buff, whatever you want to call it, and it will not change the fact that Bio is the strongest form of TvP. The REASON for Bio being superior is because of HIGH MOBILITY, drop harasses and forcing skirmishes where the Terran Bio army is favored. These factors force Protoss to play very defensive. NOW VS MECH,, TOSS DO WHATEVER HE WANTS AND TAKE 3 OR 4 BASE WITHOUT MUCH WORRY,,,, AND YOU WILL LOSE TO HIM BECAUSE YOU DON'T IMPEDE HIS TECH ETC,,AND IMMORTAL WILL STILL 3 SHOT YOUR TANKS
This KIND of posting from goOby is the reason why foreign scene is pathetic and failing to catch up to our Korean friends.
If you want mech to be played aggressively (such as in BW) you can't make ghosts a requirement. Instead, ghosts just further rewards the whole turtle-passive deathball "mech".
In BW Tanks were cost-effective (even in small numbers) vs Dragoons. Now ofc SC2 works a bit differnetly as a normal protoss composition will consist of Stalkers + Immortals vs tanks. To make up for Stalkers being a bit weak, Immortals should indeed be more cost-effective than Dragoons, however the current strenght of the Immortals in small isolated numbers vs Tanks is absolutely laughable and it will always force úber turtling untill that gets fixed.
IMO hardened shield just needs to get removed in the next expansion and then the Immortal should be more microable (the whole turn around, move back thing takes way too long) and should receive sligthly better stats as a compensation. This makes it less of a hard-counter and more of a strong battle-oriented unit.
Removed the shields would create more issue than it would fix. TvP isn't the only matchup to consider here.
On December 04 2013 19:14 TricksAre4Figs wrote: The fact of the matter is that you CAN beat Immortals as Terran. It just requires using Ghosts well and fodder units. This suggestion is nothing more than asking for a buff to Terran where it caters to a specific style of play, namely turtle Mech Terran. Furthermore, this change would only serve to dumb the game down by making the tank impossible to deal with on the ground. Toss players will just go straight to air and then we'll have a new thread suggesting how to change the Carrier or the Voidray because mech isn't viable against these units.
*** IMMORTALS ARE NOT THE SOLE REASON MECH IS NOT VIABLE AGAINST PROTOSS ***
You can take this Protoss nerf/Terran buff, whatever you want to call it, and it will not change the fact that Bio is the strongest form of TvP. The REASON for Bio being superior is because of HIGH MOBILITY, drop harasses and forcing skirmishes where the Terran Bio army is favored. These factors force Protoss to play very defensive. NOW VS MECH,, TOSS DO WHATEVER HE WANTS AND TAKE 3 OR 4 BASE WITHOUT MUCH WORRY,,,, AND YOU WILL LOSE TO HIM BECAUSE YOU DON'T IMPEDE HIS TECH ETC,,AND IMMORTAL WILL STILL 3 SHOT YOUR TANKS
This KIND of posting from goOby is the reason why foreign scene is pathetic and failing to catch up to our Korean friends.
If you want mech to be played aggressively (such as in BW) you can't make ghosts a requirement. Instead, ghosts just further rewards the whole turtle-passive deathball "mech".
In BW Tanks were cost-effective (even in small numbers) vs Dragoons. Now ofc SC2 works a bit differnetly as a normal protoss composition will consist of Stalkers + Immortals vs tanks. To make up for Stalkers being a bit weak, Immortals should indeed be more cost-effective than Dragoons, however the current strenght of the Immortals in small isolated numbers vs Tanks is absolutely laughable and it will always force úber turtling untill that gets fixed.
IMO hardened shield just needs to get removed in the next expansion and then the Immortal should be more microable (the whole turn around, move back thing takes way too long) and should receive sligthly better stats as a compensation. This makes it less of a hard-counter and more of a strong battle-oriented unit.
Removed the shields would create more issue than it would fix. TvP isn't the only matchup to consider here.
as far as i can remember hardened shields doesnt work against mass roach/hydra. so i dont think its an issue in zvp. So what would be the problem that will rise up ?
It blows my mind how the title of this thread says "Suggestion for a Mech tvp Buff" and almost 50% of the posts suggest the usage of ghosts.
It should be pretty obvious that just for making a single ghost, you have to invest so much gas in buildings, upgrades and the unit itself that it totally defeats the purpose of going mech in the first place.
The way hardened shields work, u need a unit with relative low base dmg and very high firerate to be cost effective against it. Such a unit is not avaible from a factory right now. Therefore i think the best way to deal with immortals as a meching player would be to churn out unupgraded marines from some reactor barracks and throw those at the immortals. At least you don't need extra tech or gas to build those, so you can bolster up your mech army.
On December 04 2013 20:54 reapsen wrote: It blows my mind how the title of this thread says "Suggestion for a Mech tvp Buff" and almost 50% of the posts suggest the usage of ghosts.
It should be pretty obvious that just for making a single ghost, you have to invest so much gas in buildings, upgrades and the unit itself that it totally defeats the purpose of going mech in the first place.
The way hardened shields work, u need a unit with relative low base dmg and very high firerate to be cost effective against it. Such a unit is not avaible from a factory right now. Therefore i think the best way to deal with immortals as a meching player would be to churn out unupgraded marines from some reactor barracks and throw those at the immortals. At least you don't need extra tech or gas to build those, so you can bolster up your mech army.
150/50 for Academy - builds in 40sec Ghosts are 200/100 - builds in 40sec Tech Lab on a Barracks 50/50 - switch out Barracks or build a new one
On December 04 2013 20:54 reapsen wrote: It blows my mind how the title of this thread says "Suggestion for a Mech tvp Buff" and almost 50% of the posts suggest the usage of ghosts.
It should be pretty obvious that just for making a single ghost, you have to invest so much gas in buildings, upgrades and the unit itself that it totally defeats the purpose of going mech in the first place.
The way hardened shields work, u need a unit with relative low base dmg and very high firerate to be cost effective against it. Such a unit is not avaible from a factory right now. Therefore i think the best way to deal with immortals as a meching player would be to churn out unupgraded marines from some reactor barracks and throw those at the immortals. At least you don't need extra tech or gas to build those, so you can bolster up your mech army.
150/50 for Academy - builds in 40sec Ghosts are 200/100 - builds in 40sec Tech Lab on a Barracks 50/50 - switch out Barracks or build a new one
wow. such macro. very gas
Yes, 100 gas for every ghost, and don't forget Moebius Reactor = 100gas and you probably want to protect your valuable ghost, so you'll want cloak, which is another 150. Maybe want to grab and +1 or +2 armor upgrade also.. hell probably even medivacs to heal them back up. Get it in your head, its a different tech route and has no synergies with mech whatsoever
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless.
Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal?
I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them.
Terrans build their counters to immortals. Its called playing bio.
Even with ghosts, Mech does not get costefficient against immortals.
It does get. The problem is not mech units itself. Withouts shields, immortals are almost useless, they die so fast.
The problem is harrash. As mech player how do you stop protoss from harrashing your base? Ye its quite hard. Another thing is that mech is slow to rebuild. Hellbat, siegetank,ghost,raven, (thor) wins protoss army when sieged. But its slow to rebuild and very bad at defending several places at the same time.
Go to a unit tester and try it... Ghost and Tank cost both nearly as much as an Immortal. for 10tanks and 5ghost (2500/1750) you get like 13immortals.
And if Immortals with 200HP "die so fast", guess what Tanks do with 160HP.
Ghostmech gets costefficient against Immortals when the armies get huge. Before that immortals completely shut you down on their own, even if you counter them as hard as you can.
How do I shut down harass? Hellions, Vikings, Turrets. It's actually not that hard if you have a little bit of experience with TvT Mech vs Bio play, Mech vs harassbased Protoss is a cakewalk.
Hellbat, siegetank,ghost,raven, (thor) wins if you get into a 200 vs 200 deathball fight with only 30scvs left and the Protoss has been reluctant to switch into VR/Carrier/Tempest of 5 bases when he maxed at 15mins and instead kept on throwing away ground units for 10mins while the Terran did this passive turtle off 3-4bases.
On December 04 2013 20:54 reapsen wrote: It blows my mind how the title of this thread says "Suggestion for a Mech tvp Buff" and almost 50% of the posts suggest the usage of ghosts.
It should be pretty obvious that just for making a single ghost, you have to invest so much gas in buildings, upgrades and the unit itself that it totally defeats the purpose of going mech in the first place.
The way hardened shields work, u need a unit with relative low base dmg and very high firerate to be cost effective against it. Such a unit is not avaible from a factory right now. Therefore i think the best way to deal with immortals as a meching player would be to churn out unupgraded marines from some reactor barracks and throw those at the immortals. At least you don't need extra tech or gas to build those, so you can bolster up your mech army.
150/50 for Academy - builds in 40sec Ghosts are 200/100 - builds in 40sec Tech Lab on a Barracks 50/50 - switch out Barracks or build a new one
wow. such macro. very gas
Yes, 100 gas for every ghost, and don't forget Moebius Reactor = 100gas and you probably want to protect your valuable ghost, so you'll want cloak, which is another 150. Maybe want to grab and +1 or +2 armor upgrade also.. hell probably even medivacs to heal them back up. Get it in your head, its a different tech route and has no synergies with mech whatsoever
So tell me this how exactly does Toss deal with Tanks post change then? Immortals would suck now. Keep in mind 5 less attacks would actually be 2.5 attack cycles (if we are to assume 2 shots are fired @ the same time). Essentially shields drop twice as fast. Colossi are already at a 2 range disadvantage vs Tanks.
That leaves Blink, Charge or Tempests. Hellbats were specifically added to counter charge-lots, Blinks meh-ish at best if there's any mines, and Tempest are utter crap since they don't have any sort of overkill prevention (10 will attack a single tank all the the same time unless mirco'd).
If Tanks were to be Buffed this way I think toss would in some way or another need a Buff too as Immortals were specifically designed by Blizzard to break up heavily fortified areas. Seeing as how Carriers are never used perhaps they could be given extra damage vs Mechanical units making them slightly more viable too.
On December 04 2013 12:47 lost_artz wrote: I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals.
When pro players "refuse" to use a certain unit that may feel like an obvious solution, theres usually plenty of reasons why they choose not to. You obviously have no idea what they are but they are there, trust me.
In cases like this its better not to act like a smartass unless you yourself can prove everyone wrong and make it work in actual games against top protosses. Can you?
It doesn't matter if I can, nor do I play Terran. I suppose we should all just go back to the days of thinking Marines can't be split vs. Banelings too. All it takes is for someone to actually TRY rather than complain about how X needs to be changed because of Y. As I've already said you have the solution try actually using it and see how that works out for you. Until then there's no need to change the game.
And what makes you think people haven't tried?
In fairness back in 2011 people were telling Terrans for ages that Ghosts were good and getting every excuse under the sun to not use them back in return. They're expensive, they're useless, do little damage, snipe is bad, EMP is bad, need too many upgrades etc etc; as well as the "its been TRIED" thing that you're doing here. Then Terrans did actually try them, in numbers more than just "token unit". And they were found to be so strong they rapidly had an EMP radius nerf dropped on them. Shortly followed by a snipe nerf when it was realised mass snipe would rip apart Broodlords.
There IS some precedent for Ghosts just not being tried properly, so I can kinda see why some people are jumping on that train
On December 04 2013 20:54 reapsen wrote: It blows my mind how the title of this thread says "Suggestion for a Mech tvp Buff" and almost 50% of the posts suggest the usage of ghosts.
It should be pretty obvious that just for making a single ghost, you have to invest so much gas in buildings, upgrades and the unit itself that it totally defeats the purpose of going mech in the first place.
The way hardened shields work, u need a unit with relative low base dmg and very high firerate to be cost effective against it. Such a unit is not avaible from a factory right now. Therefore i think the best way to deal with immortals as a meching player would be to churn out unupgraded marines from some reactor barracks and throw those at the immortals. At least you don't need extra tech or gas to build those, so you can bolster up your mech army.
150/50 for Academy - builds in 40sec Ghosts are 200/100 - builds in 40sec Tech Lab on a Barracks 50/50 - switch out Barracks or build a new one
wow. such macro. very gas
Yes, 100 gas for every ghost, and don't forget Moebius Reactor = 100gas and you probably want to protect your valuable ghost, so you'll want cloak, which is another 150. Maybe want to grab and +1 or +2 armor upgrade also.. hell probably even medivacs to heal them back up. Get it in your head, its a different tech route and has no synergies with mech whatsoever
So tell me this how exactly does Toss deal with Tanks post change then? Immortals would suck now. Keep in mind 5 less attacks would actually be 2.5 attack cycles (if we are to assume 2 shots are fired @ the same time). Essentially shields drop twice as fast. Colossi are already at a 2 range disadvantage vs Tanks.
That leaves Blink, Charge or Tempests. Hellbats were specifically added to counter charge-lots, Blinks meh-ish at best if there's any mines, and Tempest are utter crap since they don't have any sort of overkill prevention (10 will attack a single tank all the the same time unless mirco'd).
If Tanks were to be Buffed this way I think toss would in some way or another need a Buff too as Immortals were specifically designed by Blizzard to break up heavily fortified areas. Seeing as how Carriers are never used perhaps they could be given extra damage vs Mechanical units making them slightly more viable too.
You understood me wrong, good sir. I was not actually promoting the buff from the op, i was just saying that ghosts are not the solution to make mech viable in TvP. During the HotS Development Blizz has been on the right track with the initial idea of the Warhound, making him very Goliath-like. I think a Goliath-like Unit would be perfect. Too bad they screwed up hardcore and made the Warhound an OP-as-fuck-joke-Unit in the open beta and had to remove it from the game since it was broken beyond the point of fixability.
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless.
Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal?
I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them.
Terrans build their counters to immortals. Its called playing bio.
Even with ghosts, Mech does not get costefficient against immortals.
It does get. The problem is not mech units itself. Withouts shields, immortals are almost useless, they die so fast.
The problem is harrash. As mech player how do you stop protoss from harrashing your base? Ye its quite hard. Another thing is that mech is slow to rebuild. Hellbat, siegetank,ghost,raven, (thor) wins protoss army when sieged. But its slow to rebuild and very bad at defending several places at the same time.
Go to a unit tester and try it... Ghost and Tank cost both nearly as much as an Immortal. for 10tanks and 5ghost (2500/1750) you get like 13immortals.
And if Immortals with 200HP "die so fast", guess what Tanks do with 160HP.
Ghostmech gets costefficient against Immortals when the armies get huge. Before that immortals completely shut you down on their own, even if you counter them as hard as you can.
How do I shut down harass? Hellions, Vikings, Turrets. It's actually not that hard if you have a little bit of experience with TvT Mech vs Bio play, Mech vs harassbased Protoss is a cakewalk.
Hellbat, siegetank,ghost,raven, (thor) wins if you get into a 200 vs 200 deathball fight with only 30scvs left and the Protoss has been reluctant to switch into VR/Carrier/Tempest of 5 bases when he maxed at 15mins and instead kept on throwing away ground units for 10mins while the Terran did this passive turtle off 3-4bases.
Since when tempest has been counter to mech? Thor>voidray
On December 04 2013 20:54 reapsen wrote: It blows my mind how the title of this thread says "Suggestion for a Mech tvp Buff" and almost 50% of the posts suggest the usage of ghosts.
It should be pretty obvious that just for making a single ghost, you have to invest so much gas in buildings, upgrades and the unit itself that it totally defeats the purpose of going mech in the first place.
The way hardened shields work, u need a unit with relative low base dmg and very high firerate to be cost effective against it. Such a unit is not avaible from a factory right now. Therefore i think the best way to deal with immortals as a meching player would be to churn out unupgraded marines from some reactor barracks and throw those at the immortals. At least you don't need extra tech or gas to build those, so you can bolster up your mech army.
150/50 for Academy - builds in 40sec Ghosts are 200/100 - builds in 40sec Tech Lab on a Barracks 50/50 - switch out Barracks or build a new one
wow. such macro. very gas
Yes, 100 gas for every ghost, and don't forget Moebius Reactor = 100gas and you probably want to protect your valuable ghost, so you'll want cloak, which is another 150. Maybe want to grab and +1 or +2 armor upgrade also.. hell probably even medivacs to heal them back up. Get it in your head, its a different tech route and has no synergies with mech whatsoever
So tell me this how exactly does Toss deal with Tanks post change then? Immortals would suck now. Keep in mind 5 less attacks would actually be 2.5 attack cycles (if we are to assume 2 shots are fired @ the same time). Essentially shields drop twice as fast. Colossi are already at a 2 range disadvantage vs Tanks.
That leaves Blink, Charge or Tempests. Hellbats were specifically added to counter charge-lots, Blinks meh-ish at best if there's any mines, and Tempest are utter crap since they don't have any sort of overkill prevention (10 will attack a single tank all the the same time unless mirco'd).
If Tanks were to be Buffed this way I think toss would in some way or another need a Buff too as Immortals were specifically designed by Blizzard to break up heavily fortified areas. Seeing as how Carriers are never used perhaps they could be given extra damage vs Mechanical units making them slightly more viable too.
Immortals were designed with 70 dmg tanks, steps of war and 5 range. The situation is totally different now. Blizzard is already moving towards usable mech, but with small steps. In their mind hellbats and combined mechanical upgrades could just have been enough. It does not seem to be enough. Goody now just made an proposal for the next step. It is possible that at some point in the future one of this small steps is a bit too big. Blizzard will realize that and move back a bit. But we are not at this point yet. IMHO it would not be too bad if we had overpowered Turtle mech for two months and another balanced playstyle afterwards. Thats how gamebalancing works. It will always be try and error.
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless.
Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal?
I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them.
Terrans build their counters to immortals. Its called playing bio.
Even with ghosts, Mech does not get costefficient against immortals.
It does get. The problem is not mech units itself. Withouts shields, immortals are almost useless, they die so fast.
The problem is harrash. As mech player how do you stop protoss from harrashing your base? Ye its quite hard. Another thing is that mech is slow to rebuild. Hellbat, siegetank,ghost,raven, (thor) wins protoss army when sieged. But its slow to rebuild and very bad at defending several places at the same time.
Go to a unit tester and try it... Ghost and Tank cost both nearly as much as an Immortal. for 10tanks and 5ghost (2500/1750) you get like 13immortals.
And if Immortals with 200HP "die so fast", guess what Tanks do with 160HP.
Ghostmech gets costefficient against Immortals when the armies get huge. Before that immortals completely shut you down on their own, even if you counter them as hard as you can.
How do I shut down harass? Hellions, Vikings, Turrets. It's actually not that hard if you have a little bit of experience with TvT Mech vs Bio play, Mech vs harassbased Protoss is a cakewalk.
Hellbat, siegetank,ghost,raven, (thor) wins if you get into a 200 vs 200 deathball fight with only 30scvs left and the Protoss has been reluctant to switch into VR/Carrier/Tempest of 5 bases when he maxed at 15mins and instead kept on throwing away ground units for 10mins while the Terran did this passive turtle off 3-4bases.
Since when tempest has been counter to mech? Thor>voidray
Since when did I write this? I wrote "If a Terran can stay alive for 25mins to get an army that can fight Archons and Immortals, and you didn't get the tip that hardly anything of that composition can fight a reasonable airarmy which you can easily get off, since you are so far ahead economically and so safe because your stuff is so costefficient against his Mech, then yes, said army actually stands a chance against Archon/Immortal. Which does not make Mech viable against a thinking opponent."
On December 04 2013 20:54 reapsen wrote: It blows my mind how the title of this thread says "Suggestion for a Mech tvp Buff" and almost 50% of the posts suggest the usage of ghosts.
It should be pretty obvious that just for making a single ghost, you have to invest so much gas in buildings, upgrades and the unit itself that it totally defeats the purpose of going mech in the first place.
The way hardened shields work, u need a unit with relative low base dmg and very high firerate to be cost effective against it. Such a unit is not avaible from a factory right now. Therefore i think the best way to deal with immortals as a meching player would be to churn out unupgraded marines from some reactor barracks and throw those at the immortals. At least you don't need extra tech or gas to build those, so you can bolster up your mech army.
150/50 for Academy - builds in 40sec Ghosts are 200/100 - builds in 40sec Tech Lab on a Barracks 50/50 - switch out Barracks or build a new one
wow. such macro. very gas
Yes, 100 gas for every ghost, and don't forget Moebius Reactor = 100gas and you probably want to protect your valuable ghost, so you'll want cloak, which is another 150. Maybe want to grab and +1 or +2 armor upgrade also.. hell probably even medivacs to heal them back up. Get it in your head, its a different tech route and has no synergies with mech whatsoever
So tell me this how exactly does Toss deal with Tanks post change then?
Hell, everything is AMAZING vs tanks right now. With the immortal change, tanks might not get wrecked in 1 second by x amount of chargelots/immortals. Tanks are insta-shredded vs zealots/blink stalkers/archons/immortals/air with a single wrong move in any direction. On the other hand, immortals, zealots, and archons can walk INTO tank fire for a second or two and then walk away without any damage being done.
The real problem with Tanks (in both TvP and TvZ) is that they are actually terrible at defending multiple locations WITH SMALL NUMBERS. They get wrecked against equal supplies of lings/roaches/hydras/zealots/stalkers/immortals until 50/60+ supply. If they did MORE damage with a single shot AND had a slower rate of fire two things would happen. 1. Better at defending in small numbers. 2. Not as good in huge fights due to slower rate of fire and severe overkill.
So the final proposal is:
1. Double tank damage, decrease rate of fire by 1/2 2. Decrease Immortal hardened shield effect from 10 flat damage taken to something like 50% damage taken
That way TvP could consist of tank based T compositions, while P doesn't WRECK T's army instantly. Right now every P composition destroys tank based T compositions.
To follow up on what TimENT said, there's literally only one ground-based composition that P has which is universally bad against tanks (whether there are many or few), and that's non-blink stalkers. Everything else does at least ok against tanks.
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless.
Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal?
I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them.
Terrans build their counters to immortals. Its called playing bio.
Even with ghosts, Mech does not get costefficient against immortals.
It does get. The problem is not mech units itself. Withouts shields, immortals are almost useless, they die so fast.
The problem is harrash. As mech player how do you stop protoss from harrashing your base? Ye its quite hard. Another thing is that mech is slow to rebuild. Hellbat, siegetank,ghost,raven, (thor) wins protoss army when sieged. But its slow to rebuild and very bad at defending several places at the same time.
Go to a unit tester and try it... Ghost and Tank cost both nearly as much as an Immortal. for 10tanks and 5ghost (2500/1750) you get like 13immortals.
And if Immortals with 200HP "die so fast", guess what Tanks do with 160HP.
Ghostmech gets costefficient against Immortals when the armies get huge. Before that immortals completely shut you down on their own, even if you counter them as hard as you can.
How do I shut down harass? Hellions, Vikings, Turrets. It's actually not that hard if you have a little bit of experience with TvT Mech vs Bio play, Mech vs harassbased Protoss is a cakewalk.
Hellbat, siegetank,ghost,raven, (thor) wins if you get into a 200 vs 200 deathball fight with only 30scvs left and the Protoss has been reluctant to switch into VR/Carrier/Tempest of 5 bases when he maxed at 15mins and instead kept on throwing away ground units for 10mins while the Terran did this passive turtle off 3-4bases.
Since when tempest has been counter to mech? Thor>voidray
Tempests are really really good against Mech in the late game actually, similarly to how they would be used in PvZ by just adding 3-5 of them to the otherwise very specialized ground army (could be lots of immortals, archons, chargelots, mass blink stalker+colossus, whatever fits best against what the terran is doing) and restrict every movement the terran could make by being able to outrange and outmaneuver him. Also having a couple of Stargates and potentially being able to techswitch into a number of Void Rays is always neat against Mech. I think once a Protoss is in such a good economic position it gets naturally very difficult for a meching terran because a smart Protoss will always be able to find holes and good engagements in the late game and the tech switches Protoss can do as well as the warp in mechanic are pretty nasty to deal with in the lategame.
I think to make mech "viable" it should be dangerous and scary to face in the midgame, not in the lategame. Tempests being a great unit in the lategame is how they are meant to be played, it's not necessary to change that. The problem is that Mech overall is just not that great in the midgame. I don't think it's possible to narrow it down to Immortals, although they definitely play a role. Even more important in my opinion however is how differently SC2 works as a game. In SC:BW it's very hard to crack a base or attack up to high ground, so it's actually possible to defend whole bases with just a small number of tanks and clever building placements and maybe some scvs helping. In SC2 the defender's advantage is just really bad comparatively, Protoss has tons of units specialized to circumvent even the little advantage that you have in the first place (Blink Stalkers, Colossus, Immortals) and also Supply Counts work differently in SC2, in general the transition from mid to lategame is very abrupt and players just suddenly have 200/200 with almost half of the supply being workers. It almost seems like battles are designed around being fair when fought at equal supply counts, but I personally don't think that's a clever way to design an RTS. The incentive behind that might be to make the game easier to watch for new viewers and to make it "esports compatible" and easy to compare supply counts. I personally don't think it contributes to the goal of what makes the "SC:BW-style" RTS genre (I'm just saying that's a thing) so much fun to play and strategic in the first place, because to contribute to that specific goal you need diversity and less "shallowness" (for lack of a better word) in your opportunities, and the counters and interactions between units and even whole races in SC2 are pretty one-dimensional and straight-forward more often than not. (I'm exaggerating a little bit of course, but my point that depth of BW > SC2 stands)
Not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing, because it opens up a lot of opportunities for the players to get really good at showing incredibly strong army movement and map awareness skills, also a strong sense of choosing the right army engagements. These kinds of opportunities weren't always there in SC:BW because there was so much other stuff to do, also these skills are relatively easy to observe for a viewer, which creates a good opportunity for using the game as an esport and makes the viewing experience less about obscure knowledge and easier to comprehend for a new viewer.
From a game design perspective though it's always more rewarding (but also more risky) to go for maximum opportunities and interactions that you don't necessarily completely understand yourself (so you trade diversity for balance and understanding of your own game), while at the same time cutting out redundencies (for example 2 different unit types that function similarly are unnecessary) to make the game easier to understand for new players. Balance is then achieved later by a whole lot of work and just testing "what works".
I think Blizzard generally approaches their game with this mindset, but they seemed very cautious and almost hesitant to go all out on diversity in SC2 in fear of making the game imbalanced and not viable for esports. Again, not saying that this makes the game bad, but it is very hard to create such a deep and in many ways groundbreaking game like SC:BW with a cautious mindset.
Here's a nice interview with Mike Morhaime where he talks about the original Starcraft and how they approached the game design for it, interestingly he says they got a lot of inspiration for how to design it from Magic: The Gathering, a game which itself has a very viable and alive competitive scene.
I love how people say ghost ghost ghost why don't you go ghost?
Seriously even the pros don't use ghost anymore even with bio. Maru, Innovation, ForGG , Bomber they gave up on ghost in profit on only MMM because let's face it ghost are really expensive and slow your upgrades severely. Ghost are great in late game when you are already 3/3 but it's the time protoss shine. So the ftw bet is to not invest on ghost and focus on upgrades to break protoss midgame when he is a little bit vulnerable.
So now explain me how a mech player who have to invest so much gas to get units (factory cost armory cost , tanks/thor/mines/viking/banshee) can afford the 250 gas upgrade + the high gas cost of ghost + the absolute non synergy with mech upgrade. Seriously this is viable even further than the bio case! It's viable if your plan is to hard turtle for a 30 min game.
So basically going ghost with mech is saying to the protoss. NO RUSH 15 min plz. And when you go out you have mass tempest giving you a warm welcome!
Double shots for tanks has to be researched a little more, as it would make armor count twice too, so some units it would one shot would perhaps became change to 2 (well 4) shots).
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless.
Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal?
I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them.
Terrans build their counters to immortals. Its called playing bio.
Even with ghosts, Mech does not get costefficient against immortals.
It does get. The problem is not mech units itself. Withouts shields, immortals are almost useless, they die so fast.
The problem is harrash. As mech player how do you stop protoss from harrashing your base? Ye its quite hard. Another thing is that mech is slow to rebuild. Hellbat, siegetank,ghost,raven, (thor) wins protoss army when sieged. But its slow to rebuild and very bad at defending several places at the same time.
Go to a unit tester and try it... Ghost and Tank cost both nearly as much as an Immortal. for 10tanks and 5ghost (2500/1750) you get like 13immortals.
And if Immortals with 200HP "die so fast", guess what Tanks do with 160HP.
Ghostmech gets costefficient against Immortals when the armies get huge. Before that immortals completely shut you down on their own, even if you counter them as hard as you can.
How do I shut down harass? Hellions, Vikings, Turrets. It's actually not that hard if you have a little bit of experience with TvT Mech vs Bio play, Mech vs harassbased Protoss is a cakewalk.
Hellbat, siegetank,ghost,raven, (thor) wins if you get into a 200 vs 200 deathball fight with only 30scvs left and the Protoss has been reluctant to switch into VR/Carrier/Tempest of 5 bases when he maxed at 15mins and instead kept on throwing away ground units for 10mins while the Terran did this passive turtle off 3-4bases.
Since when tempest has been counter to mech? Thor>voidray
Tempests are really really good against Mech in the late game actually, similarly to how they would be used in PvZ by just adding 3-5 of them to the otherwise very specialized ground army (could be lots of immortals, archons, chargelots, mass blink stalker+colossus, whatever fits best against what the terran is doing) and restrict every movement the terran could make by being able to outrange and outmaneuver him. Also having a couple of Stargates and potentially being able to techswitch into a number of Void Rays is always neat against Mech. I think once a Protoss is in such a good economic position it gets naturally very difficult for a meching terran because a smart Protoss will always be able to find holes and good engagements in the late game and the tech switches Protoss can do as well as the warp in mechanic are pretty nasty to deal with in the lategame.
I think to make mech "viable" it should be dangerous and scary to face in the midgame, not in the lategame. Tempests being a great unit in the lategame is how they are meant to be played, it's not necessary to change that. The problem is that Mech overall is just not that great in the midgame. I don't think it's possible to narrow it down to Immortals, although they definitely play a role. Even more important in my opinion however is how differently SC2 works as a game. In SC:BW it's very hard to crack a base or attack up to high ground, so it's actually possible to defend whole bases with just a small number of tanks and clever building placements and maybe some scvs helping. In SC2 the defender's advantage is just really bad comparatively, Protoss has tons of units specialized to circumvent even the little advantage that you have in the first place (Blink Stalkers, Colossus, Immortals) and also Supply Counts work differently in SC2, in general the transition from mid to lategame is very abrupt and players just suddenly have 200/200 with almost half of the supply being workers. It almost seems like battles are designed around being fair when fought at equal supply counts, but I personally don't think that's a clever way to design an RTS. The incentive behind that might be to make the game easier to watch for new viewers and to make it "esports compatible" and easy to compare supply counts. I personally don't think it contributes to the goal of what makes the "SC:BW-style" RTS genre (I'm just saying that's a thing) so much fun to play and strategic in the first place, because to contribute to that specific goal you need diversity and less "shallowness" (for lack of a better word) in your opportunities, and the counters and interactions between units and even whole races in SC2 are pretty one-dimensional and straight-forward more often than not.
Not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing, because it opens up a lot of opportunities for the players to get really good at showing incredibly strong army movement and map awareness skills, also a strong sense of choosing the right army engagements. These kinds of opportunities weren't always there in SC:BW because there was so much other stuff to do. From a game design perspective though it's always more rewarding (but also more risky) to go for maximum opportunities and interactions that you don't necessarily completely understand yourself (so you trade diversity for balance and understanding of your own game), while at the same time cutting out redundencies (for example 2 different unit types that function similarly are unnecessary) to make the game easier to understand for new players. Balance is then achieved later by a whole lot of work and trying to be clever about how to approach changes to the ideas you implemented, which could include cutting stuff out.
I think Blizzard generally approaches their game with this mindset, but they seemed very cautious and almost hesitant to go all out on diversity in SC2 in fear of making the game imbalanced and not viable for esports. Again, not saying that this makes the game bad, but it is very hard to create such a deep and in many ways groundbreaking game like SC:BW with a cautious mindset.
Here's a nice interview with Mike Morhaime where he talks about the original Starcraft and how they approached the game design for it, interestingly he says they got a lot of inspiration for how to design it from Magic: The Gathering, a game which itself has a very viable and alive competitive scene. http://youtu.be/JEs-aA0eZ2Q?t=18s
Tempest is the worst unit that you can do vs mech. Ravens>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>tempest
Tempest is the worst unit that you can do vs mech. Ravens>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>tempest
You go HT + Tempest. IMO that's by far the best late game unit compositon vs mech.
I actually think this is where mech vs toss becomes more viable and as interesting as it can get. instead of having ghost vs ht micro. the unit composition and interaction becomes more interesting, with ghost and tanks to zone out the HTs etc
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless.
Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal?
I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them.
Terrans build their counters to immortals. Its called playing bio.
Even with ghosts, Mech does not get costefficient against immortals.
It does get. The problem is not mech units itself. Withouts shields, immortals are almost useless, they die so fast.
The problem is harrash. As mech player how do you stop protoss from harrashing your base? Ye its quite hard. Another thing is that mech is slow to rebuild. Hellbat, siegetank,ghost,raven, (thor) wins protoss army when sieged. But its slow to rebuild and very bad at defending several places at the same time.
Go to a unit tester and try it... Ghost and Tank cost both nearly as much as an Immortal. for 10tanks and 5ghost (2500/1750) you get like 13immortals.
And if Immortals with 200HP "die so fast", guess what Tanks do with 160HP.
Ghostmech gets costefficient against Immortals when the armies get huge. Before that immortals completely shut you down on their own, even if you counter them as hard as you can.
How do I shut down harass? Hellions, Vikings, Turrets. It's actually not that hard if you have a little bit of experience with TvT Mech vs Bio play, Mech vs harassbased Protoss is a cakewalk.
Hellbat, siegetank,ghost,raven, (thor) wins if you get into a 200 vs 200 deathball fight with only 30scvs left and the Protoss has been reluctant to switch into VR/Carrier/Tempest of 5 bases when he maxed at 15mins and instead kept on throwing away ground units for 10mins while the Terran did this passive turtle off 3-4bases.
Since when tempest has been counter to mech? Thor>voidray
Tempests are really really good against Mech in the late game actually, similarly to how they would be used in PvZ by just adding 3-5 of them to the otherwise very specialized ground army (could be lots of immortals, archons, chargelots, mass blink stalker+colossus, whatever fits best against what the terran is doing) and restrict every movement the terran could make by being able to outrange and outmaneuver him. Also having a couple of Stargates and potentially being able to techswitch into a number of Void Rays is always neat against Mech. I think once a Protoss is in such a good economic position it gets naturally very difficult for a meching terran because a smart Protoss will always be able to find holes and good engagements in the late game and the tech switches Protoss can do as well as the warp in mechanic are pretty nasty to deal with in the lategame.
I think to make mech "viable" it should be dangerous and scary to face in the midgame, not in the lategame. Tempests being a great unit in the lategame is how they are meant to be played, it's not necessary to change that. The problem is that Mech overall is just not that great in the midgame. I don't think it's possible to narrow it down to Immortals, although they definitely play a role. Even more important in my opinion however is how differently SC2 works as a game. In SC:BW it's very hard to crack a base or attack up to high ground, so it's actually possible to defend whole bases with just a small number of tanks and clever building placements and maybe some scvs helping. In SC2 the defender's advantage is just really bad comparatively, Protoss has tons of units specialized to circumvent even the little advantage that you have in the first place (Blink Stalkers, Colossus, Immortals) and also Supply Counts work differently in SC2, in general the transition from mid to lategame is very abrupt and players just suddenly have 200/200 with almost half of the supply being workers. It almost seems like battles are designed around being fair when fought at equal supply counts, but I personally don't think that's a clever way to design an RTS. The incentive behind that might be to make the game easier to watch for new viewers and to make it "esports compatible" and easy to compare supply counts. I personally don't think it contributes to the goal of what makes the "SC:BW-style" RTS genre (I'm just saying that's a thing) so much fun to play and strategic in the first place, because to contribute to that specific goal you need diversity and less "shallowness" (for lack of a better word) in your opportunities, and the counters and interactions between units and even whole races in SC2 are pretty one-dimensional and straight-forward more often than not.
Not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing, because it opens up a lot of opportunities for the players to get really good at showing incredibly strong army movement and map awareness skills, also a strong sense of choosing the right army engagements. These kinds of opportunities weren't always there in SC:BW because there was so much other stuff to do. From a game design perspective though it's always more rewarding (but also more risky) to go for maximum opportunities and interactions that you don't necessarily completely understand yourself (so you trade diversity for balance and understanding of your own game), while at the same time cutting out redundencies (for example 2 different unit types that function similarly are unnecessary) to make the game easier to understand for new players. Balance is then achieved later by a whole lot of work and trying to be clever about how to approach changes to the ideas you implemented, which could include cutting stuff out.
I think Blizzard generally approaches their game with this mindset, but they seemed very cautious and almost hesitant to go all out on diversity in SC2 in fear of making the game imbalanced and not viable for esports. Again, not saying that this makes the game bad, but it is very hard to create such a deep and in many ways groundbreaking game like SC:BW with a cautious mindset.
Here's a nice interview with Mike Morhaime where he talks about the original Starcraft and how they approached the game design for it, interestingly he says they got a lot of inspiration for how to design it from Magic: The Gathering, a game which itself has a very viable and alive competitive scene. http://youtu.be/JEs-aA0eZ2Q?t=18s
Tempest is the worst unit that you can do vs mech. Ravens>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>tempest
PDDs are indeed really strong against Tempests so you might be right, I didn't think about that.
HTs are also incredibly strong against Ravens though (if you want to use the Ravens offensively), so I'm not sure how that scenario would play out in practice, investing a lot of gas into more than 2 or 3 Ravens is the Terran shouting into the world that he wants to go into ultra lategame and turtle for 20 more minutes, and at that point Protoss should just take 3 more bases and build 5 Robos and 5 Stargates for techswitching purposes and delay every new expansion that the terran wants to take as much as possible and be deliberate about what kind of engagement he wants to take.
My idea about Tempests being strong is in a 2-4 base scenario where Terran is mainly utilizing pure Factory tech with Ghosts and situationally adding Vikings if there is Stargate tech. Everything beyond that can't easily be mapped out in a strategic way in my opinion because it is like really lategame on 5+ bases where anything can happen, usually great players don't let their opponents turtle for 45 minutes to build up their dream composition.
That said, there is of course a possibility that there is a viable play for 3-4 base armies that incorporate Ravens and Ravens are very strong against Tempests which is a good point.
To whoever said it, I actually like the idea of buffing carriers against mech while accepting an immortal nerf. The logistics of that I'm not sure, but I'm down for making mech more powerful early on while buffing carriers. Especially now that we have combined mech/air upgrades, carriers won't dominate when they come out since vikings will be upgrading as well
On December 04 2013 23:50 klup wrote: I love how people say ghost ghost ghost why don't you go ghost?
Seriously even the pros don't use ghost anymore even with bio. Maru, Innovation, ForGG , Bomber they gave up on ghost in profit on only MMM because let's face it ghost are really expensive and slow your upgrades severely. Ghost are great in late game when you are already 3/3 but it's the time protoss shine. So the ftw bet is to not invest on ghost and focus on upgrades to break protoss midgame when he is a little bit vulnerable.
So now explain me how a mech player who have to invest so much gas to get units (factory cost armory cost , tanks/thor/mines/viking/banshee) can afford the 250 gas upgrade + the high gas cost of ghost + the absolute non synergy with mech upgrade. Seriously this is viable even further than the bio case! It's viable if your plan is to hard turtle for a 30 min game.
So basically going ghost with mech is saying to the protoss. NO RUSH 15 min plz. And when you go out you have mass tempest giving you a warm welcome!
Pretty much spot on. I saw avilo play yesterday and he went for mech-ghost composition, but it resulted in insanely long games because you simply do not have the choice. The composition is not viable unless you are getting gas from 4 bases. Smart protosses won't let you do that easily.
Why build ghoststo support tanks when building ghosts to support bio is stronger?
EMP is good in a straight up big fight. You don't split off 2-3 tanks with 2-3 ghosts to defend a choke since you'd just be throwin away 675 gas worth of units. When you go ghosts you clump them with your army and attack. But they move better with bio as the core than with mech.
Aww, you poor terrans can no longer go pure factory against gate/robo/stargate comps like you did in BW. Here's a tissue. You actually have to make a few ghosts/marines(which come out of the barracks) and/or a few ravens(which comes out of the starport). You've got it so rough. Here's another tissue.
Immortals are fine and doing what they're supposed to do. Sorry.
On December 05 2013 01:19 Phoenix2003 wrote: Aww, you poor terrans can no longer go pure factory against gate/robo/stargate comps like you did in BW. Here's a tissue. You actually have to make a few ghosts/marines(which come out of the barracks) and/or a few ravens(which comes out of the starport). You've got it so rough. Here's another tissue.
Immortals are fine and doing what they're supposed to do. Sorry.
Sorry but no, thanks for trying tho. Btw, what's the point of going mech if you should add marines and ghosts ? It's not like our race has all ground unit upgrade mixed, from colossus to zealot.
On December 05 2013 01:23 m0ck wrote: Isn't mech inevitably just "try-to-do-early-eco-damage-then-turtle-to-max-and-push"? Not very exciting.
sry for the short answer, but why?
I mean, every race has ultimate compositions, yet only rarely we see gameplay based upon only waiting for them. And basically everytime we do it is because the other options are kind of weak.
That is basically the reason why everybody asks for the Immortal to be weaker against Mech. It's not that a theoretical Mechball can't counter a theoretical Immortalbased-one. It is because the Immortal dominates Mech too hard in the midgame, so that you are left with turtling as the only semi-working option. Meanwhile the Protoss can turtle on said ball and still has a good chance to win the deathball battle. He can outexpand you. He can just go air the moment he scouts Mech. He can do various timings against your turtling and be successful. While you sit there and ask yourself if a 12min 3rd taken with a PF isn't too risky, since you can only take on the Protoss army in the most extreme defensive positions and the particular main/natural/third setup may not be defensive enough against certain busts.
Too many people ITT want pure hard counters in SC2 :/
Immortals hard counter certain units and suck against others. Boring unit. Corruptors hard counter certain units and suck against others. Boring unit. Vikings hard counter certain units and suck against other units. Boring unit. Tempests hard counter certain units, while being mediocre versus other units. That mediocrity is where they become interesting. I'd much rather watch Tempests attack and maneuver against Corruptors and mutalisks than just straight up RAPING brood lords.
This is where TvP mech sucks ass. Tanks get hard countered too quickly and easily. It's boring as fuck to watch the terran unsiege for a split second and then instantly die to immortals, chargelots, and archons. And the only counter to this is to build a hard counter (the ghost) which swings the battle in the exact opposite direction. 3 EMPs go off and the archons and immortals are dead in one second. This instant death problem is why I don't really like SC2 Protoss matches at the moment. Also, it's why I can't stand ghosts vs P.
Too much hard countering in SC2 and too many battles over in 2 seconds :/
On December 05 2013 01:19 Phoenix2003 wrote: Aww, you poor terrans can no longer go pure factory against gate/robo/stargate comps like you did in BW. Here's a tissue. You actually have to make a few ghosts/marines(which come out of the barracks) and/or a few ravens(which comes out of the starport). You've got it so rough. Here's another tissue.
Immortals are fine and doing what they're supposed to do. Sorry.
When people ask for "mech" they are not asking for Factory only units, they are asking for an ability to hold 4-6 screenlengths worth of terrain with the drawback of immobility.
Ghosts casting EMP is only useful against large clumps of army units or for disabling support units that only follow main army units around. In other words, Ghosts solve large army fights. That is not what is being discussed.
Goody is suggesting a work around to the hardened shield problem that isn't about giving a "shield piercing upgrade" nor does it ask for a nerf to the immortal.
Its asking for the attack to register as 2 shells landing instead of 1 shell landing. It would mean that hardened shields would take 20 damage per hit instead of 10 damage per hit. Which means that instead of cutting tank damage by 80%, tank damage is only mitigated by 60%
Goody's suggested change does not require nerfing immortals, and is actually asking for tanks to be nerfed in order to get through hardened shields.
If implemented, +3 armor zealots reduces damage by 6 not counting the fact that tanks only deal high damage to armored units.
On December 04 2013 16:44 KaizoOnFire wrote: i would say we also buff skytoss because its completely trash vs. bio
Sky toss will never work anyways since you dont have a cheap mineral fodder. Mech is on the rope of working and it just need an extra push. It also distinctively different style from bio so if mech is viable without affecting bio then it good for the over all game for making the game more diverse. Think of mech as a race rather than some sort of unit composition because it play completely different from traditional bio and other race act completely different against it. Will skytoss be different from traditional protoss deathball? No, it will probably just be another slow deathball unit composition like collosus/HT because the core unit in sky toss are slow and therefore offer no real difference from traditional protoss. Making mech work is good for the overall game by making the game more different. And guess what, sky toss is actually pretty good against mech and could be a possible future meta if mech is viable.
why would you see it as a race? its just a techtree which has pros and cons just like everyething else. either you commit to it or not you can play mech vs. terran and zerg and usually not vs. protoss just like you can play skytoss vs. toss and zerg but not vs. bio. why should they buff it even more, just play bio then in that matchup. i've never seen anyone playing skytoss vs. bio and there are reasons for it btw, saying you can play skytoss vs mech is like saying you can play baneling vs. marines lol, like i said, all has pros and cons, thats the funny part of the game :-)
Mech should be considered a race because of how distinctively different it is from bio. Also transitioning out of mech to bio is almost impossible and generally there no reason to do. So once you commit to mech you are going to stick to mech. Same goes for bio. That is why mech could be considered a different race. The terran race is the only race that has the capability of doing this and it is not being utilized. There are pro and cons but mech is the most immobile unit composition and the pro does not out weight the con. They should buff it cause TvP been the exact same thing for 5 years and it in need of serious diversity.
Skytoss vs mech is nothing like baneling vs marine.
On December 04 2013 16:44 KaizoOnFire wrote: i would say we also buff skytoss because its completely trash vs. bio
Sky toss will never work anyways since you dont have a cheap mineral fodder. Mech is on the rope of working and it just need an extra push. It also distinctively different style from bio so if mech is viable without affecting bio then it good for the over all game for making the game more diverse. Think of mech as a race rather than some sort of unit composition because it play completely different from traditional bio and other race act completely different against it. Will skytoss be different from traditional protoss deathball? No, it will probably just be another slow deathball unit composition like collosus/HT because the core unit in sky toss are slow and therefore offer no real difference from traditional protoss. Making mech work is good for the overall game by making the game more different. And guess what, sky toss is actually pretty good against mech and could be a possible future meta if mech is viable.
why would you see it as a race? its just a techtree which has pros and cons just like everyething else. either you commit to it or not you can play mech vs. terran and zerg and usually not vs. protoss just like you can play skytoss vs. toss and zerg but not vs. bio. why should they buff it even more, just play bio then in that matchup. i've never seen anyone playing skytoss vs. bio and there are reasons for it btw, saying you can play skytoss vs mech is like saying you can play baneling vs. marines lol, like i said, all has pros and cons, thats the funny part of the game :-)
Mech should be considered a race because of how distinctively different it is from bio. Also transitioning out of mech to bio is almost impossible and generally there no reason to do. So once you commit to mech you are going to stick to mech. Same goes for bio. That is why mech could be considered a different race. The terran race is the only race that has the capability of doing this and it is not being utilized. There are pro and cons but mech is the most immobile unit composition and the pro does not out weight the con. They should buff it cause TvP been the exact same thing for 5 years and it in need of serious diversity.
Skytoss vs mech is nothing like baneling vs marine.
It's not a race, it's a techtree. And it contains units that are really unuseful, which should change. And skytoss vs bio is an issue of its own, though Protoss air units are quite more viable vs Terran than Terran Mech units vs protoss. (e.g. Oracle and VR rushes, Phoenixes as dropdefense or in the Phoenix/Colossus builds; Tempests in the very lategame)
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless.
Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal?
I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them.
Show me an example of a pro game where adding ghosts made mech win.
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless.
Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal?
I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them.
Show me an example of a pro game where adding ghosts made mech win.
Easier said than done.. The mech TvP victories I can actually remember from pro games are either:
1) Constant hellbat drops pre-nerf 2) A massive tank/hellbat timing on 2 or 3 base that ends the game.
right now u need 10 tank shots to get rid of the shields and then 4 more for the 200 hitpoints
Or you could just EMP the immortals to remove the shields on the immortals, or any other protoss unit for that matter. EMP also has the added bonus of being able to make sentries, HT, DTs and archons useless.
Toss players get immortals to counter your tanks, rather then ask for a patch to fix your problem, why don't you get something that counters the immortal?
I feel people need to play differently to do better rather then everyone asking for different changes to suit them.
Show me an example of a pro game where adding ghosts made mech win.
Thorzain vs HasuObs first game of their match in the last Homestory Cup group phase.
That game has like no meaning though since HasuObs completely misplayed almost everything in that game (and it still took a while for Thorzain to win). That game is probably a good example of why not to use Mech sadly.
On December 04 2013 12:47 lost_artz wrote: I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals.
you must be some sort of dense.
If that was the solution, we would see it at high level play. News flash- that is not the solution.
Mech is very gas expensive. Just setting up the production cost so much. 1. Factory, 125 Gas with tech lab, 150 with reactor. 2. Armouries, 100 Gas each. 3. Upgrades 200 Gas for 1/1 4. Units 125 Gas for each tank 5. Ghosts 100 Gas each
So Ghosts are a must have but you can not afford to get them in time.
Making armouries or factories cost less gas would probably be the best way of helping mech without making it OP.
Jeah, it just takes to much time, if u want fax, upgrades, some mech army, ghosts, expos, some air etc, then you lose every timing for an early push and the toss has all the time to just go to air
and on top the ghost habe no upgrades, so they dont add a lot in a fight and die quickly to everything and if u want emps for a hole immortal archon army, you need a lot of them, so thats cuts into your real mech army sup, so if toss has some air and u need ghost and vikings your real army is tiny and the smaller a mech army is the weaker it gets.
and for the pdds, i dont think they are rly good vs tempest, first off all mass raven is mass gas and you dont need the tempest for the dps, but to force the terran player to push into storm and vikings die fast to storm, so with mass pdd u can delay the dmg you get, but at one point u still have to push into the toss army and u cant rly use the raven for hsm, because of the feedbacks
On December 05 2013 06:09 MockHamill wrote: You can not get Ghosts when you need them.
Mech is very gas expensive. Just setting up the production cost so much. 1. Factory, 125 Gas with tech lab, 150 with reactor. 2. Armouries, 100 Gas each. 3. Upgrades 200 Gas for 1/1 4. Units 125 Gas for each tank 5. Ghosts 100 Gas each
So Ghosts are a must have but you can not afford to get them in time.
Making armouries or factories cost less gas would probably be the best way of helping mech without making it OP.
Also,
If tanks can't split up because immortals, adding ghosts will not help them be able to split up.
I don't play T and might say something silly but, would it be possible to buff tanks unsieged weapon? It's rarely useful the way it is, and it could make sense that when not in siege/aoe mode, the tank's weapon would be a sort of "perforating shell" that goes through (a part of) shields.
On December 05 2013 06:34 eXdeath wrote: I don't play T and might say something silly but, would it be possible to buff tanks unsieged weapon? It's rarely useful the way it is, and it could make sense that when not in siege/aoe mode, the tank's weapon would be a sort of "perforating shell" that goes through (a part of) shields.
It currently deals more DPS than siege mode due to high attack speed, just no splash.
On December 05 2013 06:34 eXdeath wrote: I don't play T and might say something silly but, would it be possible to buff tanks unsieged weapon? It's rarely useful the way it is, and it could make sense that when not in siege/aoe mode, the tank's weapon would be a sort of "perforating shell" that goes through (a part of) shields.
Can't see it being useful. You can't siege mid-fight; the tanks die too fast, and any other role it could fulfill in an army (high single target damage, anti-shields, anti-caster, anti-stalker, anti-anything, really) will be done better by different terran unit or siege mode. Besides, the siege tank is supposed to have a crap unsieged mode. Siege mode was supposed to be the main form of damage and was designed to allow the tank to be incredibly powerful but still balanced by gimping it's mobility. Making unsieged mode useful outside of very niche situations would defeat the point of having a unit like the siege tank.
Awhile ago i did some testing in the unit tester with various mech armies against toss. The difference between siege mode and unsieged ones in bigger a-click battles is actually not that big. Fighting without siege mode is often better then a late siege mode usage. Toss armies more or less split automatically because of charge and different range on various units. This applies especially to Chargelot, archon, immortal colossus. On top of that all those units except the chargelots are rather big, and siegetanks also do friendly fire. The result is that the splash damage is far less effective then in other confrontations. Tanks are only really good against two toss units: HTs and sentries aka slow low HP units that are often used in groups.
On December 05 2013 17:02 submarine wrote: Awhile ago i did some testing in the unit tester with various mech armies against toss. The difference between siege mode and unsieged ones in bigger a-click battles is actually not that big. Fighting without siege mode is often better then a late siege mode usage. Toss armies more or less split automatically because of charge and different range on various units. This applies especially to Chargelot, archon, immortal colossus. On top of that all those units except the chargelots are rather big, and siegetanks also do friendly fire. The result is that the splash damage is far less effective then in other confrontations. Tanks are only really good against two toss units: HTs and sentries aka slow low HP units that are often used in groups.
but the extra range of a sieged up tanks would help you to zone out key units like HTs
On December 05 2013 17:02 submarine wrote: Awhile ago i did some testing in the unit tester with various mech armies against toss. The difference between siege mode and unsieged ones in bigger a-click battles is actually not that big. Fighting without siege mode is often better then a late siege mode usage. Toss armies more or less split automatically because of charge and different range on various units. This applies especially to Chargelot, archon, immortal colossus. On top of that all those units except the chargelots are rather big, and siegetanks also do friendly fire. The result is that the splash damage is far less effective then in other confrontations. Tanks are only really good against two toss units: HTs and sentries aka slow low HP units that are often used in groups.
but the extra range of a sieged up tanks would help you to zone out key units like HTs
siege tanks in siege mode only deal more damage zero seconds into the fight when they deal high front loaded damage. They have better DPS in tank mode.
I think that best modification would be if tanks did some kind of bonus damage to shields, or at least hardened shield to make immortal less of a hard counter. 4 shots for immortal to kill the tank vs. 14 shots for tank to kill an immortal is just way too much.
The best thing is, it doesn't affect other matchups at all. It is not really new idea so I don't understand why Blizzard never tried that in some balance test map.
I think the best modification would be if tanks shot two shells instead of one, and had a cheap upgrade called:
"Piercing Shells: This unit ignores 45/50/55/60 percent of the target's armor, scaling with Vehicle Attack upgrades."
That way, the tank will still do the same damage to everything else (at +1 attack, at least), and it will only do double damage to the Immortal. However, it doesn't have the inelegance of adding an upgrade that explicitly only affects one unit, like "This unit ignores Hardened Shields."
I think this would be a more elegant way to implement an anti-Immortal attack.
On December 05 2013 06:34 eXdeath wrote: I don't play T and might say something silly but, would it be possible to buff tanks unsieged weapon? It's rarely useful the way it is, and it could make sense that when not in siege/aoe mode, the tank's weapon would be a sort of "perforating shell" that goes through (a part of) shields.
I think the way to make Tank Hellbat better in TvP is to make Hellbats better when they are used in conjunction with Tanks. When you compare the hellbat with the meatshields of the other races you see that once again the terran unit has the least HP and the highest damage potential due to splash: Roach: 145 HP; 1 A; 8+1 DPS Berserker: 100+50 HP; 1 A; 13.3+1.7 DPS Hellbat: 135 HP; 0 A; 9+1 DPS+Splash What i would like to try is a Hellbat that has more HP and less DPS with a split attack to softcounter the hardened shield ability, similar to goodys proposal. This would allow tanks to get of more shots while the hellbats tank damage. It would be even more important to keep the hellbats between your tanks and the opponent. Flanking tanks would play an even bigger role. If you really wanna hardcode a hellbat-tank synergy into the game you could also make hellbats immune to friendly splash damage from siege tanks.
Another rather blunt way to make tanks useful against toss would be s straight bonus damage against shields. That way they would actually be decent against toss units in general, while immortals remain a very strong counter. In the end i would like to see both, a tank buff and a hellion adjustment. Mech TvP could be really interesting if mech actually had the upper hand in direct army confrontations between ground units. Toss has all the right tools to abuse the drawbacks of a slow immobile, hard to rebuild mechanical army. Sadly toss does not have to abuse the weaknesses because mech does not even have real strengths. The only time mech armys trade rather well with toss is when they are sieged up in a defensive position. Guess what, bio trades at least as well in these kind of situations, and bio is actually able to capitalize after one-sided fights.
On December 04 2013 12:47 lost_artz wrote: I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals.
you must be some sort of dense.
If that was the solution, we would see it at high level play. News flash- that is not the solution.
See this kind of mentality is utterly absurd. Just because you don't see something RIGHT NOW at high levels doesn't mean its not viable. It just means the game isn't figured out fully.
We didn't see Ghosts for ages in 2011 until Terrans finally "got around" to trying them out (after insisting for months they were terrible). They were immediately nerfed because they were far too good.
Zerg didn't start off using Broodlord Infestor every single game in WoL despite the fact it proved to be "the solution" to winning lategame as Zerg. That developed over a long period of time.
Protoss didn't magically just know that a great way to deal with the aforementioned Broodlord Infestor is to mass up a bunch of sentries and immortals and go for the throat before Zerg ever gets there.
There's a ton of other things. Hell, every single build in the game can be classified this way because they had to be designed and refined. But the point is that if you honestly believe that "its never been done successfully before so its crap" is true then I bet you're still confused why every PvP didn't stay as 4-gate vs 4-gate.
I mean I'm not saying any particular thing is viable; but your argument against it is utterly absurd.
On December 05 2013 19:55 AxiomBlurr wrote: I think the best way to improve mech v P is to remove energy from banshees - (if you research cloak,,,they have energy)....
Wouldn't that make cloak somewhat redundant? Who would research cloak THEN wait for his banshee to amass energy just to for the ability to cloak? That upgrade is already rarely used as it is.
On December 04 2013 12:47 lost_artz wrote: I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals.
you must be some sort of dense.
If that was the solution, we would see it at high level play. News flash- that is not the solution.
See this kind of mentality is utterly absurd. Just because you don't see something RIGHT NOW at high levels doesn't mean its not viable. It just means the game isn't figured out fully.
We didn't see Ghosts for ages in 2011 until Terrans finally "got around" to trying them out (after insisting for months they were terrible). They were immediately nerfed because they were far too good.
Zerg didn't start off using Broodlord Infestor every single game in WoL despite the fact it proved to be "the solution" to winning lategame as Zerg. That developed over a long period of time.
Protoss didn't magically just know that a great way to deal with the aforementioned Broodlord Infestor is to mass up a bunch of sentries and immortals and go for the throat before Zerg ever gets there.
There's a ton of other things. Hell, every single build in the game can be classified this way because they had to be designed and refined. But the point is that if you honestly believe that "its never been done successfully before so its crap" is true then I bet you're still confused why every PvP didn't stay as 4-gate vs 4-gate.
I mean I'm not saying any particular thing is viable; but your argument against it is utterly absurd.
No, he is right, just adding ghosts into the mech army isn't the solution.
What you fail to acknowledge are two things. First in 2011 the game WAS still being figured out. Right now it is like 90% figured out, the only new things to discover are maybe some map specific nuances. The great big difference between 2011 and now is that back then, not only was the game being patched very often (compared to now), but the map pool was also changing dramatically, thus it took a long time for people to learn how to play properly. It also took time for us to develop an idea of what kind of meta game we see.
Secondly, there is a very good reason you don't see a strategy RIGHT NOW, and its because it really doesn't work. You fail to take into account the fact that there are hundreds of pro gamers, a lot of which are Korean, which grind at 40+ games per day, that talk to each other on a daily basis trying to figure out the best way to play the game. If mech was even remotely viable in some way then you'd have seen it by now.
Even the great king of mech, Mvp abandoned it long ago in HoTS, why? Because trough practice and repetition with his team mates and on ladder, trough talking to his team mates and maybe other terrans he figured that it really just doesn't work. Its the same process repeated hundreds more times by other pro gamers. I bet they also repeat the process every time each new patch or new map pool, still no mech.
And now before you contest my point about game being figured out with some silly argument, I also want to point out that, in a lot of match ups you can basically make a list off all the openings, all the variations of the mid game and all mid to late game compositions and strategies. Literally every game follows a certain set off strategies with very tiny variations depending on the execution of both players, the scouting and the maps. And if you still want to refute my argument based on the fact that it took longer to figure out BW, then I'll have to also point out to you that, in BW we had way fewer pro gamers then in SC2, in BW replayes weren't as easily shared and in BW we had far less tournaments per year.
The combination of so many pro gamers playing, sharing and having access to so much information, coupled with the huge number of tournaments and the relatively stable map pool leads to this current situation where you can figure out the game in about 9 months, give or take.
Edit: I will however say that, if the map pool is changed significantly or if the races receive some changes, then the meta can also change and evolve. But, logically, that means that the game transitioned from a state where it WAS FIGURED OUT, aka known map pools and races, to a state where things need to be figured out to come to the optimal way to play. Make no mistake, the game is, in essence, figured out now, its just up to Blizzard now to either change the races in some way or change the map pool in such a way as to produce the desired changes, aka to change the game into a state of unknown.
What about messing with the Ravens cost something like 150/150? HSM ignore Hardened Shield and their utility is pretty good against protoss too -- they make Tempest utterly useless.
On December 05 2013 20:16 Jek wrote: What about messing with the Ravens cost something like 150/150? HSM ignore Hardened Shield and their utility is pretty good against protoss too -- they make Tempest utterly useless.
I think ghosts going more mineral / less gas was a mistake and would not like to see it happen to ravens too (I'd actually like to see ghosts changed back to 150/150 - although it still seems expensive compared to templar).
On December 05 2013 20:16 Jek wrote: What about messing with the Ravens cost something like 150/150? HSM ignore Hardened Shield and their utility is pretty good against protoss too -- they make Tempest utterly useless.
Feedback says hi, and you can still get out of range of HSM.
On December 05 2013 20:16 Jek wrote: What about messing with the Ravens cost something like 150/150? HSM ignore Hardened Shield and their utility is pretty good against protoss too -- they make Tempest utterly useless.
Feedback says hi, and you can still get out of range of HSM.
Wouldn't the Templars be decimated by tanks before they get into feedback range? It's not like you'd suicide your Raven into their army unless it's a winning position.
On December 05 2013 20:16 Jek wrote: What about messing with the Ravens cost something like 150/150? HSM ignore Hardened Shield and their utility is pretty good against protoss too -- they make Tempest utterly useless.
Feedback says hi, and you can still get out of range of HSM.
Wouldn't the Templars be decimated by tanks before they get into feedback range? It's not like you'd suicide your Raven into their army unless it's a winning position.
Well firstly, to make sure Ravens do enough damage you need a lot of them, secondly to make sure they do damage you actually do need to get them into suicide range. Lastly, even assuming the ridiculous presumption that you can slow siege your way forward against a protoss, how the hell are you going to have enough gas to afford tanks, ravens and thors? Edit: And possibly Vikings too.
See this is the problem, you all just are looking at things in a vacuum and aren't trying hard enough to comprehend all the implications of everything.
On December 05 2013 20:16 Jek wrote: What about messing with the Ravens cost something like 150/150? HSM ignore Hardened Shield and their utility is pretty good against protoss too -- they make Tempest utterly useless.
Feedback says hi, and you can still get out of range of HSM.
Wouldn't the Templars be decimated by tanks before they get into feedback range? It's not like you'd suicide your Raven into their army unless it's a winning position.
Well firstly, to make sure Ravens do enough damage you need a lot of them, secondly to make sure they do damage you actually do need to get them into suicide range. Lastly, even assuming the ridiculous presumption that you can slow siege your way forward against a protoss, how the hell are you going to have enough gas to afford tanks, ravens and thors? Edit: And possibly Vikings too.
See this is the problem, you all just are looking at things in a vacuum and aren't trying hard enough to comprehend all the implications of everything.
Can't really say I have any counter-argument.
But hypothecially speaking, couldn't Ravens be used instead of Vikings and allow you to have less Thors? Ravens are pretty good anti-air against Protoss, and their auto-towers make fine buffers for your tanks/hellbats against Zealots and Archons.
Ravens, have been working out pretty well for me. But I turtle to 3/3 mech and I'm only in gold/looow plat MMR so I'd imagine this is too gimmicky to be allowed when you and your opponent are actually skilled at controling units and multi-tasking.
But I completely understand your arguments. Possible in low levels, impossible in high levels I'd assume. Sadly; Ravens are the most funny terran unit in my opinion. Nothing is more satisfying than finally "out AoE" a Protoss.
Right now Ravens aren´t the solution: HSM have too low range to be useful (its easy to lose a raven trying to use the HSM) and sometimes its easy to dodge. If you change the range and/or the damage of the HSM it will affect the general balance.
Maybe a quick fix could be giving to the pont defense drone the hability to stop Inmortal´s attacks.
Have someone tested the double tank shoot on a custom map?
On December 05 2013 19:55 AxiomBlurr wrote: I think the best way to improve mech v P is to remove energy from banshees - (if you research cloak,,,they have energy)....
Wouldn't that make cloak somewhat redundant? Who would research cloak THEN wait for his banshee to amass energy just to for the ability to cloak? That upgrade is already rarely used as it is.
Reminds me of the early stage HotS Ghost change which cloak no longer costs energy but instead a cooldown and duration based ability.
On December 05 2013 20:16 Jek wrote: What about messing with the Ravens cost something like 150/150? HSM ignore Hardened Shield and their utility is pretty good against protoss too -- they make Tempest utterly useless.
Feedback says hi, and you can still get out of range of HSM.
Wouldn't the Templars be decimated by tanks before they get into feedback range? It's not like you'd suicide your Raven into their army unless it's a winning position.
Well firstly, to make sure Ravens do enough damage you need a lot of them, secondly to make sure they do damage you actually do need to get them into suicide range. Lastly, even assuming the ridiculous presumption that you can slow siege your way forward against a protoss, how the hell are you going to have enough gas to afford tanks, ravens and thors? Edit: And possibly Vikings too.
See this is the problem, you all just are looking at things in a vacuum and aren't trying hard enough to comprehend all the implications of everything.
Can't really say I have any counter-argument.
But hypothecially speaking, couldn't Ravens be used instead of Vikings and allow you to have less Thors? Ravens are pretty good anti-air against Protoss, and their auto-towers make fine buffers for your tanks/hellbats against Zealots and Archons.
Ravens, have been working out pretty well for me. But I turtle to 3/3 mech and I'm only in gold/looow plat MMR so I'd imagine this is too gimmicky to be allowed when you and your opponent are actually skilled at controling units and multi-tasking.
But I completely understand your arguments. Possible in low levels, impossible in high levels I'd assume. Sadly; Ravens are the most funny terran unit in my opinion. Nothing is more satisfying than finally "out AoE" a Protoss.
Problem with auto-turrets being used to soak is, they are buildings, so they need clear ground to be placed, and they have a low deploy range, so the Ravens, again, need to get dangerously close to plop them down. And Ravens are a complement to the army, you can't use them to replace Vikings and Thors, at least not to the extent it would be cost efficient.
I think actually, a better solution might be, make terran add-ons or buildings or both, a bit cheaper gas wise. Right now it takes a long time and it costs a lot to set up terran infrastructure and it also makes the race very inflexible. And in particular for mech, it costs so, so much to get both the infrastructure and the units to be safe. To put it into perspective, you need 5 factories, and probably 2 SP, 3 reactors, 4 TLs, a ghost academy (if you want to incorporate ghosts), 2 armories, and also the essential upgrades like blue flame, moebius and cloak. Not to mention also the time it takes to set it all up.
Even protoss, which is supposed to be a very gas heavy race, doesn't have to dump so much of it into upgrades and infrastructure as a meching terran has to.
On December 05 2013 20:48 drkcid wrote: Right now Ravens aren´t the solution: HSM have too low range to be useful (its easy to lose a raven trying to use the HSM) and sometimes its easy to dodge. If you change the range and/or the damage of the HSM it will affect the general balance.
Maybe a quick fix could be giving to the pont defense drone the hability to stop Inmortal´s attacks.
Have someone tested the double tank shoot on a custom map?
i really like that idea make pdds stop immortal shots. i mean feedback and alot of gas for ravens still would suck but i like that idea just wish blizz would do something about mech tvp or just protoss in general
On December 04 2013 12:47 lost_artz wrote: I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals.
you must be some sort of dense.
If that was the solution, we would see it at high level play. News flash- that is not the solution.
See this kind of mentality is utterly absurd. Just because you don't see something RIGHT NOW at high levels doesn't mean its not viable. It just means the game isn't figured out fully.
We didn't see Ghosts for ages in 2011 until Terrans finally "got around" to trying them out (after insisting for months they were terrible). They were immediately nerfed because they were far too good.
Zerg didn't start off using Broodlord Infestor every single game in WoL despite the fact it proved to be "the solution" to winning lategame as Zerg. That developed over a long period of time.
Protoss didn't magically just know that a great way to deal with the aforementioned Broodlord Infestor is to mass up a bunch of sentries and immortals and go for the throat before Zerg ever gets there.
There's a ton of other things. Hell, every single build in the game can be classified this way because they had to be designed and refined. But the point is that if you honestly believe that "its never been done successfully before so its crap" is true then I bet you're still confused why every PvP didn't stay as 4-gate vs 4-gate.
I mean I'm not saying any particular thing is viable; but your argument against it is utterly absurd.
No, he is right, just adding ghosts into the mech army isn't the solution.
What you fail to acknowledge are two things. First in 2011 the game WAS still being figured out. Right now it is like 90% figured out, the only new things to discover are maybe some map specific nuances. The great big difference between 2011 and now is that back then, not only was the game being patched very often (compared to now), but the map pool was also changing dramatically, thus it took a long time for people to learn how to play properly. It also took time for us to develop an idea of what kind of meta game we see.
Secondly, there is a very good reason you don't see a strategy RIGHT NOW, and its because it really doesn't work.You fail to take into account the fact that there are hundreds of pro gamers, a lot of which are Korean, which grind at 40+ games per day, that talk to each other on a daily basis trying to figure out the best way to play the game. If mech was even remotely viable in some way then you'd have seen it by now.
Even the great king of mech, Mvp abandoned it long ago in HoTS, why? Because trough practice and repetition with his team mates and on ladder, trough talking to his team mates and maybe other terrans he figured that it really just doesn't work. Its the same process repeated hundreds more times by other pro gamers. I bet they also repeat the process every time each new patch or new map pool, still no mech.
And now before you contest my point about game being figured out with some silly argument, I also want to point out that, in a lot of match ups you can basically make a list off all the openings, all the variations of the mid game and all mid to late game compositions and strategies. Literally every game follows a certain set off strategies with very tiny variations depending on the execution of both players, the scouting and the maps. And if you still want to refute my argument based on the fact that it took longer to figure out BW, then I'll have to also point out to you that, in BW we had way fewer pro gamers then in SC2, in BW replayes weren't as easily shared and in BW we had far less tournaments per year.
The combination of so many pro gamers playing, sharing and having access to so much information, coupled with the huge number of tournaments and the relatively stable map pool leads to this current situation where you can figure out the game in about 9 months, give or take.
Edit: I will however say that, if the map pool is changed significantly or if the races receive some changes, then the meta can also change and evolve. But, logically, that means that the game transitioned from a state where it WAS FIGURED OUT, aka known map pools and races, to a state where things need to be figured out to come to the optimal way to play. Make no mistake, the game is, in essence, figured out now, its just up to Blizzard now to either change the races in some way or change the map pool in such a way as to produce the desired changes, aka to change the game into a state of unknown.
First: you're hanging onto the mech thing when I stated "I mean I'm not saying any particular thing is viable". Don't do that, its irrelevant to the point I was making.
Secondly: your post here in essence argues that nobody will ever find a new composition or devise a new opening because its all figured out. And therefore games will now forever play out according to exactly the same parameters until LotV. The very idea is hillarious. "Sup progamers, you can stop trying to develop new openings and strategies now, they've all been identified because the game is figured out so select from this list which I am providing you."
I look forward to your apology the next time someone shows a new opening or all-in at a tournament (which, by your argument, is impossible). Until them I'm done with this silly diversion from the topic at hand.
Imo Ravens should have a singletarget or a rly small AoE EMP abillity (Smaller then the ghost EMP). Then you could make tanks vs toss, since ravens would have EMP vs immortals, And since its a singletarget or smaller then the ghost EMP it should be cheaper in energy. Let's say it cost 50 energy, then u could still get a PDD and a HSM + EMP. Making the raven a pretty good unit for its cost, And the EMP should probably have the same range as the HSM. Then the ravens should still have to into suicide range but it would still be worth it since u would take out the immortal shield, SAving your tanks.
On December 04 2013 12:47 lost_artz wrote: I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals.
you must be some sort of dense.
If that was the solution, we would see it at high level play. News flash- that is not the solution.
See this kind of mentality is utterly absurd. Just because you don't see something RIGHT NOW at high levels doesn't mean its not viable. It just means the game isn't figured out fully.
We didn't see Ghosts for ages in 2011 until Terrans finally "got around" to trying them out (after insisting for months they were terrible). They were immediately nerfed because they were far too good.
Zerg didn't start off using Broodlord Infestor every single game in WoL despite the fact it proved to be "the solution" to winning lategame as Zerg. That developed over a long period of time.
Protoss didn't magically just know that a great way to deal with the aforementioned Broodlord Infestor is to mass up a bunch of sentries and immortals and go for the throat before Zerg ever gets there.
There's a ton of other things. Hell, every single build in the game can be classified this way because they had to be designed and refined. But the point is that if you honestly believe that "its never been done successfully before so its crap" is true then I bet you're still confused why every PvP didn't stay as 4-gate vs 4-gate.
I mean I'm not saying any particular thing is viable; but your argument against it is utterly absurd.
No, he is right, just adding ghosts into the mech army isn't the solution.
What you fail to acknowledge are two things. First in 2011 the game WAS still being figured out. Right now it is like 90% figured out, the only new things to discover are maybe some map specific nuances. The great big difference between 2011 and now is that back then, not only was the game being patched very often (compared to now), but the map pool was also changing dramatically, thus it took a long time for people to learn how to play properly. It also took time for us to develop an idea of what kind of meta game we see.
Secondly, there is a very good reason you don't see a strategy RIGHT NOW, and its because it really doesn't work.You fail to take into account the fact that there are hundreds of pro gamers, a lot of which are Korean, which grind at 40+ games per day, that talk to each other on a daily basis trying to figure out the best way to play the game. If mech was even remotely viable in some way then you'd have seen it by now.
Even the great king of mech, Mvp abandoned it long ago in HoTS, why? Because trough practice and repetition with his team mates and on ladder, trough talking to his team mates and maybe other terrans he figured that it really just doesn't work. Its the same process repeated hundreds more times by other pro gamers. I bet they also repeat the process every time each new patch or new map pool, still no mech.
And now before you contest my point about game being figured out with some silly argument, I also want to point out that, in a lot of match ups you can basically make a list off all the openings, all the variations of the mid game and all mid to late game compositions and strategies. Literally every game follows a certain set off strategies with very tiny variations depending on the execution of both players, the scouting and the maps. And if you still want to refute my argument based on the fact that it took longer to figure out BW, then I'll have to also point out to you that, in BW we had way fewer pro gamers then in SC2, in BW replayes weren't as easily shared and in BW we had far less tournaments per year.
The combination of so many pro gamers playing, sharing and having access to so much information, coupled with the huge number of tournaments and the relatively stable map pool leads to this current situation where you can figure out the game in about 9 months, give or take.
Edit: I will however say that, if the map pool is changed significantly or if the races receive some changes, then the meta can also change and evolve. But, logically, that means that the game transitioned from a state where it WAS FIGURED OUT, aka known map pools and races, to a state where things need to be figured out to come to the optimal way to play. Make no mistake, the game is, in essence, figured out now, its just up to Blizzard now to either change the races in some way or change the map pool in such a way as to produce the desired changes, aka to change the game into a state of unknown.
First: you're hanging onto the mech thing when I stated "I mean I'm not saying any particular thing is viable". Don't do that, its irrelevant to the point I was making.
Secondly: your post here in essence argues that nobody will ever find a new composition or devise a new opening because its all figured out. And therefore games will now forever play out according to exactly the same parameters until LotV. The very idea is hillarious. "Sup progamers, you can stop trying to develop new openings and strategies now, they've all been identified because the game is figured out so select from this list which I am providing you."
I look forward to your apology the next time someone shows a new opening or all-in at a tournament (which, by your argument, is impossible). Until them I'm done with this silly diversion from the topic at hand.
Nice dodging skills there, instead of doing the sensible thing of going at each of my points to pick apart my argument you just skip them all together. I adore your powers of argumentation!
What is hilarious? Exactly about my arguments, pro gamers don't stop developing tactics and strategies, thats what they are hardwired to do, find the best way to play. What they will do however is not waste time practicing something that has been proven to not work. Its not hilarious at all, pro gamers, patch after patch, map pool after map pool test and see which maps are more viable, they see mech is still shit, they stop trying it. Its as logical as it can get, and its also time proven.
You can wait long and hard because you aren't going to see any apology from me, because there won't be any to make. The game is almost figured out now, a one off all-in for a specific opponent or a specific map won't change that, and it will remain so until the next balance patch or map rotation. And by then there won't be anything to apologize for because the game will go form a state of being known to a state of unknown, just like I said already.
One issue with mech in TvP is the ghost emp / templar feedback dance. The micro battle itself is a bit harder on the protoss side, but it's basically reversed roles of the ghos temp / templar storm dance in TvP bio and if that is not broken then neither should this be. The difference however, is that the protoss can still retreat if they lose the battle and minimize their losses, while the terran cannot and gets completely plowed over.
Anyways, just wanted to bring this up. Not sure whether that is a problem or what can be done against it.
On December 05 2013 22:04 Destructicon wrote: Nice dodging skills there, instead of doing the sensible thing of going at each of my points to pick apart my argument you just skip them all together. I adore your powers of argumentation!
You made the assertion that the game is figured out and by association nobody will ever develop another build basically until LotV. I find that an absurd statement to make, it reminds me of that famous misquote "everything that can be invented has been invented". In short there is nothing there I need to argue against, I can simply wait a couple of months for the tournament scene to prove you wrong.
On December 05 2013 22:03 MvS.MiKE wrote: Imo Ravens should have a singletarget or a rly small AoE EMP abillity (Smaller then the ghost EMP). Then you could make tanks vs toss, since ravens would have EMP vs immortals, And since its a singletarget or smaller then the ghost EMP it should be cheaper in energy. Let's say it cost 50 energy, then u could still get a PDD and a HSM + EMP. Making the raven a pretty good unit for its cost, And the EMP should probably have the same range as the HSM. Then the ravens should still have to into suicide range but it would still be worth it since u would take out the immortal shield, SAving your tanks.
Really not sure how helpful basically duplicating abilities would be to be honest. I think I personally prefer the aforementioned thing about using the idea behind lockdown somehow if it has to be like that.
On December 05 2013 22:03 MvS.MiKE wrote: Imo Ravens should have a singletarget or a rly small AoE EMP abillity (Smaller then the ghost EMP). Then you could make tanks vs toss, since ravens would have EMP vs immortals, And since its a singletarget or smaller then the ghost EMP it should be cheaper in energy. Let's say it cost 50 energy, then u could still get a PDD and a HSM + EMP. Making the raven a pretty good unit for its cost, And the EMP should probably have the same range as the HSM. Then the ravens should still have to into suicide range but it would still be worth it since u would take out the immortal shield, SAving your tanks.
Even if it would be nice (although I'd like something like the lockdown ability from the Broodwar Ghost added to the Raven better), I don't think it's a good idea to give the Raven a 4th ability. It would make it harder to use on one side and a jack-of-all-trades on the other.
Overall I think the double-attack idea of Goody wouldn't do too much harm. I mean, even without a hardened shield (EMPed) an Immortal still has more HP than a Tank and does nearly double DPS, so they rip through tanks easily. If you'd keep the combined damage of the tank (2x 25 = 50) as is, it would still lose effectiveness against other units, so it's not just a buff.
Why not directly change Hardened Shields? Instead of the current functioning [reduces all damage inflicted on the shields that is greater than 10 to 10], change to:
- Attacks dealing from 10 to 20 damage are still reduced to 10. - Attacks dealing more than 20 damage are halved instead of reduced to 10.
The impact in PvT and PvZ would be (assuming 0 shield upgrade for Immortals):
- Marauder: damage would be 10-13 instead of 10. Minor. - Hellbat: damage would be 10-12 instead of 10. Minor. - Unsieged Tanks: damage would be 12.5 - 17 instead of 10. - Sieged Tanks: damage would be 25 - 32.5 instead of 10. - Thors: damage would be 15x2 - 19.5-x2 instead of 10x2.
- Baneling: damage would be 10-13 instead of 10. Minor. - Roach: damage would be 10-11 instead of 10. Minor. - Ultralisks: damage would be 17.5 - 22 instead of 10. - Brood lords: damage would be 10-13 instead of 10. Minor.
On December 05 2013 22:04 Destructicon wrote: Nice dodging skills there, instead of doing the sensible thing of going at each of my points to pick apart my argument you just skip them all together. I adore your powers of argumentation!
You made the assertion that the game is figured out and by association nobody will ever develop another build basically until LotV. I find that an absurd statement to make, it reminds me of that famous misquote "everything that can be invented has been invented". In short there is nothing there I need to argue against, I can simply wait a couple of months for the tournament scene to prove you wrong.
On December 05 2013 22:03 MvS.MiKE wrote: Imo Ravens should have a singletarget or a rly small AoE EMP abillity (Smaller then the ghost EMP). Then you could make tanks vs toss, since ravens would have EMP vs immortals, And since its a singletarget or smaller then the ghost EMP it should be cheaper in energy. Let's say it cost 50 energy, then u could still get a PDD and a HSM + EMP. Making the raven a pretty good unit for its cost, And the EMP should probably have the same range as the HSM. Then the ravens should still have to into suicide range but it would still be worth it since u would take out the immortal shield, SAving your tanks.
Really not sure how helpful basically duplicating abilities would be to be honest. I think I personally prefer the aforementioned thing about using the idea behind lockdown somehow if it has to be like that.
This isn't real life, where science and technology have almost infinite room to grow in all directions. This is a game with fixed rules, it has a framework and everything in it has to fall withing that framework. Theoretically there are a couple of thousand builds and unit combinations, in practice only a couple of dozen unit combinations and only a couple of tens of builds are viable because of the rules of the game.
That is just how it is. Out of all the combinations out there, pro gamers, trough their hard work, dedication and communication have found the most viable builds and unit combinations. They will continue this process until new viable ways to play are found, but they CAN'T innovate if there is no room to innovate, and this is the situation in which we are now.
You can think its as absurd as you like, however choosing to not believe it, doesn't make it any less real, logical or true.
On December 04 2013 12:47 lost_artz wrote: I still find it hilarious Mech players refuse to build ghosts for EMP.
The second you see High Temps terran players go for Ghosts, but somehow that's impossible for Mech players to do vs Immortals. It's not exactly as if you're not floating a lot of resources playing mech either. The most you would need is 2 Barracks producing Ghosts to counter-act any Immortals or High Temps. They can also EMP any other Toss units. In addition to this a single Ghost is capable of 2 EMPs at the same time (with enough energy) which in essence can remove up to 200 health from a group of units almost instantly. Yes, it regens but not if you engage directly afterwards. Yet you'd rather complain about how Immortals are OP still.
You guys already have a solution to the issue, just being so damn stuck in your ways and use it. If nothing else you can HSM the damn things, spell damage doesn't get reduced on Immortals.
you must be some sort of dense.
If that was the solution, we would see it at high level play. News flash- that is not the solution.
See this kind of mentality is utterly absurd. Just because you don't see something RIGHT NOW at high levels doesn't mean its not viable. It just means the game isn't figured out fully.
We didn't see Ghosts for ages in 2011 until Terrans finally "got around" to trying them out (after insisting for months they were terrible). They were immediately nerfed because they were far too good.
Zerg didn't start off using Broodlord Infestor every single game in WoL despite the fact it proved to be "the solution" to winning lategame as Zerg. That developed over a long period of time.
Protoss didn't magically just know that a great way to deal with the aforementioned Broodlord Infestor is to mass up a bunch of sentries and immortals and go for the throat before Zerg ever gets there.
There's a ton of other things. Hell, every single build in the game can be classified this way because they had to be designed and refined. But the point is that if you honestly believe that "its never been done successfully before so its crap" is true then I bet you're still confused why every PvP didn't stay as 4-gate vs 4-gate.
I mean I'm not saying any particular thing is viable; but your argument against it is utterly absurd.
I understand your point. However at this point it is pretty clear that while a perfect ghost mech armyis powerful, there is no viable to get there before Protoss overwhelms you.
Mech players have been trying to make it work vs Protoss since day 1 to no avai. You seem to contend that there is some secret solution out there that we just haven't discovered yet- this is not the case.