|
On December 11 2012 02:44 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 02:28 Hider wrote:On December 11 2012 02:21 Breach_hu wrote:On December 11 2012 02:13 Dvriel wrote:On December 11 2012 02:06 Breach_hu wrote: I play mech exclusively in HotS againts P and it works if you dont play it like bio or like againts zerg. Againts P you have to be very aggressive while you can do it, and all game long you have to harass toss, with banshees, drops. Even multidrops with 4tanks 4hellbats are good and while you harass you can decide to play defensively, to get 6-7 bases, or you can decide to try to kill your opponent on 4bases (3 is just not cutting it). And with this aggresiveness you can actively scout what is the toss doing. If he goes for air you have to build air too with thors. (thors are actually the best thing you can get on the ground vs toss backed up with 5-6 siege tanks, more than that is just a waste.) Ghosts, a lot of them, a couple of raven to get PDDs, or a couple of key SMs, and reinforce with hellbats healed by 3-4 medivacs to tank for your units. I suppose you are Master or GM.So please post your replays,so we all can watch them and finally learn how to do it,OK??? Thank you very much Im NSHGolem on HotS, currently rank 1-2 gm. I just uploaded 5-6 replay to drop.sc, waiting for come up in the list to give you the link. http://drop.sc/283350 vs NSHTassadar http://drop.sc/283346 vs VegaZeth http://drop.sc/283347 vs mTlpal http://drop.sc/283348 vs mTlpal2 http://drop.sc/283349 vs SIV these are from the ladder of HotS, 2base timings, 3base timings, management game. Ghost/air/mech was also viable in WOL if you just turtled enough. But this still isn't a very nice playstyle. Terran should be able to attack with mech without having to wait 35+min to get a strong enough deathball. You also say anything more than 5-6 tanks is a waste which is probably true, but still sad. I wouldn't call something that almost never happens at pro-level 'viable'. With Morrow gone from HotS I doubt we will have any pro player exploring mech usage TvP in beta. It's a shame but it will take quite some time to see if things have changes sufficiently and by then it may be too late to fix anything. Personally I doubt the recent changes will make mech work TvP as I feel bio compositions were buffed more than mech has.
Look at his replays. When terrans get that deathball you are insanely cost effective (no matter how the toss micro's) and thus it is viable. It's probably easier to get that deathball in HOTs than WOL, but still; it's not a wel ldesigned game if one player has to turtle for 35 min before he can become cost effective.
|
On December 11 2012 01:11 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 00:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 19:52 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 10 2012 19:27 Qikz wrote:On December 10 2012 19:24 Everlong wrote:On December 10 2012 19:09 submarine wrote: Generally speaking: Tanks are just too weak against toss units. Sieged up tanks just do not trade well with toss units except maybe sentries and templars. That is a simple fact. It is true in WoL and in HotS. Go to the unit tester and A-move a chargelot, immortal archon army into sieged up tanks. It's not even a close fight. Now imagine the toss would do some splitting, or drops! If you want to make positional tank based TvP possible sieged up siegetanks need to trade well with normal toss ground units. As others already have said: The best solution i can think of is to add a damage upgrade to tanks against shields at either the armory or the fusion core. That way you can directly tune tanks without affecting the other match-ups or 111s. In the long run you would still have to get some ghosts to deal with immortals.
Tanks trade mobility for firepower, but right now the firepower is just not there. Yeah, I think that is true if you want to play the traditional BW style mech (which truly is mech). But I'm not sure this playstyle has it's place and bright future in SC2 due to the nature of how units clump, how much dmg they do, how fast the game is and how the maps look like. Blizzard wants Terran to use all tech paths. But who knows. Now it's good time to try to buff tank and see how it playes out. But I'm afraid that if they were ever willing to do so, they would've done it before all those changes supposed to help mech. Blizzard is just not going to buff tanks I'm afraid. I think they will buff tanks, but they wanted to try everything else before they tried it to see if it really was the weak tank causing the issues or not. They made the warhound as a "core" unit for HOTS after all. I think they know the Tank "problem" in TvP and they just don't want mech to be BW like, for whatever reason. On December 10 2012 19:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 18:05 Sissors wrote:On December 10 2012 17:55 AngryPenguin wrote: People don't understand that mass tank is not "mech", they start to mass tanks and they think that everything is fine with that.. Have you ever tried to play a game by mass colossi? (lol)
Mech IS mass tanks. Sure augmented by other units, but mech is the positional play inherent to tanks. Sure you can make a hellbat - thor army, but thats not what is meant by mech. i stopped using cloakshees long ago. maybe i forgot a few references in the guide about this.. I would say more than a few Disagree... any heavily factory based composition is mech. Maybe you should call mass tanks as BW style mech, but even that sounds weird. SC2's a different game, units have changed and so do the strategies. Also, just because tanks are much more positional than other mech units doesn't mean those other mech units still aren't more positional than bio. Their slow nature and transformation abilities make it more important to position them before the battle, unlike bio where you are faster and can reposition easier. If you are talking about mass tanks... why not just call it mass tanks? Or tank heavy mech. Otherwise if I talk about thor hellion tank. with less than half of my army being mech, I will have to call it thor hellion tank banshee all the time...? You can build so many hellions, if I have 3 reactor factories and 3 TL factories on 3 base like Liquid Sea, and I'm saving up more lots of hellions to suicide them at 2 of his bases (which have lots of canons), while also saving some for defense, and my hellion supply is larger than half my army... suddenly it's not mass tank, and it's not mech? I don't think so You know that by "mech" people are not referring to the unit description or the building it comes from, but about the play style. Marine Tank is much more mech like then Thor+Hellbat. Hell, Thor/ Hellbat plays much more like bio then mech. Though i agree we should probably use terms like: Tank based mech, to be more clear. And lets not kid ourselfs with "positioning" here, a Thor Hellbat composition is a "1a" comp, without the positioning aspects of Tank based comps and without the micro abilities of bio. Thors in general are ugly units when massed. First of all I don't think a significant majority of the people consider that to be the definition of mech. Yes, mech has been iconically defined by positional siege tank play from BW, but that doesn't have to be the same with SC2. As we can see, tanks are quite weaker in SC2, and thus are already used in different ways. They are still positioning units, but because of their even small differences in usage, it's already a different style. Also if we are to define it by play style, then how shall we define play style? The overall focus of the player in a game? The overall intended focus of the player from the start of the game, before anything happens? Let's take a game where a mech player is going hellion siege tank. He happens to burn all of his opponents' probes due to a mistake he made. Since the terran doesn't want to drag it out, he attacks with all his SCVs+2-3 tanks + Hellions, before siege mode is even done. He kills the protoss. Are we here to then say he played bio? The playstyle is certainly not positional -- he harassed like a bio player and attacked aggressively. If someone asks "did he go bio or mech", what will the answer be? He was intending to go mech but ended up playing more like bio. Are you really saying that it's not ok to ask "did he go bio or mech" but instead he must ask "did he open with barracks tech and barracks units or did he open with factory tech and factory units"? Also lets not kid ourselves with positioning here, a mass baneling army will destroy a thor hellion composition, as seen in Nestea vs Nada in GSL, on Belshir Beach. It is not 1a. You can 1a but even with protoss deathballs that is an exaggeration. Watch thor hellion boxer vs zenio back in GSL; notice that thor hellion positioning? Whether or not the majority of the players just clump up and 1a doesn't matter, when there is a significant advantage to positioning them, and because of that people should strive to micro them and not just 1a, even pros. Nada got punished heavily by it, so there is no reason not to micro your army to the best you can, even if you are ahead. Im sorry but you are just wrong. Mech revolves around tanks and positional play. That's what people imply when they argue that they want mech to be viable. Tankless mech is more boring than bio (because at least you can micro that). Mass thors for instance, is just boring gameplay. I assume Blizzard has the same deifnition, but they really are clueless to the fundemnetal problem. In WOL the only style of mech that was viable was the ultra heavy turtling invented by Lyyna. But it's not really an entertaining way of playing (as you need to wait like 35/40+ min of turtling and getting ravens/bc's, ghosts, ........) to be able to beat the toss in a striaght up fight. I believe the kind of mech that should be viable in tvp is the same kind of mech that is viable as in tvt (mech vs bio). You can turtle and defned well o n3 bases against drops/multipronged harass etc, which are always entertaining. BUt when you get that 200 ball of tanks/hellions (maybe 1-2 thors), you own the bio player in a straight up fight. So either the bio player needs to counterattack or tech up to air. The same thing sohuld apply to the protoss. The protoss should be abusing the immoblity while teching up to tempest/carriers etc. (or he could just commit completely to harass and thuse never allow the terran to reach 200 food of mech army). ANyway the fundemental problems could be fixed by giving terran mech options to deal with archons and immortals (without the use of EMP). I am interested in knowing how seeker missile could solve this problem, but I think ravens probably are too gas heavy to really be viable along with mech (untill you are on 4+ bases). One "easy" solution could be to change the cost of ravens to 200/150 or something like that (maybe even 200/125), and see how it works out. That change wouldn't really distrube the balance of the other matchups signifcantly.
You say I am just wrong, but you don't address any of my counter examples? Also your argument just saying that lots of people don't call that mech... is weak, don't you think? Our observations can obviously differ, so I think we should stick to arguing it based more on "reasoning" and not "most people do this", because let's be honest, lots of people use other terms wrong too (for example people considering starport units to be mech just because they are mechanical).
I am not saying I want mech to be thor hellion. Also mech revolving around tank play being blizzard's focus is subjective. They have never (correct if wrong) stated that mech should be heavily centered on tank. They have mentioned they like positional strategies, but that does not mean the tank is the only unit that has to fulfill that role. Even Thors, for anti-muta as an example, is positioning; it's like an AA siege tank.
I would like to stay away from balance and viable strats as well, as I think that can be an entirely different argument. There have been many successful mech games in TvP with tank hellion. If you want me to list some replays/games where mech worked, without significant mistakes on any side, and showing that there are no huge holes to make it completely unviable (difficult is one thing, but is it not up to the player to decide what strategy they are most comfortable with?) Anyways, as good as Lynna is, he's not a Code S player (duh), and yet you see mech very rarely, though it does win games (again, whether or not protoss are simply losing because they are not used to it is another thing -- if someone was to argue that they are losing due to inexperience, and that they will adapt and crush mech if mech becomes popular, then someone else could equally argue that the mech player could adapt as well, since the game is asymetric).
I would like to not go further than that, but maybe if you think it's necessary then we can.
On December 11 2012 02:06 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 00:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 19:52 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 10 2012 19:27 Qikz wrote:On December 10 2012 19:24 Everlong wrote:On December 10 2012 19:09 submarine wrote: Generally speaking: Tanks are just too weak against toss units. Sieged up tanks just do not trade well with toss units except maybe sentries and templars. That is a simple fact. It is true in WoL and in HotS. Go to the unit tester and A-move a chargelot, immortal archon army into sieged up tanks. It's not even a close fight. Now imagine the toss would do some splitting, or drops! If you want to make positional tank based TvP possible sieged up siegetanks need to trade well with normal toss ground units. As others already have said: The best solution i can think of is to add a damage upgrade to tanks against shields at either the armory or the fusion core. That way you can directly tune tanks without affecting the other match-ups or 111s. In the long run you would still have to get some ghosts to deal with immortals.
Tanks trade mobility for firepower, but right now the firepower is just not there. Yeah, I think that is true if you want to play the traditional BW style mech (which truly is mech). But I'm not sure this playstyle has it's place and bright future in SC2 due to the nature of how units clump, how much dmg they do, how fast the game is and how the maps look like. Blizzard wants Terran to use all tech paths. But who knows. Now it's good time to try to buff tank and see how it playes out. But I'm afraid that if they were ever willing to do so, they would've done it before all those changes supposed to help mech. Blizzard is just not going to buff tanks I'm afraid. I think they will buff tanks, but they wanted to try everything else before they tried it to see if it really was the weak tank causing the issues or not. They made the warhound as a "core" unit for HOTS after all. I think they know the Tank "problem" in TvP and they just don't want mech to be BW like, for whatever reason. On December 10 2012 19:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 18:05 Sissors wrote:On December 10 2012 17:55 AngryPenguin wrote: People don't understand that mass tank is not "mech", they start to mass tanks and they think that everything is fine with that.. Have you ever tried to play a game by mass colossi? (lol)
Mech IS mass tanks. Sure augmented by other units, but mech is the positional play inherent to tanks. Sure you can make a hellbat - thor army, but thats not what is meant by mech. i stopped using cloakshees long ago. maybe i forgot a few references in the guide about this.. I would say more than a few Disagree... any heavily factory based composition is mech. Maybe you should call mass tanks as BW style mech, but even that sounds weird. SC2's a different game, units have changed and so do the strategies. Also, just because tanks are much more positional than other mech units doesn't mean those other mech units still aren't more positional than bio. Their slow nature and transformation abilities make it more important to position them before the battle, unlike bio where you are faster and can reposition easier. If you are talking about mass tanks... why not just call it mass tanks? Or tank heavy mech. Otherwise if I talk about thor hellion tank. with less than half of my army being mech, I will have to call it thor hellion tank banshee all the time...? You can build so many hellions, if I have 3 reactor factories and 3 TL factories on 3 base like Liquid Sea, and I'm saving up more lots of hellions to suicide them at 2 of his bases (which have lots of canons), while also saving some for defense, and my hellion supply is larger than half my army... suddenly it's not mass tank, and it's not mech? I don't think so You know that by "mech" people are not referring to the unit description or the building it comes from, but about the play style. Marine Tank is much more mech like then Thor+Hellbat. Hell, Thor/ Hellbat plays much more like bio then mech. Though i agree we should probably use terms like: Tank based mech, to be more clear. And lets not kid ourselfs with "positioning" here, a Thor Hellbat composition is a "1a" comp, without the positioning aspects of Tank based comps and without the micro abilities of bio. Thors in general are ugly units when massed. First of all I don't think a significant majority of the people consider that to be the definition of mech. Yes, mech has been iconically defined by positional siege tank play from BW, but that doesn't have to be the same with SC2. Even in SC1, many times a player would have a very very high goliath count to deal with carriers, much more than his tanks. If we were to define what he's doing in that particular moment, or even in the overall duration of the game if they were doing carrier vs goliath for that long, would we no longer call it mech? What playstyle would we refer it to, goliaths? It's similar to how we both agree on trying to be more specific about things (like tank based mech), we could call it goliath heavy mech, but even then it means that it isn't the only kind of mech. As we can see, tanks are quite weaker in SC2 in many aspects, and thus are already used in different ways. They are still positioning units, but because of their even small differences in usage, it's already a different style. Also if we are to define it by play style, then how shall we define play style? The overall focus of the player in a game? The overall intended focus of the player from the start of the game, before anything happens? Let's take a game where a mech player is going hellion siege tank. He happens to burn all of his opponents' probes due to a mistake he made. Since the terran doesn't want to drag it out, he attacks with all his SCVs+2-3 tanks + Hellions, before siege mode is even done. He kills the protoss. Are we here to then say he played bio? The playstyle is certainly not positional -- he harassed like a bio player and attacked aggressively. If someone asks "did he go bio or mech", what will the answer be? He was intending to go mech but ended up playing more like bio. So would it not be ok to ask "did he go bio or mech" but instead he must ask "did he open with barracks tech and barracks units or did he open with factory tech and factory units"? Also, although a thor/hellion kind of composition can 1a, especially when ahead (and usually used as an all-in build or push), 1a'ing isn't the maximum you can micro your army to, and thus we shouldn't describe it as a 1a composition. For example, a mass baneling army will destroy a thor hellion composition, as seen in Nestea vs Nada in GSL, on Belshir Beach despite having so many BFH in front of his thors. You can 1a but even with protoss deathballs that is an exaggeration. If you remember thor hellion boxer vs zenio back in GSL, he noticed Zenio's composition and spread out his thors so much so that banelings and fungals would do almost nothing. He would run his hellions behind his thors, instead of tanking for his thors, just like marines running behind tanks, forcing the infestors and banelings to be ineffective, while the still alive hellions prevent the zerglings from engaging and disallowing them from surrounding the hellions. Whether or not the majority of the players just clump up and 1a doesn't matter, when there is a significant advantage to positioning them, and because of that people should strive to micro them and not just 1a, even pros. Nada got punished heavily by it, so there is no reason not to micro your army to the best you can, even if you are ahead. I agree with the marine tank being a lot like mech, but it is also a lot like bio. But again if we were to strictly define it by playstyle, then would bomber's 3 base marine tank build (used several months ago to success) be considered mech since he literally defends and does not drop or harass, and just does a 3 base push? Honestly, i think this blog explains it better then i could ever do: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=360325We could rename the barracks to factory 0.5, and add mechanical status to the marine and marauder and we would have "mech" right (ironicly, that's what Blizzard was doing with the Warhound lol)? Of course not, mech as a style is something rather unique to starcraft. Use long range but imobile units to control areas of the map, so on and so forth. The siege tank is what makes this style what it is, there's just no getting around that. On mass Thors. Come on, doing a little spreading is positioningor micro? That is at most a small tactic that is used only on occasion...hardly a characteristic of the style. Like i've said, you don't have the positioning aspects of tank-mech nor the micro of bio. It is a very boring way to play, let alone spectate. Similar to BL/C/Inf actually. Slow moving,easy to control death army, BORING. I think it's worth fighting for this unique style instead of being all jolly that we can mass Thors and pretend it's interesting.
I'm not pretending (whether you are addressing just me or people in general) or wanting thor based mech to be the main and most fun way to play mech. However it is a type of mech. If you only consider tank heavy based mech (and again, even you said it's good to clarify mech as tank based mech -- so that means tank based mech isn't the only kind of mech, or would you like to rephrase it?) to be mech, then what is thor hellion? I have to say it's thor hellion?
Also I understand what Falling is saying, that mech in BW was very positional and the tank was very iconic. I do enjoy tank based mech. I'm not saying I want mech to not be positional, and I'm not saying that I want thor/hellion to be the main mech composition. I don't think that blog really addresses what I'm saying though.
I'm not saying at all that mech just means the unit is mechanical. However, all factory units are more positional than barracks units. You say that a little thor spreading is not positioning micro -- then what is tank spreading? Do you not spread thors to help deal with mutas picking off tanks while you push? Do you not position thors with hellions vs baneling ling muta infestor, leap frogging thors slowly as Boxer and others did, to push forward? Again, you can split with bio as well -- however, mech is slower to position, especially because they have to transform, while bio can stim instantly and is, arguably, less forgiving on positioning because they have the speed to run away (especially with medivac pick up + emergency thrusters now).
Mech cannot micro as well in fights as regards to stutter stepping and such, nor can it reposition in a fight as easily or effectively as bio can. Therefore, it is more positional than bio. It must rely on prior positioning because there is little you can do in the battle besides target firing (and is that not similar to tank based mech? You siege up, then target fire the right units).
Again, just like the other poster, I don't feel you really address my counter examples at all. If you are talking about the style, do we say someone like bomber who is going defensive turtle marine tank on 3 bases is going mech? We can say he is playing like mech, or he is playing defensively as if meching, but he is going bio [composition]. Bio or mech is the composition, but not necessarily the playstyle. If we go by this, then we can easily signify a mass tank style as tank heavy mech, or tank centered mech (with the more vague term to be simply mech, of which we can clarify as stated if it's not clear).
Again, do you call those carrier vs goliath battles in BW to be bio? No, there is positioning. They aren't tanks, but there is still positioning and micro -- things like making sure to, as you push or move your army, to stay away from cliffs to prevent carriers from microing too well. I don't want to accuse you of not fully reading my post, but I feel neither of you really addressed my counter arguments to show why the meanings you want "mech" to be associated with (as well as its connotations) should be the way you say they should be. And again, if I missed some point somewhere, please feel free to correct me. Or maybe, as I feel, you guys simply misunderstood me, so didn't feel the need to address the rest of my post, which is understandable, but if that's the case, then I would like to clarify:
I guess in short, we are not separating the ideas "playstyle" "composition" and "tech" well enough. I think mech and bio should refer (its main, plain usage, with no further clarification) to composition (barracks, factory, starport). To refer to playstyle, we can say "he is playing like mech" or "he is playing defensively and positionally like mech". When a game has not progressed very far, but they are about to have much more factory/barracks/starport buildings/tech than the others, then we can say they are going either bio, mech, or starport. We can signify both a playstyle and composition by saying something like "thor based mech" or "tank based mech", in which the playstyles of those two kinds of mech compositions are not specific playstyles, but inclusive of all playstyles that take advantage of the respective main unit (thor or tank in this example). From there, we can clarify even further the specific focus/goal/strategy/playstyle the player is doing. For example, he might be playing a very defensive tank heavy mech, or might be playing a very aggressive tank heavy mech.
|
On December 11 2012 03:07 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 02:21 Breach_hu wrote:On December 11 2012 02:13 Dvriel wrote:On December 11 2012 02:06 Breach_hu wrote: I play mech exclusively in HotS againts P and it works if you dont play it like bio or like againts zerg. Againts P you have to be very aggressive while you can do it, and all game long you have to harass toss, with banshees, drops. Even multidrops with 4tanks 4hellbats are good and while you harass you can decide to play defensively, to get 6-7 bases, or you can decide to try to kill your opponent on 4bases (3 is just not cutting it). And with this aggresiveness you can actively scout what is the toss doing. If he goes for air you have to build air too with thors. (thors are actually the best thing you can get on the ground vs toss backed up with 5-6 siege tanks, more than that is just a waste.) Ghosts, a lot of them, a couple of raven to get PDDs, or a couple of key SMs, and reinforce with hellbats healed by 3-4 medivacs to tank for your units. I suppose you are Master or GM.So please post your replays,so we all can watch them and finally learn how to do it,OK??? Thank you very much Im NSHGolem on HotS, currently rank 1-2 gm. I just uploaded 5-6 replay to drop.sc, waiting for come up in the list to give you the link. http://drop.sc/283350 vs NSHTassadar http://drop.sc/283346 vs VegaZeth http://drop.sc/283347 vs mTlpal http://drop.sc/283348 vs mTlpal2 http://drop.sc/283349 vs SIV these are from the ladder of HotS, 2base timings, 3base timings, management game. Only watched the last 2 games. But from what I got from those 2 is that you dont use siege tanks besides some opening timing attacks, but just stick to either factory play with hellbats/thors/some support, or factory augmented bio. Your opponents sometimes also had some interesting decisions sometimes. How the idea went from: oh 8 hellions are in an expansion of mine, I got enough gas, to: lets warp in 15 zealots (numbers roughly) is a mystery to me.
Im experimenting with a lot of things, yes. I dont think siegetanks are good for anything else than defending your greed IMO.
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
On December 11 2012 02:51 RandomMan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 01:52 ZjiublingZ wrote:On December 11 2012 01:28 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 01:25 Everlong wrote:On December 11 2012 01:07 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 00:55 Everlong wrote:On December 11 2012 00:35 Penev wrote: On the energy bar thing: Mech should have some energy bars to keep HT's a somewhat viable choice. Storms don't quite effect mech like it does bio. I mean, c'mon.. Mech finally just got something.. How, why do you want HT's to counter mech? You've got whole robo tech + zealots + stargate tech against mech.. You really want all tech paths to counter mech right? Zealots counter mech in HOTS? Helbat got remove like warhound? Robo does not counter mech, depending whether you recognize air units, particularly raven as part of mech. Oh my god, I think we can now abandon this discussion.. "Robo does not counter mech" is enough for me. Guys, save your time, we might try next time.. Please enlighten me how an immortal kills off, or simply any unit in robo, kills off raven, before the seeker missile 1 shot immortal or reduce colossi to 50 hp? Against my better judgement I will respond to you RandomMan, even though you have been acting like a child throughout this thread (where the Mods at?). Using a 200 gas unit, that takes 2 minutes to "counter" a 100 gas unit, that takes at most 55 seconds to make, isn't generally an example of a counter. It's akin to saying Carriers "counter" Roaches. Yes, they do beat them, but it's not realistic to use them for that purpose throughout the game. Of course it could be useful to have 1 Raven now with cheaper DT's, the usefullness of PDD, auto-turrets to block chargelots, and now HSM to kill off 1 Immortal. That's enough utility to make them worth it for sure IMO. But as far as making multiple Ravens just to counter multiple Immortals - there's only one specific situation where that makes any sense at all: In a maxed out situation where the 2 supply Raven killing the 4 supply Immortal is a supply-efficient counter AND when resources aren't a limiting factor to your composition. I.E. you can't max out on Ravens in your first max out, or you are vulnerable to attacks before that, wherein you have traded 200 gas to remove a 100 gas unit from the fight, that's not cost-efficient. Not being cost-efficient in engagements (with gas at least) against Protoss - who should have more bases than you - is a recipe for failure. So... toss struggling to get out a unit that cost 150 gas and takes 1 minutes 30 seconds to "counter" a 0 gas unit, that takes at most 25 seconds to make, is not generally an example of a counter,. Or maybe worse, Using a 200 gas unit, that takes 1 minutes 15 seconds to "counter" a 0 gas unit, that takes at most 25 seconds to make, is the worse counter ever... okay I understand now, that is the reason why most toss struggling against bio ball, because they choose the wrong counter, for more than 2 years.
That isn't a valid comparison at all. You are talking about units that counter many multiples of units. 1 Colossus doesn't just counter a single marine. We are talking about using 1 unit to counter 1 other unit - and not contribute anything else to the fight. Do you understand the difference?
(seriously Mods, this guy is ruining discussion, where you at...)
|
Thanks for the replays Breach_hu.Gonna watch them now.Still dont understand why no one of the WoL pros are in HotS playing mech or just trying the BETA
|
On December 11 2012 03:26 Dvriel wrote: Thanks for the replays Breach_hu.Gonna watch them now.Still dont understand why no one of the WoL pros are in HotS playing mech or just trying the BETA
There are a lot of good players, who play Terran in HotS beta, but they are usually playing Bio now.
|
On December 11 2012 03:23 ZjiublingZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 02:51 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 01:52 ZjiublingZ wrote:On December 11 2012 01:28 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 01:25 Everlong wrote:On December 11 2012 01:07 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 00:55 Everlong wrote:On December 11 2012 00:35 Penev wrote: On the energy bar thing: Mech should have some energy bars to keep HT's a somewhat viable choice. Storms don't quite effect mech like it does bio. I mean, c'mon.. Mech finally just got something.. How, why do you want HT's to counter mech? You've got whole robo tech + zealots + stargate tech against mech.. You really want all tech paths to counter mech right? Zealots counter mech in HOTS? Helbat got remove like warhound? Robo does not counter mech, depending whether you recognize air units, particularly raven as part of mech. Oh my god, I think we can now abandon this discussion.. "Robo does not counter mech" is enough for me. Guys, save your time, we might try next time.. Please enlighten me how an immortal kills off, or simply any unit in robo, kills off raven, before the seeker missile 1 shot immortal or reduce colossi to 50 hp? Against my better judgement I will respond to you RandomMan, even though you have been acting like a child throughout this thread (where the Mods at?). Using a 200 gas unit, that takes 2 minutes to "counter" a 100 gas unit, that takes at most 55 seconds to make, isn't generally an example of a counter. It's akin to saying Carriers "counter" Roaches. Yes, they do beat them, but it's not realistic to use them for that purpose throughout the game. Of course it could be useful to have 1 Raven now with cheaper DT's, the usefullness of PDD, auto-turrets to block chargelots, and now HSM to kill off 1 Immortal. That's enough utility to make them worth it for sure IMO. But as far as making multiple Ravens just to counter multiple Immortals - there's only one specific situation where that makes any sense at all: In a maxed out situation where the 2 supply Raven killing the 4 supply Immortal is a supply-efficient counter AND when resources aren't a limiting factor to your composition. I.E. you can't max out on Ravens in your first max out, or you are vulnerable to attacks before that, wherein you have traded 200 gas to remove a 100 gas unit from the fight, that's not cost-efficient. Not being cost-efficient in engagements (with gas at least) against Protoss - who should have more bases than you - is a recipe for failure. So... toss struggling to get out a unit that cost 150 gas and takes 1 minutes 30 seconds to "counter" a 0 gas unit, that takes at most 25 seconds to make, is not generally an example of a counter,. Or maybe worse, Using a 200 gas unit, that takes 1 minutes 15 seconds to "counter" a 0 gas unit, that takes at most 25 seconds to make, is the worse counter ever... okay I understand now, that is the reason why most toss struggling against bio ball, because they choose the wrong counter, for more than 2 years. That isn't a valid comparison at all. You are talking about units that counter many multiples of units. 1 Colossus doesn't just counter a single marine. We are talking about using 1 unit to counter 1 other unit - and not contribute anything else to the fight. Do you understand the difference? (seriously Mods, this guy is ruining discussion, where you at...)
Well just in case you did not know, seeker missile 1 shot void rays and out range them, and if you do not already know about it, void rays and immortals are the 2 only toss unit that toss able to counter thors, all thanks to the tempest nerf, and these 2 happens to be hard counter by ravens, FYI.
PS. actually not only void ray and immortal, even colossus, archon and carrier are easily soften up, and easily kill off by supporting units like thors or marines.
|
On December 11 2012 03:18 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 01:11 Hider wrote:On December 11 2012 00:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 19:52 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 10 2012 19:27 Qikz wrote:On December 10 2012 19:24 Everlong wrote:On December 10 2012 19:09 submarine wrote: Generally speaking: Tanks are just too weak against toss units. Sieged up tanks just do not trade well with toss units except maybe sentries and templars. That is a simple fact. It is true in WoL and in HotS. Go to the unit tester and A-move a chargelot, immortal archon army into sieged up tanks. It's not even a close fight. Now imagine the toss would do some splitting, or drops! If you want to make positional tank based TvP possible sieged up siegetanks need to trade well with normal toss ground units. As others already have said: The best solution i can think of is to add a damage upgrade to tanks against shields at either the armory or the fusion core. That way you can directly tune tanks without affecting the other match-ups or 111s. In the long run you would still have to get some ghosts to deal with immortals.
Tanks trade mobility for firepower, but right now the firepower is just not there. Yeah, I think that is true if you want to play the traditional BW style mech (which truly is mech). But I'm not sure this playstyle has it's place and bright future in SC2 due to the nature of how units clump, how much dmg they do, how fast the game is and how the maps look like. Blizzard wants Terran to use all tech paths. But who knows. Now it's good time to try to buff tank and see how it playes out. But I'm afraid that if they were ever willing to do so, they would've done it before all those changes supposed to help mech. Blizzard is just not going to buff tanks I'm afraid. I think they will buff tanks, but they wanted to try everything else before they tried it to see if it really was the weak tank causing the issues or not. They made the warhound as a "core" unit for HOTS after all. I think they know the Tank "problem" in TvP and they just don't want mech to be BW like, for whatever reason. On December 10 2012 19:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 18:05 Sissors wrote:On December 10 2012 17:55 AngryPenguin wrote: People don't understand that mass tank is not "mech", they start to mass tanks and they think that everything is fine with that.. Have you ever tried to play a game by mass colossi? (lol)
Mech IS mass tanks. Sure augmented by other units, but mech is the positional play inherent to tanks. Sure you can make a hellbat - thor army, but thats not what is meant by mech. i stopped using cloakshees long ago. maybe i forgot a few references in the guide about this.. I would say more than a few Disagree... any heavily factory based composition is mech. Maybe you should call mass tanks as BW style mech, but even that sounds weird. SC2's a different game, units have changed and so do the strategies. Also, just because tanks are much more positional than other mech units doesn't mean those other mech units still aren't more positional than bio. Their slow nature and transformation abilities make it more important to position them before the battle, unlike bio where you are faster and can reposition easier. If you are talking about mass tanks... why not just call it mass tanks? Or tank heavy mech. Otherwise if I talk about thor hellion tank. with less than half of my army being mech, I will have to call it thor hellion tank banshee all the time...? You can build so many hellions, if I have 3 reactor factories and 3 TL factories on 3 base like Liquid Sea, and I'm saving up more lots of hellions to suicide them at 2 of his bases (which have lots of canons), while also saving some for defense, and my hellion supply is larger than half my army... suddenly it's not mass tank, and it's not mech? I don't think so You know that by "mech" people are not referring to the unit description or the building it comes from, but about the play style. Marine Tank is much more mech like then Thor+Hellbat. Hell, Thor/ Hellbat plays much more like bio then mech. Though i agree we should probably use terms like: Tank based mech, to be more clear. And lets not kid ourselfs with "positioning" here, a Thor Hellbat composition is a "1a" comp, without the positioning aspects of Tank based comps and without the micro abilities of bio. Thors in general are ugly units when massed. First of all I don't think a significant majority of the people consider that to be the definition of mech. Yes, mech has been iconically defined by positional siege tank play from BW, but that doesn't have to be the same with SC2. As we can see, tanks are quite weaker in SC2, and thus are already used in different ways. They are still positioning units, but because of their even small differences in usage, it's already a different style. Also if we are to define it by play style, then how shall we define play style? The overall focus of the player in a game? The overall intended focus of the player from the start of the game, before anything happens? Let's take a game where a mech player is going hellion siege tank. He happens to burn all of his opponents' probes due to a mistake he made. Since the terran doesn't want to drag it out, he attacks with all his SCVs+2-3 tanks + Hellions, before siege mode is even done. He kills the protoss. Are we here to then say he played bio? The playstyle is certainly not positional -- he harassed like a bio player and attacked aggressively. If someone asks "did he go bio or mech", what will the answer be? He was intending to go mech but ended up playing more like bio. Are you really saying that it's not ok to ask "did he go bio or mech" but instead he must ask "did he open with barracks tech and barracks units or did he open with factory tech and factory units"? Also lets not kid ourselves with positioning here, a mass baneling army will destroy a thor hellion composition, as seen in Nestea vs Nada in GSL, on Belshir Beach. It is not 1a. You can 1a but even with protoss deathballs that is an exaggeration. Watch thor hellion boxer vs zenio back in GSL; notice that thor hellion positioning? Whether or not the majority of the players just clump up and 1a doesn't matter, when there is a significant advantage to positioning them, and because of that people should strive to micro them and not just 1a, even pros. Nada got punished heavily by it, so there is no reason not to micro your army to the best you can, even if you are ahead. Im sorry but you are just wrong. Mech revolves around tanks and positional play. That's what people imply when they argue that they want mech to be viable. Tankless mech is more boring than bio (because at least you can micro that). Mass thors for instance, is just boring gameplay. I assume Blizzard has the same deifnition, but they really are clueless to the fundemnetal problem. In WOL the only style of mech that was viable was the ultra heavy turtling invented by Lyyna. But it's not really an entertaining way of playing (as you need to wait like 35/40+ min of turtling and getting ravens/bc's, ghosts, ........) to be able to beat the toss in a striaght up fight. I believe the kind of mech that should be viable in tvp is the same kind of mech that is viable as in tvt (mech vs bio). You can turtle and defned well o n3 bases against drops/multipronged harass etc, which are always entertaining. BUt when you get that 200 ball of tanks/hellions (maybe 1-2 thors), you own the bio player in a straight up fight. So either the bio player needs to counterattack or tech up to air. The same thing sohuld apply to the protoss. The protoss should be abusing the immoblity while teching up to tempest/carriers etc. (or he could just commit completely to harass and thuse never allow the terran to reach 200 food of mech army). ANyway the fundemental problems could be fixed by giving terran mech options to deal with archons and immortals (without the use of EMP). I am interested in knowing how seeker missile could solve this problem, but I think ravens probably are too gas heavy to really be viable along with mech (untill you are on 4+ bases). One "easy" solution could be to change the cost of ravens to 200/150 or something like that (maybe even 200/125), and see how it works out. That change wouldn't really distrube the balance of the other matchups signifcantly. You say I am just wrong, but you don't address any of my counter examples? Also your argument just saying that lots of people don't call that mech... is weak, don't you think? Our observations can obviously differ, so I think we should stick to arguing it based more on "reasoning" and not "most people do this", because let's be honest, lots of people use other terms wrong too (for example people considering starport units to be mech just because they are mechanical). I am not saying I want mech to be thor hellion. Also mech revolving around tank play being blizzard's focus is subjective. They have never (correct if wrong) stated that mech should be heavily centered on tank. They have mentioned they like positional strategies, but that does not mean the tank is the only unit that has to fulfill that role. Even Thors, for anti-muta as an example, is positioning; it's like an AA siege tank. I would like to stay away from balance and viable strats as well, as I think that can be an entirely different argument. There have been many successful mech games in TvP with tank hellion. If you want me to list some replays/games where mech worked, without significant mistakes on any side, and showing that there are no huge holes to make it completely unviable (difficult is one thing, but is it not up to the player to decide what strategy they are most comfortable with?) Anyways, as good as Lynna is, he's not a Code S player (duh), and yet you see mech very rarely, though it does win games (again, whether or not protoss are simply losing because they are not used to it is another thing -- if someone was to argue that they are losing due to inexperience, and that they will adapt and crush mech if mech becomes popular, then someone else could equally argue that the mech player could adapt as well, since the game is asymetric). I would like to not go further than that, but maybe if you think it's necessary then we can. Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 02:06 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 11 2012 00:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 19:52 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 10 2012 19:27 Qikz wrote:On December 10 2012 19:24 Everlong wrote:On December 10 2012 19:09 submarine wrote: Generally speaking: Tanks are just too weak against toss units. Sieged up tanks just do not trade well with toss units except maybe sentries and templars. That is a simple fact. It is true in WoL and in HotS. Go to the unit tester and A-move a chargelot, immortal archon army into sieged up tanks. It's not even a close fight. Now imagine the toss would do some splitting, or drops! If you want to make positional tank based TvP possible sieged up siegetanks need to trade well with normal toss ground units. As others already have said: The best solution i can think of is to add a damage upgrade to tanks against shields at either the armory or the fusion core. That way you can directly tune tanks without affecting the other match-ups or 111s. In the long run you would still have to get some ghosts to deal with immortals.
Tanks trade mobility for firepower, but right now the firepower is just not there. Yeah, I think that is true if you want to play the traditional BW style mech (which truly is mech). But I'm not sure this playstyle has it's place and bright future in SC2 due to the nature of how units clump, how much dmg they do, how fast the game is and how the maps look like. Blizzard wants Terran to use all tech paths. But who knows. Now it's good time to try to buff tank and see how it playes out. But I'm afraid that if they were ever willing to do so, they would've done it before all those changes supposed to help mech. Blizzard is just not going to buff tanks I'm afraid. I think they will buff tanks, but they wanted to try everything else before they tried it to see if it really was the weak tank causing the issues or not. They made the warhound as a "core" unit for HOTS after all. I think they know the Tank "problem" in TvP and they just don't want mech to be BW like, for whatever reason. On December 10 2012 19:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 18:05 Sissors wrote:On December 10 2012 17:55 AngryPenguin wrote: People don't understand that mass tank is not "mech", they start to mass tanks and they think that everything is fine with that.. Have you ever tried to play a game by mass colossi? (lol)
Mech IS mass tanks. Sure augmented by other units, but mech is the positional play inherent to tanks. Sure you can make a hellbat - thor army, but thats not what is meant by mech. i stopped using cloakshees long ago. maybe i forgot a few references in the guide about this.. I would say more than a few Disagree... any heavily factory based composition is mech. Maybe you should call mass tanks as BW style mech, but even that sounds weird. SC2's a different game, units have changed and so do the strategies. Also, just because tanks are much more positional than other mech units doesn't mean those other mech units still aren't more positional than bio. Their slow nature and transformation abilities make it more important to position them before the battle, unlike bio where you are faster and can reposition easier. If you are talking about mass tanks... why not just call it mass tanks? Or tank heavy mech. Otherwise if I talk about thor hellion tank. with less than half of my army being mech, I will have to call it thor hellion tank banshee all the time...? You can build so many hellions, if I have 3 reactor factories and 3 TL factories on 3 base like Liquid Sea, and I'm saving up more lots of hellions to suicide them at 2 of his bases (which have lots of canons), while also saving some for defense, and my hellion supply is larger than half my army... suddenly it's not mass tank, and it's not mech? I don't think so You know that by "mech" people are not referring to the unit description or the building it comes from, but about the play style. Marine Tank is much more mech like then Thor+Hellbat. Hell, Thor/ Hellbat plays much more like bio then mech. Though i agree we should probably use terms like: Tank based mech, to be more clear. And lets not kid ourselfs with "positioning" here, a Thor Hellbat composition is a "1a" comp, without the positioning aspects of Tank based comps and without the micro abilities of bio. Thors in general are ugly units when massed. First of all I don't think a significant majority of the people consider that to be the definition of mech. Yes, mech has been iconically defined by positional siege tank play from BW, but that doesn't have to be the same with SC2. Even in SC1, many times a player would have a very very high goliath count to deal with carriers, much more than his tanks. If we were to define what he's doing in that particular moment, or even in the overall duration of the game if they were doing carrier vs goliath for that long, would we no longer call it mech? What playstyle would we refer it to, goliaths? It's similar to how we both agree on trying to be more specific about things (like tank based mech), we could call it goliath heavy mech, but even then it means that it isn't the only kind of mech. As we can see, tanks are quite weaker in SC2 in many aspects, and thus are already used in different ways. They are still positioning units, but because of their even small differences in usage, it's already a different style. Also if we are to define it by play style, then how shall we define play style? The overall focus of the player in a game? The overall intended focus of the player from the start of the game, before anything happens? Let's take a game where a mech player is going hellion siege tank. He happens to burn all of his opponents' probes due to a mistake he made. Since the terran doesn't want to drag it out, he attacks with all his SCVs+2-3 tanks + Hellions, before siege mode is even done. He kills the protoss. Are we here to then say he played bio? The playstyle is certainly not positional -- he harassed like a bio player and attacked aggressively. If someone asks "did he go bio or mech", what will the answer be? He was intending to go mech but ended up playing more like bio. So would it not be ok to ask "did he go bio or mech" but instead he must ask "did he open with barracks tech and barracks units or did he open with factory tech and factory units"? Also, although a thor/hellion kind of composition can 1a, especially when ahead (and usually used as an all-in build or push), 1a'ing isn't the maximum you can micro your army to, and thus we shouldn't describe it as a 1a composition. For example, a mass baneling army will destroy a thor hellion composition, as seen in Nestea vs Nada in GSL, on Belshir Beach despite having so many BFH in front of his thors. You can 1a but even with protoss deathballs that is an exaggeration. If you remember thor hellion boxer vs zenio back in GSL, he noticed Zenio's composition and spread out his thors so much so that banelings and fungals would do almost nothing. He would run his hellions behind his thors, instead of tanking for his thors, just like marines running behind tanks, forcing the infestors and banelings to be ineffective, while the still alive hellions prevent the zerglings from engaging and disallowing them from surrounding the hellions. Whether or not the majority of the players just clump up and 1a doesn't matter, when there is a significant advantage to positioning them, and because of that people should strive to micro them and not just 1a, even pros. Nada got punished heavily by it, so there is no reason not to micro your army to the best you can, even if you are ahead. I agree with the marine tank being a lot like mech, but it is also a lot like bio. But again if we were to strictly define it by playstyle, then would bomber's 3 base marine tank build (used several months ago to success) be considered mech since he literally defends and does not drop or harass, and just does a 3 base push? Honestly, i think this blog explains it better then i could ever do: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=360325We could rename the barracks to factory 0.5, and add mechanical status to the marine and marauder and we would have "mech" right (ironicly, that's what Blizzard was doing with the Warhound lol)? Of course not, mech as a style is something rather unique to starcraft. Use long range but imobile units to control areas of the map, so on and so forth. The siege tank is what makes this style what it is, there's just no getting around that. On mass Thors. Come on, doing a little spreading is positioningor micro? That is at most a small tactic that is used only on occasion...hardly a characteristic of the style. Like i've said, you don't have the positioning aspects of tank-mech nor the micro of bio. It is a very boring way to play, let alone spectate. Similar to BL/C/Inf actually. Slow moving,easy to control death army, BORING. I think it's worth fighting for this unique style instead of being all jolly that we can mass Thors and pretend it's interesting. I'm not pretending (whether you are addressing just me or people in general) or wanting thor based mech to be the main and most fun way to play mech. However it is a type of mech. If you only consider tank heavy based mech (and again, even you said it's good to clarify mech as tank based mech -- so that means tank based mech isn't the only kind of mech, or would you like to rephrase it?) to be mech, then what is thor hellion? I have to say it's thor hellion? Also I understand what Falling is saying, that mech in BW was very positional and the tank was very iconic. I do enjoy tank based mech. I'm not saying I want mech to not be positional, and I'm not saying that I want thor/hellion to be the main mech composition. I don't think that blog really addresses what I'm saying though. I'm not saying at all that mech just means the unit is mechanical. However, all factory units are more positional than barracks units. You say that a little thor spreading is not positioning micro -- then what is tank spreading? Do you not spread thors to help deal with mutas picking off tanks while you push? Do you not position thors with hellions vs baneling ling muta infestor, leap frogging thors slowly as Boxer and others did, to push forward? Again, you can split with bio as well -- however, mech is slower to position, especially because they have to transform, while bio can stim instantly and is, arguably, less forgiving on positioning because they have the speed to run away (especially with medivac pick up + emergency thrusters now). Mech cannot micro as well in fights as regards to stutter stepping and such, nor can it reposition in a fight as easily or effectively as bio can. Therefore, it is more positional than bio. It must rely on prior positioning because there is little you can do in the battle besides target firing (and is that not similar to tank based mech? You siege up, then target fire the right units). Again, just like the other poster, I don't feel you really address my counter examples at all. If you are talking about the style, do we say someone like bomber who is going defensive turtle marine tank on 3 bases is going mech? We can say he is playing like mech, or he is playing defensively as if meching, but he is going bio [composition]. Bio/mech is the composition, not the playstyle. If we go by this, then we can easily signify a mass tank style as... tank heavy mech, or tank centered mech. Again, do you call those carrier vs goliath battles in BW to be bio? No, there is positioning. They aren't tanks, but there is still positioning and micro -- things like making sure to, as you push or move your army, to stay away from cliffs to prevent carriers from microing too well. I don't want to accuse you of not fully reading my post, but I feel neither of you really addressed my counter arguments to show why the meanings you want "mech" to be associated with (as well as its connotations) should be the way you say they should be. And again, if I missed some point somewhere, please feel free to correct me. So I guess in short, we are not separating the ideas "playstyle" "composition" and "tech" well enough. I think mech and bio should refer (its main, plain usage, with no further clarification) to composition (barracks, factory, starport). To refer to playstyle, we can say "he is playing like mech" or "he is playing defensively and positionally like mech". When a game has not progressed very far, but they are about to have much more factory/barracks/starport buildings/tech than the others, then we can say they are going either bio, mech, or starport.
Other people have said the same thing, becuase it makes 0 thing to talk about non positional a moving units such as maurauders/thors/warhounds as mech units (unless tanks are included in the composition). Mech needs that strategically/postionaly element, and that's what people say when they talk about mech.
Carrier vs goliath battles arose after initla tank play.
IF terrans in bw just only massed goliaths the whole game, tvp would be boring as ashit as well. The reason why I say you are wrong is because your definition makes little sense. Who cares about whether the unit is mechanical or biological. THat's irrelevant. What's important is how the unit works when it is used. Thors requires minimal position effort and doesn't countrol ground. Tanks do, and thus they add a completely different element to the game that many people desire.
So when people talk about mech, what they really are talking about, is the "control ground ability" that the tanks have, and which creates interesting games. Defining mech only in terms of units being mechanical is a definition with little practical use.
|
On December 11 2012 03:43 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 03:18 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 11 2012 01:11 Hider wrote:On December 11 2012 00:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 19:52 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 10 2012 19:27 Qikz wrote:On December 10 2012 19:24 Everlong wrote:On December 10 2012 19:09 submarine wrote: Generally speaking: Tanks are just too weak against toss units. Sieged up tanks just do not trade well with toss units except maybe sentries and templars. That is a simple fact. It is true in WoL and in HotS. Go to the unit tester and A-move a chargelot, immortal archon army into sieged up tanks. It's not even a close fight. Now imagine the toss would do some splitting, or drops! If you want to make positional tank based TvP possible sieged up siegetanks need to trade well with normal toss ground units. As others already have said: The best solution i can think of is to add a damage upgrade to tanks against shields at either the armory or the fusion core. That way you can directly tune tanks without affecting the other match-ups or 111s. In the long run you would still have to get some ghosts to deal with immortals.
Tanks trade mobility for firepower, but right now the firepower is just not there. Yeah, I think that is true if you want to play the traditional BW style mech (which truly is mech). But I'm not sure this playstyle has it's place and bright future in SC2 due to the nature of how units clump, how much dmg they do, how fast the game is and how the maps look like. Blizzard wants Terran to use all tech paths. But who knows. Now it's good time to try to buff tank and see how it playes out. But I'm afraid that if they were ever willing to do so, they would've done it before all those changes supposed to help mech. Blizzard is just not going to buff tanks I'm afraid. I think they will buff tanks, but they wanted to try everything else before they tried it to see if it really was the weak tank causing the issues or not. They made the warhound as a "core" unit for HOTS after all. I think they know the Tank "problem" in TvP and they just don't want mech to be BW like, for whatever reason. On December 10 2012 19:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 18:05 Sissors wrote:On December 10 2012 17:55 AngryPenguin wrote: People don't understand that mass tank is not "mech", they start to mass tanks and they think that everything is fine with that.. Have you ever tried to play a game by mass colossi? (lol)
Mech IS mass tanks. Sure augmented by other units, but mech is the positional play inherent to tanks. Sure you can make a hellbat - thor army, but thats not what is meant by mech. i stopped using cloakshees long ago. maybe i forgot a few references in the guide about this.. I would say more than a few Disagree... any heavily factory based composition is mech. Maybe you should call mass tanks as BW style mech, but even that sounds weird. SC2's a different game, units have changed and so do the strategies. Also, just because tanks are much more positional than other mech units doesn't mean those other mech units still aren't more positional than bio. Their slow nature and transformation abilities make it more important to position them before the battle, unlike bio where you are faster and can reposition easier. If you are talking about mass tanks... why not just call it mass tanks? Or tank heavy mech. Otherwise if I talk about thor hellion tank. with less than half of my army being mech, I will have to call it thor hellion tank banshee all the time...? You can build so many hellions, if I have 3 reactor factories and 3 TL factories on 3 base like Liquid Sea, and I'm saving up more lots of hellions to suicide them at 2 of his bases (which have lots of canons), while also saving some for defense, and my hellion supply is larger than half my army... suddenly it's not mass tank, and it's not mech? I don't think so You know that by "mech" people are not referring to the unit description or the building it comes from, but about the play style. Marine Tank is much more mech like then Thor+Hellbat. Hell, Thor/ Hellbat plays much more like bio then mech. Though i agree we should probably use terms like: Tank based mech, to be more clear. And lets not kid ourselfs with "positioning" here, a Thor Hellbat composition is a "1a" comp, without the positioning aspects of Tank based comps and without the micro abilities of bio. Thors in general are ugly units when massed. First of all I don't think a significant majority of the people consider that to be the definition of mech. Yes, mech has been iconically defined by positional siege tank play from BW, but that doesn't have to be the same with SC2. As we can see, tanks are quite weaker in SC2, and thus are already used in different ways. They are still positioning units, but because of their even small differences in usage, it's already a different style. Also if we are to define it by play style, then how shall we define play style? The overall focus of the player in a game? The overall intended focus of the player from the start of the game, before anything happens? Let's take a game where a mech player is going hellion siege tank. He happens to burn all of his opponents' probes due to a mistake he made. Since the terran doesn't want to drag it out, he attacks with all his SCVs+2-3 tanks + Hellions, before siege mode is even done. He kills the protoss. Are we here to then say he played bio? The playstyle is certainly not positional -- he harassed like a bio player and attacked aggressively. If someone asks "did he go bio or mech", what will the answer be? He was intending to go mech but ended up playing more like bio. Are you really saying that it's not ok to ask "did he go bio or mech" but instead he must ask "did he open with barracks tech and barracks units or did he open with factory tech and factory units"? Also lets not kid ourselves with positioning here, a mass baneling army will destroy a thor hellion composition, as seen in Nestea vs Nada in GSL, on Belshir Beach. It is not 1a. You can 1a but even with protoss deathballs that is an exaggeration. Watch thor hellion boxer vs zenio back in GSL; notice that thor hellion positioning? Whether or not the majority of the players just clump up and 1a doesn't matter, when there is a significant advantage to positioning them, and because of that people should strive to micro them and not just 1a, even pros. Nada got punished heavily by it, so there is no reason not to micro your army to the best you can, even if you are ahead. Im sorry but you are just wrong. Mech revolves around tanks and positional play. That's what people imply when they argue that they want mech to be viable. Tankless mech is more boring than bio (because at least you can micro that). Mass thors for instance, is just boring gameplay. I assume Blizzard has the same deifnition, but they really are clueless to the fundemnetal problem. In WOL the only style of mech that was viable was the ultra heavy turtling invented by Lyyna. But it's not really an entertaining way of playing (as you need to wait like 35/40+ min of turtling and getting ravens/bc's, ghosts, ........) to be able to beat the toss in a striaght up fight. I believe the kind of mech that should be viable in tvp is the same kind of mech that is viable as in tvt (mech vs bio). You can turtle and defned well o n3 bases against drops/multipronged harass etc, which are always entertaining. BUt when you get that 200 ball of tanks/hellions (maybe 1-2 thors), you own the bio player in a straight up fight. So either the bio player needs to counterattack or tech up to air. The same thing sohuld apply to the protoss. The protoss should be abusing the immoblity while teching up to tempest/carriers etc. (or he could just commit completely to harass and thuse never allow the terran to reach 200 food of mech army). ANyway the fundemental problems could be fixed by giving terran mech options to deal with archons and immortals (without the use of EMP). I am interested in knowing how seeker missile could solve this problem, but I think ravens probably are too gas heavy to really be viable along with mech (untill you are on 4+ bases). One "easy" solution could be to change the cost of ravens to 200/150 or something like that (maybe even 200/125), and see how it works out. That change wouldn't really distrube the balance of the other matchups signifcantly. You say I am just wrong, but you don't address any of my counter examples? Also your argument just saying that lots of people don't call that mech... is weak, don't you think? Our observations can obviously differ, so I think we should stick to arguing it based more on "reasoning" and not "most people do this", because let's be honest, lots of people use other terms wrong too (for example people considering starport units to be mech just because they are mechanical). I am not saying I want mech to be thor hellion. Also mech revolving around tank play being blizzard's focus is subjective. They have never (correct if wrong) stated that mech should be heavily centered on tank. They have mentioned they like positional strategies, but that does not mean the tank is the only unit that has to fulfill that role. Even Thors, for anti-muta as an example, is positioning; it's like an AA siege tank. I would like to stay away from balance and viable strats as well, as I think that can be an entirely different argument. There have been many successful mech games in TvP with tank hellion. If you want me to list some replays/games where mech worked, without significant mistakes on any side, and showing that there are no huge holes to make it completely unviable (difficult is one thing, but is it not up to the player to decide what strategy they are most comfortable with?) Anyways, as good as Lynna is, he's not a Code S player (duh), and yet you see mech very rarely, though it does win games (again, whether or not protoss are simply losing because they are not used to it is another thing -- if someone was to argue that they are losing due to inexperience, and that they will adapt and crush mech if mech becomes popular, then someone else could equally argue that the mech player could adapt as well, since the game is asymetric). I would like to not go further than that, but maybe if you think it's necessary then we can. On December 11 2012 02:06 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 11 2012 00:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 19:52 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 10 2012 19:27 Qikz wrote:On December 10 2012 19:24 Everlong wrote:On December 10 2012 19:09 submarine wrote: Generally speaking: Tanks are just too weak against toss units. Sieged up tanks just do not trade well with toss units except maybe sentries and templars. That is a simple fact. It is true in WoL and in HotS. Go to the unit tester and A-move a chargelot, immortal archon army into sieged up tanks. It's not even a close fight. Now imagine the toss would do some splitting, or drops! If you want to make positional tank based TvP possible sieged up siegetanks need to trade well with normal toss ground units. As others already have said: The best solution i can think of is to add a damage upgrade to tanks against shields at either the armory or the fusion core. That way you can directly tune tanks without affecting the other match-ups or 111s. In the long run you would still have to get some ghosts to deal with immortals.
Tanks trade mobility for firepower, but right now the firepower is just not there. Yeah, I think that is true if you want to play the traditional BW style mech (which truly is mech). But I'm not sure this playstyle has it's place and bright future in SC2 due to the nature of how units clump, how much dmg they do, how fast the game is and how the maps look like. Blizzard wants Terran to use all tech paths. But who knows. Now it's good time to try to buff tank and see how it playes out. But I'm afraid that if they were ever willing to do so, they would've done it before all those changes supposed to help mech. Blizzard is just not going to buff tanks I'm afraid. I think they will buff tanks, but they wanted to try everything else before they tried it to see if it really was the weak tank causing the issues or not. They made the warhound as a "core" unit for HOTS after all. I think they know the Tank "problem" in TvP and they just don't want mech to be BW like, for whatever reason. On December 10 2012 19:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 18:05 Sissors wrote:On December 10 2012 17:55 AngryPenguin wrote: People don't understand that mass tank is not "mech", they start to mass tanks and they think that everything is fine with that.. Have you ever tried to play a game by mass colossi? (lol)
Mech IS mass tanks. Sure augmented by other units, but mech is the positional play inherent to tanks. Sure you can make a hellbat - thor army, but thats not what is meant by mech. i stopped using cloakshees long ago. maybe i forgot a few references in the guide about this.. I would say more than a few Disagree... any heavily factory based composition is mech. Maybe you should call mass tanks as BW style mech, but even that sounds weird. SC2's a different game, units have changed and so do the strategies. Also, just because tanks are much more positional than other mech units doesn't mean those other mech units still aren't more positional than bio. Their slow nature and transformation abilities make it more important to position them before the battle, unlike bio where you are faster and can reposition easier. If you are talking about mass tanks... why not just call it mass tanks? Or tank heavy mech. Otherwise if I talk about thor hellion tank. with less than half of my army being mech, I will have to call it thor hellion tank banshee all the time...? You can build so many hellions, if I have 3 reactor factories and 3 TL factories on 3 base like Liquid Sea, and I'm saving up more lots of hellions to suicide them at 2 of his bases (which have lots of canons), while also saving some for defense, and my hellion supply is larger than half my army... suddenly it's not mass tank, and it's not mech? I don't think so You know that by "mech" people are not referring to the unit description or the building it comes from, but about the play style. Marine Tank is much more mech like then Thor+Hellbat. Hell, Thor/ Hellbat plays much more like bio then mech. Though i agree we should probably use terms like: Tank based mech, to be more clear. And lets not kid ourselfs with "positioning" here, a Thor Hellbat composition is a "1a" comp, without the positioning aspects of Tank based comps and without the micro abilities of bio. Thors in general are ugly units when massed. First of all I don't think a significant majority of the people consider that to be the definition of mech. Yes, mech has been iconically defined by positional siege tank play from BW, but that doesn't have to be the same with SC2. Even in SC1, many times a player would have a very very high goliath count to deal with carriers, much more than his tanks. If we were to define what he's doing in that particular moment, or even in the overall duration of the game if they were doing carrier vs goliath for that long, would we no longer call it mech? What playstyle would we refer it to, goliaths? It's similar to how we both agree on trying to be more specific about things (like tank based mech), we could call it goliath heavy mech, but even then it means that it isn't the only kind of mech. As we can see, tanks are quite weaker in SC2 in many aspects, and thus are already used in different ways. They are still positioning units, but because of their even small differences in usage, it's already a different style. Also if we are to define it by play style, then how shall we define play style? The overall focus of the player in a game? The overall intended focus of the player from the start of the game, before anything happens? Let's take a game where a mech player is going hellion siege tank. He happens to burn all of his opponents' probes due to a mistake he made. Since the terran doesn't want to drag it out, he attacks with all his SCVs+2-3 tanks + Hellions, before siege mode is even done. He kills the protoss. Are we here to then say he played bio? The playstyle is certainly not positional -- he harassed like a bio player and attacked aggressively. If someone asks "did he go bio or mech", what will the answer be? He was intending to go mech but ended up playing more like bio. So would it not be ok to ask "did he go bio or mech" but instead he must ask "did he open with barracks tech and barracks units or did he open with factory tech and factory units"? Also, although a thor/hellion kind of composition can 1a, especially when ahead (and usually used as an all-in build or push), 1a'ing isn't the maximum you can micro your army to, and thus we shouldn't describe it as a 1a composition. For example, a mass baneling army will destroy a thor hellion composition, as seen in Nestea vs Nada in GSL, on Belshir Beach despite having so many BFH in front of his thors. You can 1a but even with protoss deathballs that is an exaggeration. If you remember thor hellion boxer vs zenio back in GSL, he noticed Zenio's composition and spread out his thors so much so that banelings and fungals would do almost nothing. He would run his hellions behind his thors, instead of tanking for his thors, just like marines running behind tanks, forcing the infestors and banelings to be ineffective, while the still alive hellions prevent the zerglings from engaging and disallowing them from surrounding the hellions. Whether or not the majority of the players just clump up and 1a doesn't matter, when there is a significant advantage to positioning them, and because of that people should strive to micro them and not just 1a, even pros. Nada got punished heavily by it, so there is no reason not to micro your army to the best you can, even if you are ahead. I agree with the marine tank being a lot like mech, but it is also a lot like bio. But again if we were to strictly define it by playstyle, then would bomber's 3 base marine tank build (used several months ago to success) be considered mech since he literally defends and does not drop or harass, and just does a 3 base push? Honestly, i think this blog explains it better then i could ever do: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=360325We could rename the barracks to factory 0.5, and add mechanical status to the marine and marauder and we would have "mech" right (ironicly, that's what Blizzard was doing with the Warhound lol)? Of course not, mech as a style is something rather unique to starcraft. Use long range but imobile units to control areas of the map, so on and so forth. The siege tank is what makes this style what it is, there's just no getting around that. On mass Thors. Come on, doing a little spreading is positioningor micro? That is at most a small tactic that is used only on occasion...hardly a characteristic of the style. Like i've said, you don't have the positioning aspects of tank-mech nor the micro of bio. It is a very boring way to play, let alone spectate. Similar to BL/C/Inf actually. Slow moving,easy to control death army, BORING. I think it's worth fighting for this unique style instead of being all jolly that we can mass Thors and pretend it's interesting. I'm not pretending (whether you are addressing just me or people in general) or wanting thor based mech to be the main and most fun way to play mech. However it is a type of mech. If you only consider tank heavy based mech (and again, even you said it's good to clarify mech as tank based mech -- so that means tank based mech isn't the only kind of mech, or would you like to rephrase it?) to be mech, then what is thor hellion? I have to say it's thor hellion? Also I understand what Falling is saying, that mech in BW was very positional and the tank was very iconic. I do enjoy tank based mech. I'm not saying I want mech to not be positional, and I'm not saying that I want thor/hellion to be the main mech composition. I don't think that blog really addresses what I'm saying though. I'm not saying at all that mech just means the unit is mechanical. However, all factory units are more positional than barracks units. You say that a little thor spreading is not positioning micro -- then what is tank spreading? Do you not spread thors to help deal with mutas picking off tanks while you push? Do you not position thors with hellions vs baneling ling muta infestor, leap frogging thors slowly as Boxer and others did, to push forward? Again, you can split with bio as well -- however, mech is slower to position, especially because they have to transform, while bio can stim instantly and is, arguably, less forgiving on positioning because they have the speed to run away (especially with medivac pick up + emergency thrusters now). Mech cannot micro as well in fights as regards to stutter stepping and such, nor can it reposition in a fight as easily or effectively as bio can. Therefore, it is more positional than bio. It must rely on prior positioning because there is little you can do in the battle besides target firing (and is that not similar to tank based mech? You siege up, then target fire the right units). Again, just like the other poster, I don't feel you really address my counter examples at all. If you are talking about the style, do we say someone like bomber who is going defensive turtle marine tank on 3 bases is going mech? We can say he is playing like mech, or he is playing defensively as if meching, but he is going bio [composition]. Bio/mech is the composition, not the playstyle. If we go by this, then we can easily signify a mass tank style as... tank heavy mech, or tank centered mech. Again, do you call those carrier vs goliath battles in BW to be bio? No, there is positioning. They aren't tanks, but there is still positioning and micro -- things like making sure to, as you push or move your army, to stay away from cliffs to prevent carriers from microing too well. I don't want to accuse you of not fully reading my post, but I feel neither of you really addressed my counter arguments to show why the meanings you want "mech" to be associated with (as well as its connotations) should be the way you say they should be. And again, if I missed some point somewhere, please feel free to correct me. So I guess in short, we are not separating the ideas "playstyle" "composition" and "tech" well enough. I think mech and bio should refer (its main, plain usage, with no further clarification) to composition (barracks, factory, starport). To refer to playstyle, we can say "he is playing like mech" or "he is playing defensively and positionally like mech". When a game has not progressed very far, but they are about to have much more factory/barracks/starport buildings/tech than the others, then we can say they are going either bio, mech, or starport. Other people have said the same thing, becuase it makes 0 thing to talk about non positional a moving units such as maurauders/thors/warhounds as mech units (unless tanks are included in the composition). Mech needs that strategically/postionaly element, and that's what people say when they talk about mech. Carrier vs goliath battles arose after initla tank play. IF terrans in bw just only massed goliaths the whole game, tvp would be boring as ashit as well.
I'm getting frustrated because I've provided specific examples and even specific games that support my argument that thors are more positional than bio units, and you don't address that at all. If you're not going to address the actual arguments in my post, we can't really get anywhere constructive. I know my posts are really long, and possibly too wordy, but if you don't want to read it all you maybe shouldn't post, because again we won't be able to discuss things accurately nor timely.
Initial tank play... but it's not heavy tank based. At that point in time, most of the supply is NOT in tanks. Therefore, how can you still call that mech, as I believe you say mech means or should be heavily tank centered (where much of your supply is in tanks, and your playstyle is very positional, whether it be defensive or aggressive). I'm not talking about the overall playstyle nor composition of the game, I'm talking about that specific point in time. Would you or would you not consider that moment or phase of a theoretical game, where the players are going heavy carrier vs heavy goliath, to be mech? If you still consider that mech, then it is an exception to what you're saying that mech is tank based or heavy on tanks. And with that we can easily make an exception for thors too, which again, are AA siege tanks, even if they are not as strong as tank's long range power.
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
On December 11 2012 03:32 RandomMan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 03:23 ZjiublingZ wrote:On December 11 2012 02:51 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 01:52 ZjiublingZ wrote:On December 11 2012 01:28 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 01:25 Everlong wrote:On December 11 2012 01:07 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 00:55 Everlong wrote:On December 11 2012 00:35 Penev wrote: On the energy bar thing: Mech should have some energy bars to keep HT's a somewhat viable choice. Storms don't quite effect mech like it does bio. I mean, c'mon.. Mech finally just got something.. How, why do you want HT's to counter mech? You've got whole robo tech + zealots + stargate tech against mech.. You really want all tech paths to counter mech right? Zealots counter mech in HOTS? Helbat got remove like warhound? Robo does not counter mech, depending whether you recognize air units, particularly raven as part of mech. Oh my god, I think we can now abandon this discussion.. "Robo does not counter mech" is enough for me. Guys, save your time, we might try next time.. Please enlighten me how an immortal kills off, or simply any unit in robo, kills off raven, before the seeker missile 1 shot immortal or reduce colossi to 50 hp? Against my better judgement I will respond to you RandomMan, even though you have been acting like a child throughout this thread (where the Mods at?). Using a 200 gas unit, that takes 2 minutes to "counter" a 100 gas unit, that takes at most 55 seconds to make, isn't generally an example of a counter. It's akin to saying Carriers "counter" Roaches. Yes, they do beat them, but it's not realistic to use them for that purpose throughout the game. Of course it could be useful to have 1 Raven now with cheaper DT's, the usefullness of PDD, auto-turrets to block chargelots, and now HSM to kill off 1 Immortal. That's enough utility to make them worth it for sure IMO. But as far as making multiple Ravens just to counter multiple Immortals - there's only one specific situation where that makes any sense at all: In a maxed out situation where the 2 supply Raven killing the 4 supply Immortal is a supply-efficient counter AND when resources aren't a limiting factor to your composition. I.E. you can't max out on Ravens in your first max out, or you are vulnerable to attacks before that, wherein you have traded 200 gas to remove a 100 gas unit from the fight, that's not cost-efficient. Not being cost-efficient in engagements (with gas at least) against Protoss - who should have more bases than you - is a recipe for failure. So... toss struggling to get out a unit that cost 150 gas and takes 1 minutes 30 seconds to "counter" a 0 gas unit, that takes at most 25 seconds to make, is not generally an example of a counter,. Or maybe worse, Using a 200 gas unit, that takes 1 minutes 15 seconds to "counter" a 0 gas unit, that takes at most 25 seconds to make, is the worse counter ever... okay I understand now, that is the reason why most toss struggling against bio ball, because they choose the wrong counter, for more than 2 years. That isn't a valid comparison at all. You are talking about units that counter many multiples of units. 1 Colossus doesn't just counter a single marine. We are talking about using 1 unit to counter 1 other unit - and not contribute anything else to the fight. Do you understand the difference? (seriously Mods, this guy is ruining discussion, where you at...) Well just in case you did not know, seeker missile 1 shot void rays and out range them, and if you do not already know about it, void rays and immortals are the 2 only toss unit that toss able to counter thors, all thanks to the tempest nerf, and these 2 happens to be hard counter by ravens, FYI. PS. actually not only void ray and immortal, even colossus, archon and carrier are easily soften up, and easily kill off by supporting units like thors or marines.
Dude, now you're literally just ignoring what I have said. I gave you a valid and well explained argument as to why using Raven to "counter" Immortals isn't a good idea in most situations, you gave me a counter-argument, and I explained to you why that counter-argument isn't applicable. And now you're just back to saying Ravens do hard-counter Immortals.
If you can't give me a reason why my analysis that Raven's are in fact not a good counter to Immortals, you cannot continue to claim that Ravens do indeed hard-counter them. That's just not how a discussion works.
|
On December 11 2012 03:55 ZjiublingZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 03:32 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 03:23 ZjiublingZ wrote:On December 11 2012 02:51 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 01:52 ZjiublingZ wrote:On December 11 2012 01:28 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 01:25 Everlong wrote:On December 11 2012 01:07 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 00:55 Everlong wrote:On December 11 2012 00:35 Penev wrote: On the energy bar thing: Mech should have some energy bars to keep HT's a somewhat viable choice. Storms don't quite effect mech like it does bio. I mean, c'mon.. Mech finally just got something.. How, why do you want HT's to counter mech? You've got whole robo tech + zealots + stargate tech against mech.. You really want all tech paths to counter mech right? Zealots counter mech in HOTS? Helbat got remove like warhound? Robo does not counter mech, depending whether you recognize air units, particularly raven as part of mech. Oh my god, I think we can now abandon this discussion.. "Robo does not counter mech" is enough for me. Guys, save your time, we might try next time.. Please enlighten me how an immortal kills off, or simply any unit in robo, kills off raven, before the seeker missile 1 shot immortal or reduce colossi to 50 hp? Against my better judgement I will respond to you RandomMan, even though you have been acting like a child throughout this thread (where the Mods at?). Using a 200 gas unit, that takes 2 minutes to "counter" a 100 gas unit, that takes at most 55 seconds to make, isn't generally an example of a counter. It's akin to saying Carriers "counter" Roaches. Yes, they do beat them, but it's not realistic to use them for that purpose throughout the game. Of course it could be useful to have 1 Raven now with cheaper DT's, the usefullness of PDD, auto-turrets to block chargelots, and now HSM to kill off 1 Immortal. That's enough utility to make them worth it for sure IMO. But as far as making multiple Ravens just to counter multiple Immortals - there's only one specific situation where that makes any sense at all: In a maxed out situation where the 2 supply Raven killing the 4 supply Immortal is a supply-efficient counter AND when resources aren't a limiting factor to your composition. I.E. you can't max out on Ravens in your first max out, or you are vulnerable to attacks before that, wherein you have traded 200 gas to remove a 100 gas unit from the fight, that's not cost-efficient. Not being cost-efficient in engagements (with gas at least) against Protoss - who should have more bases than you - is a recipe for failure. So... toss struggling to get out a unit that cost 150 gas and takes 1 minutes 30 seconds to "counter" a 0 gas unit, that takes at most 25 seconds to make, is not generally an example of a counter,. Or maybe worse, Using a 200 gas unit, that takes 1 minutes 15 seconds to "counter" a 0 gas unit, that takes at most 25 seconds to make, is the worse counter ever... okay I understand now, that is the reason why most toss struggling against bio ball, because they choose the wrong counter, for more than 2 years. That isn't a valid comparison at all. You are talking about units that counter many multiples of units. 1 Colossus doesn't just counter a single marine. We are talking about using 1 unit to counter 1 other unit - and not contribute anything else to the fight. Do you understand the difference? (seriously Mods, this guy is ruining discussion, where you at...) Well just in case you did not know, seeker missile 1 shot void rays and out range them, and if you do not already know about it, void rays and immortals are the 2 only toss unit that toss able to counter thors, all thanks to the tempest nerf, and these 2 happens to be hard counter by ravens, FYI. PS. actually not only void ray and immortal, even colossus, archon and carrier are easily soften up, and easily kill off by supporting units like thors or marines. Dude, now you're literally just ignoring what I have said. I gave you a valid and well explained argument as to why using Raven to "counter" Immortals isn't a good idea in most situations, you gave me a counter-argument, and I explained to you why that counter-argument isn't applicable. And now you're just back to saying Ravens do hard-counter Immortals. If you can't give me a reason why my analysis that Raven's are in fact not a good counter to Immortals, you cannot continue to claim that Ravens do indeed hard-counter them. That's just not how a discussion works.
I told you.. There is no point arguing with this guy. Leave it..
|
Im masters now on the Beta. Ive won every game where i have gone mass Thors without tanks and have lost every game but one where i had mostly tanks with just a few thors for support. my experience with the Beta thus far is that there is 0 reason to make tanks vs protoss with the Thors now being hard countered only by immortals due to their formidable anti armored air attack, and no longer being soft countered by templars with feedback.
My optimum army is now Thor - Battle Hellion - Ghost- couple Ravens- couple Vikings. if he goes mass immortal add in banshees instead of vikings.
|
On December 11 2012 04:00 Pookie Monster wrote: Im masters now on the Beta. Ive won every game where i have gone mass Thors without tanks and have lost every game but one where i had mostly tanks with just a few thors for support. my experience with the Beta thus far is that there is 0 reason to make tanks vs protoss with the Thors now being hard countered only by immortals due to their formidable anti armored air attack, and no longer being soft countered by templars with feedback.
My optimum army is now Thor - Battle Hellion - Ghost- couple Ravens- couple Vikings. if he goes mass immortal add in banshees instead of vikings.
Holy shit, I totally forgot you could do that to great effect again since there's no more energy xD. So now both bio and mech have both mobile/harass and defensive/strong options, just like protoss and zerg in HotS. I'll be really impressed if they can make LotV even better as regards to strategies and compositions possible.
|
On December 11 2012 03:48 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 03:43 Hider wrote:On December 11 2012 03:18 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 11 2012 01:11 Hider wrote:On December 11 2012 00:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 19:52 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 10 2012 19:27 Qikz wrote:On December 10 2012 19:24 Everlong wrote:On December 10 2012 19:09 submarine wrote: Generally speaking: Tanks are just too weak against toss units. Sieged up tanks just do not trade well with toss units except maybe sentries and templars. That is a simple fact. It is true in WoL and in HotS. Go to the unit tester and A-move a chargelot, immortal archon army into sieged up tanks. It's not even a close fight. Now imagine the toss would do some splitting, or drops! If you want to make positional tank based TvP possible sieged up siegetanks need to trade well with normal toss ground units. As others already have said: The best solution i can think of is to add a damage upgrade to tanks against shields at either the armory or the fusion core. That way you can directly tune tanks without affecting the other match-ups or 111s. In the long run you would still have to get some ghosts to deal with immortals.
Tanks trade mobility for firepower, but right now the firepower is just not there. Yeah, I think that is true if you want to play the traditional BW style mech (which truly is mech). But I'm not sure this playstyle has it's place and bright future in SC2 due to the nature of how units clump, how much dmg they do, how fast the game is and how the maps look like. Blizzard wants Terran to use all tech paths. But who knows. Now it's good time to try to buff tank and see how it playes out. But I'm afraid that if they were ever willing to do so, they would've done it before all those changes supposed to help mech. Blizzard is just not going to buff tanks I'm afraid. I think they will buff tanks, but they wanted to try everything else before they tried it to see if it really was the weak tank causing the issues or not. They made the warhound as a "core" unit for HOTS after all. I think they know the Tank "problem" in TvP and they just don't want mech to be BW like, for whatever reason. On December 10 2012 19:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 18:05 Sissors wrote:On December 10 2012 17:55 AngryPenguin wrote: People don't understand that mass tank is not "mech", they start to mass tanks and they think that everything is fine with that.. Have you ever tried to play a game by mass colossi? (lol)
Mech IS mass tanks. Sure augmented by other units, but mech is the positional play inherent to tanks. Sure you can make a hellbat - thor army, but thats not what is meant by mech. i stopped using cloakshees long ago. maybe i forgot a few references in the guide about this.. I would say more than a few Disagree... any heavily factory based composition is mech. Maybe you should call mass tanks as BW style mech, but even that sounds weird. SC2's a different game, units have changed and so do the strategies. Also, just because tanks are much more positional than other mech units doesn't mean those other mech units still aren't more positional than bio. Their slow nature and transformation abilities make it more important to position them before the battle, unlike bio where you are faster and can reposition easier. If you are talking about mass tanks... why not just call it mass tanks? Or tank heavy mech. Otherwise if I talk about thor hellion tank. with less than half of my army being mech, I will have to call it thor hellion tank banshee all the time...? You can build so many hellions, if I have 3 reactor factories and 3 TL factories on 3 base like Liquid Sea, and I'm saving up more lots of hellions to suicide them at 2 of his bases (which have lots of canons), while also saving some for defense, and my hellion supply is larger than half my army... suddenly it's not mass tank, and it's not mech? I don't think so You know that by "mech" people are not referring to the unit description or the building it comes from, but about the play style. Marine Tank is much more mech like then Thor+Hellbat. Hell, Thor/ Hellbat plays much more like bio then mech. Though i agree we should probably use terms like: Tank based mech, to be more clear. And lets not kid ourselfs with "positioning" here, a Thor Hellbat composition is a "1a" comp, without the positioning aspects of Tank based comps and without the micro abilities of bio. Thors in general are ugly units when massed. First of all I don't think a significant majority of the people consider that to be the definition of mech. Yes, mech has been iconically defined by positional siege tank play from BW, but that doesn't have to be the same with SC2. As we can see, tanks are quite weaker in SC2, and thus are already used in different ways. They are still positioning units, but because of their even small differences in usage, it's already a different style. Also if we are to define it by play style, then how shall we define play style? The overall focus of the player in a game? The overall intended focus of the player from the start of the game, before anything happens? Let's take a game where a mech player is going hellion siege tank. He happens to burn all of his opponents' probes due to a mistake he made. Since the terran doesn't want to drag it out, he attacks with all his SCVs+2-3 tanks + Hellions, before siege mode is even done. He kills the protoss. Are we here to then say he played bio? The playstyle is certainly not positional -- he harassed like a bio player and attacked aggressively. If someone asks "did he go bio or mech", what will the answer be? He was intending to go mech but ended up playing more like bio. Are you really saying that it's not ok to ask "did he go bio or mech" but instead he must ask "did he open with barracks tech and barracks units or did he open with factory tech and factory units"? Also lets not kid ourselves with positioning here, a mass baneling army will destroy a thor hellion composition, as seen in Nestea vs Nada in GSL, on Belshir Beach. It is not 1a. You can 1a but even with protoss deathballs that is an exaggeration. Watch thor hellion boxer vs zenio back in GSL; notice that thor hellion positioning? Whether or not the majority of the players just clump up and 1a doesn't matter, when there is a significant advantage to positioning them, and because of that people should strive to micro them and not just 1a, even pros. Nada got punished heavily by it, so there is no reason not to micro your army to the best you can, even if you are ahead. Im sorry but you are just wrong. Mech revolves around tanks and positional play. That's what people imply when they argue that they want mech to be viable. Tankless mech is more boring than bio (because at least you can micro that). Mass thors for instance, is just boring gameplay. I assume Blizzard has the same deifnition, but they really are clueless to the fundemnetal problem. In WOL the only style of mech that was viable was the ultra heavy turtling invented by Lyyna. But it's not really an entertaining way of playing (as you need to wait like 35/40+ min of turtling and getting ravens/bc's, ghosts, ........) to be able to beat the toss in a striaght up fight. I believe the kind of mech that should be viable in tvp is the same kind of mech that is viable as in tvt (mech vs bio). You can turtle and defned well o n3 bases against drops/multipronged harass etc, which are always entertaining. BUt when you get that 200 ball of tanks/hellions (maybe 1-2 thors), you own the bio player in a straight up fight. So either the bio player needs to counterattack or tech up to air. The same thing sohuld apply to the protoss. The protoss should be abusing the immoblity while teching up to tempest/carriers etc. (or he could just commit completely to harass and thuse never allow the terran to reach 200 food of mech army). ANyway the fundemental problems could be fixed by giving terran mech options to deal with archons and immortals (without the use of EMP). I am interested in knowing how seeker missile could solve this problem, but I think ravens probably are too gas heavy to really be viable along with mech (untill you are on 4+ bases). One "easy" solution could be to change the cost of ravens to 200/150 or something like that (maybe even 200/125), and see how it works out. That change wouldn't really distrube the balance of the other matchups signifcantly. You say I am just wrong, but you don't address any of my counter examples? Also your argument just saying that lots of people don't call that mech... is weak, don't you think? Our observations can obviously differ, so I think we should stick to arguing it based more on "reasoning" and not "most people do this", because let's be honest, lots of people use other terms wrong too (for example people considering starport units to be mech just because they are mechanical). I am not saying I want mech to be thor hellion. Also mech revolving around tank play being blizzard's focus is subjective. They have never (correct if wrong) stated that mech should be heavily centered on tank. They have mentioned they like positional strategies, but that does not mean the tank is the only unit that has to fulfill that role. Even Thors, for anti-muta as an example, is positioning; it's like an AA siege tank. I would like to stay away from balance and viable strats as well, as I think that can be an entirely different argument. There have been many successful mech games in TvP with tank hellion. If you want me to list some replays/games where mech worked, without significant mistakes on any side, and showing that there are no huge holes to make it completely unviable (difficult is one thing, but is it not up to the player to decide what strategy they are most comfortable with?) Anyways, as good as Lynna is, he's not a Code S player (duh), and yet you see mech very rarely, though it does win games (again, whether or not protoss are simply losing because they are not used to it is another thing -- if someone was to argue that they are losing due to inexperience, and that they will adapt and crush mech if mech becomes popular, then someone else could equally argue that the mech player could adapt as well, since the game is asymetric). I would like to not go further than that, but maybe if you think it's necessary then we can. On December 11 2012 02:06 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 11 2012 00:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 19:52 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 10 2012 19:27 Qikz wrote:On December 10 2012 19:24 Everlong wrote:On December 10 2012 19:09 submarine wrote: Generally speaking: Tanks are just too weak against toss units. Sieged up tanks just do not trade well with toss units except maybe sentries and templars. That is a simple fact. It is true in WoL and in HotS. Go to the unit tester and A-move a chargelot, immortal archon army into sieged up tanks. It's not even a close fight. Now imagine the toss would do some splitting, or drops! If you want to make positional tank based TvP possible sieged up siegetanks need to trade well with normal toss ground units. As others already have said: The best solution i can think of is to add a damage upgrade to tanks against shields at either the armory or the fusion core. That way you can directly tune tanks without affecting the other match-ups or 111s. In the long run you would still have to get some ghosts to deal with immortals.
Tanks trade mobility for firepower, but right now the firepower is just not there. Yeah, I think that is true if you want to play the traditional BW style mech (which truly is mech). But I'm not sure this playstyle has it's place and bright future in SC2 due to the nature of how units clump, how much dmg they do, how fast the game is and how the maps look like. Blizzard wants Terran to use all tech paths. But who knows. Now it's good time to try to buff tank and see how it playes out. But I'm afraid that if they were ever willing to do so, they would've done it before all those changes supposed to help mech. Blizzard is just not going to buff tanks I'm afraid. I think they will buff tanks, but they wanted to try everything else before they tried it to see if it really was the weak tank causing the issues or not. They made the warhound as a "core" unit for HOTS after all. I think they know the Tank "problem" in TvP and they just don't want mech to be BW like, for whatever reason. On December 10 2012 19:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 18:05 Sissors wrote:On December 10 2012 17:55 AngryPenguin wrote: People don't understand that mass tank is not "mech", they start to mass tanks and they think that everything is fine with that.. Have you ever tried to play a game by mass colossi? (lol)
Mech IS mass tanks. Sure augmented by other units, but mech is the positional play inherent to tanks. Sure you can make a hellbat - thor army, but thats not what is meant by mech. i stopped using cloakshees long ago. maybe i forgot a few references in the guide about this.. I would say more than a few Disagree... any heavily factory based composition is mech. Maybe you should call mass tanks as BW style mech, but even that sounds weird. SC2's a different game, units have changed and so do the strategies. Also, just because tanks are much more positional than other mech units doesn't mean those other mech units still aren't more positional than bio. Their slow nature and transformation abilities make it more important to position them before the battle, unlike bio where you are faster and can reposition easier. If you are talking about mass tanks... why not just call it mass tanks? Or tank heavy mech. Otherwise if I talk about thor hellion tank. with less than half of my army being mech, I will have to call it thor hellion tank banshee all the time...? You can build so many hellions, if I have 3 reactor factories and 3 TL factories on 3 base like Liquid Sea, and I'm saving up more lots of hellions to suicide them at 2 of his bases (which have lots of canons), while also saving some for defense, and my hellion supply is larger than half my army... suddenly it's not mass tank, and it's not mech? I don't think so You know that by "mech" people are not referring to the unit description or the building it comes from, but about the play style. Marine Tank is much more mech like then Thor+Hellbat. Hell, Thor/ Hellbat plays much more like bio then mech. Though i agree we should probably use terms like: Tank based mech, to be more clear. And lets not kid ourselfs with "positioning" here, a Thor Hellbat composition is a "1a" comp, without the positioning aspects of Tank based comps and without the micro abilities of bio. Thors in general are ugly units when massed. First of all I don't think a significant majority of the people consider that to be the definition of mech. Yes, mech has been iconically defined by positional siege tank play from BW, but that doesn't have to be the same with SC2. Even in SC1, many times a player would have a very very high goliath count to deal with carriers, much more than his tanks. If we were to define what he's doing in that particular moment, or even in the overall duration of the game if they were doing carrier vs goliath for that long, would we no longer call it mech? What playstyle would we refer it to, goliaths? It's similar to how we both agree on trying to be more specific about things (like tank based mech), we could call it goliath heavy mech, but even then it means that it isn't the only kind of mech. As we can see, tanks are quite weaker in SC2 in many aspects, and thus are already used in different ways. They are still positioning units, but because of their even small differences in usage, it's already a different style. Also if we are to define it by play style, then how shall we define play style? The overall focus of the player in a game? The overall intended focus of the player from the start of the game, before anything happens? Let's take a game where a mech player is going hellion siege tank. He happens to burn all of his opponents' probes due to a mistake he made. Since the terran doesn't want to drag it out, he attacks with all his SCVs+2-3 tanks + Hellions, before siege mode is even done. He kills the protoss. Are we here to then say he played bio? The playstyle is certainly not positional -- he harassed like a bio player and attacked aggressively. If someone asks "did he go bio or mech", what will the answer be? He was intending to go mech but ended up playing more like bio. So would it not be ok to ask "did he go bio or mech" but instead he must ask "did he open with barracks tech and barracks units or did he open with factory tech and factory units"? Also, although a thor/hellion kind of composition can 1a, especially when ahead (and usually used as an all-in build or push), 1a'ing isn't the maximum you can micro your army to, and thus we shouldn't describe it as a 1a composition. For example, a mass baneling army will destroy a thor hellion composition, as seen in Nestea vs Nada in GSL, on Belshir Beach despite having so many BFH in front of his thors. You can 1a but even with protoss deathballs that is an exaggeration. If you remember thor hellion boxer vs zenio back in GSL, he noticed Zenio's composition and spread out his thors so much so that banelings and fungals would do almost nothing. He would run his hellions behind his thors, instead of tanking for his thors, just like marines running behind tanks, forcing the infestors and banelings to be ineffective, while the still alive hellions prevent the zerglings from engaging and disallowing them from surrounding the hellions. Whether or not the majority of the players just clump up and 1a doesn't matter, when there is a significant advantage to positioning them, and because of that people should strive to micro them and not just 1a, even pros. Nada got punished heavily by it, so there is no reason not to micro your army to the best you can, even if you are ahead. I agree with the marine tank being a lot like mech, but it is also a lot like bio. But again if we were to strictly define it by playstyle, then would bomber's 3 base marine tank build (used several months ago to success) be considered mech since he literally defends and does not drop or harass, and just does a 3 base push? Honestly, i think this blog explains it better then i could ever do: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=360325We could rename the barracks to factory 0.5, and add mechanical status to the marine and marauder and we would have "mech" right (ironicly, that's what Blizzard was doing with the Warhound lol)? Of course not, mech as a style is something rather unique to starcraft. Use long range but imobile units to control areas of the map, so on and so forth. The siege tank is what makes this style what it is, there's just no getting around that. On mass Thors. Come on, doing a little spreading is positioningor micro? That is at most a small tactic that is used only on occasion...hardly a characteristic of the style. Like i've said, you don't have the positioning aspects of tank-mech nor the micro of bio. It is a very boring way to play, let alone spectate. Similar to BL/C/Inf actually. Slow moving,easy to control death army, BORING. I think it's worth fighting for this unique style instead of being all jolly that we can mass Thors and pretend it's interesting. I'm not pretending (whether you are addressing just me or people in general) or wanting thor based mech to be the main and most fun way to play mech. However it is a type of mech. If you only consider tank heavy based mech (and again, even you said it's good to clarify mech as tank based mech -- so that means tank based mech isn't the only kind of mech, or would you like to rephrase it?) to be mech, then what is thor hellion? I have to say it's thor hellion? Also I understand what Falling is saying, that mech in BW was very positional and the tank was very iconic. I do enjoy tank based mech. I'm not saying I want mech to not be positional, and I'm not saying that I want thor/hellion to be the main mech composition. I don't think that blog really addresses what I'm saying though. I'm not saying at all that mech just means the unit is mechanical. However, all factory units are more positional than barracks units. You say that a little thor spreading is not positioning micro -- then what is tank spreading? Do you not spread thors to help deal with mutas picking off tanks while you push? Do you not position thors with hellions vs baneling ling muta infestor, leap frogging thors slowly as Boxer and others did, to push forward? Again, you can split with bio as well -- however, mech is slower to position, especially because they have to transform, while bio can stim instantly and is, arguably, less forgiving on positioning because they have the speed to run away (especially with medivac pick up + emergency thrusters now). Mech cannot micro as well in fights as regards to stutter stepping and such, nor can it reposition in a fight as easily or effectively as bio can. Therefore, it is more positional than bio. It must rely on prior positioning because there is little you can do in the battle besides target firing (and is that not similar to tank based mech? You siege up, then target fire the right units). Again, just like the other poster, I don't feel you really address my counter examples at all. If you are talking about the style, do we say someone like bomber who is going defensive turtle marine tank on 3 bases is going mech? We can say he is playing like mech, or he is playing defensively as if meching, but he is going bio [composition]. Bio/mech is the composition, not the playstyle. If we go by this, then we can easily signify a mass tank style as... tank heavy mech, or tank centered mech. Again, do you call those carrier vs goliath battles in BW to be bio? No, there is positioning. They aren't tanks, but there is still positioning and micro -- things like making sure to, as you push or move your army, to stay away from cliffs to prevent carriers from microing too well. I don't want to accuse you of not fully reading my post, but I feel neither of you really addressed my counter arguments to show why the meanings you want "mech" to be associated with (as well as its connotations) should be the way you say they should be. And again, if I missed some point somewhere, please feel free to correct me. So I guess in short, we are not separating the ideas "playstyle" "composition" and "tech" well enough. I think mech and bio should refer (its main, plain usage, with no further clarification) to composition (barracks, factory, starport). To refer to playstyle, we can say "he is playing like mech" or "he is playing defensively and positionally like mech". When a game has not progressed very far, but they are about to have much more factory/barracks/starport buildings/tech than the others, then we can say they are going either bio, mech, or starport. Other people have said the same thing, becuase it makes 0 thing to talk about non positional a moving units such as maurauders/thors/warhounds as mech units (unless tanks are included in the composition). Mech needs that strategically/postionaly element, and that's what people say when they talk about mech. Carrier vs goliath battles arose after initla tank play. IF terrans in bw just only massed goliaths the whole game, tvp would be boring as ashit as well. I'm getting frustrated because I've provided specific examples and even specific games that support my argument that thors are more positional than bio units, and you don't address that at all. If you're not going to address the actual arguments in my post, we can't really get anywhere constructive. I know my posts are really long, and possibly too wordy, but if you don't want to read it all you maybe shouldn't post, because again we won't be able to discuss things accurately nor timely. Initial tank play... but it's not heavy tank based. At that point in time, most of the supply is NOT in tanks. Therefore, how can you still call that mech, as I believe you say mech means or should be heavily tank centered (where much of your supply is in tanks, and your playstyle is very positional, whether it be defensive or aggressive). I'm not talking about the overall playstyle nor composition of the game, I'm talking about that specific point in time. Would you or would you not consider that moment or phase of a theoretical game, where the players are going heavy carrier vs heavy goliath, to be mech? If you still consider that mech, then it is an exception to what you're saying that mech is tank based or heavy on tanks. And with that we can easily make an exception for thors too, which again, are AA siege tanks, even if they are not as strong as tank's long range power.
the thing is that your definition of positional play is different. Here we are talking about controlling space.
|
On December 11 2012 03:55 ZjiublingZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 03:32 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 03:23 ZjiublingZ wrote:On December 11 2012 02:51 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 01:52 ZjiublingZ wrote:On December 11 2012 01:28 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 01:25 Everlong wrote:On December 11 2012 01:07 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 00:55 Everlong wrote:On December 11 2012 00:35 Penev wrote: On the energy bar thing: Mech should have some energy bars to keep HT's a somewhat viable choice. Storms don't quite effect mech like it does bio. I mean, c'mon.. Mech finally just got something.. How, why do you want HT's to counter mech? You've got whole robo tech + zealots + stargate tech against mech.. You really want all tech paths to counter mech right? Zealots counter mech in HOTS? Helbat got remove like warhound? Robo does not counter mech, depending whether you recognize air units, particularly raven as part of mech. Oh my god, I think we can now abandon this discussion.. "Robo does not counter mech" is enough for me. Guys, save your time, we might try next time.. Please enlighten me how an immortal kills off, or simply any unit in robo, kills off raven, before the seeker missile 1 shot immortal or reduce colossi to 50 hp? Against my better judgement I will respond to you RandomMan, even though you have been acting like a child throughout this thread (where the Mods at?). Using a 200 gas unit, that takes 2 minutes to "counter" a 100 gas unit, that takes at most 55 seconds to make, isn't generally an example of a counter. It's akin to saying Carriers "counter" Roaches. Yes, they do beat them, but it's not realistic to use them for that purpose throughout the game. Of course it could be useful to have 1 Raven now with cheaper DT's, the usefullness of PDD, auto-turrets to block chargelots, and now HSM to kill off 1 Immortal. That's enough utility to make them worth it for sure IMO. But as far as making multiple Ravens just to counter multiple Immortals - there's only one specific situation where that makes any sense at all: In a maxed out situation where the 2 supply Raven killing the 4 supply Immortal is a supply-efficient counter AND when resources aren't a limiting factor to your composition. I.E. you can't max out on Ravens in your first max out, or you are vulnerable to attacks before that, wherein you have traded 200 gas to remove a 100 gas unit from the fight, that's not cost-efficient. Not being cost-efficient in engagements (with gas at least) against Protoss - who should have more bases than you - is a recipe for failure. So... toss struggling to get out a unit that cost 150 gas and takes 1 minutes 30 seconds to "counter" a 0 gas unit, that takes at most 25 seconds to make, is not generally an example of a counter,. Or maybe worse, Using a 200 gas unit, that takes 1 minutes 15 seconds to "counter" a 0 gas unit, that takes at most 25 seconds to make, is the worse counter ever... okay I understand now, that is the reason why most toss struggling against bio ball, because they choose the wrong counter, for more than 2 years. That isn't a valid comparison at all. You are talking about units that counter many multiples of units. 1 Colossus doesn't just counter a single marine. We are talking about using 1 unit to counter 1 other unit - and not contribute anything else to the fight. Do you understand the difference? (seriously Mods, this guy is ruining discussion, where you at...) Well just in case you did not know, seeker missile 1 shot void rays and out range them, and if you do not already know about it, void rays and immortals are the 2 only toss unit that toss able to counter thors, all thanks to the tempest nerf, and these 2 happens to be hard counter by ravens, FYI. PS. actually not only void ray and immortal, even colossus, archon and carrier are easily soften up, and easily kill off by supporting units like thors or marines. Dude, now you're literally just ignoring what I have said. I gave you a valid and well explained argument as to why using Raven to "counter" Immortals isn't a good idea in most situations, you gave me a counter-argument, and I explained to you why that counter-argument isn't applicable. And now you're just back to saying Ravens do hard-counter Immortals. If you can't give me a reason why my analysis that Raven's are in fact not a good counter to Immortals, you cannot continue to claim that Ravens do indeed hard-counter them. That's just not how a discussion works.
Dude, your arguments is: ravens do nothing after HSM launch, but you forget there is a auto turret you are missing. So using a 2 supply unit 1shot a 4 supply unit is no good, so now what? Make HSM cost 100 energy so it can pick off 2 targets in one battle? In a battle, there is just so much units you can have in a same time, because there is a supply cap. Imagine you suddenly lost 40 supply worth of army, and your opponent just having 20 supply worth of army TEMPORARY disable from the battle (actually not true, cause auto turret cost 50 energy only) and do not suffer any casualties at all, and it was just 3 seconds after the confrontation commence, how do you feel, do you feel that, as a toss, having half or even all your immortals gone in 3 seconds, can stand a chance againts the new thors?
As for how to get the ravens, all you need to do is just play defensively till late game. Afraid of skytoss? How powerful skytoss is if most void rays get 1 shot even before they kill a single thor? Kill thors with tempest? carier?
|
On December 11 2012 04:17 RandomMan wrote: Kill thors with tempest? carier? Actually yeah, thors are worthless against tempests and probably carriers too as long as they are microed properly.
|
On December 11 2012 04:22 Bagi wrote:Actually yeah, thors are worthless against tempests and probably carriers too as long as they are microed properly. Uhh.. "why"? The problem of thors vs carriers is that you have to micro them so they don't waste shots on interceptors vs Tempests, well, i don't see what"s the problem... It's all about dancing in front of your tank line
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
On December 11 2012 04:32 Lyyna wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 04:22 Bagi wrote:On December 11 2012 04:17 RandomMan wrote: Kill thors with tempest? carier? Actually yeah, thors are worthless against tempests and probably carriers too as long as they are microed properly. Uhh.. "why"? The problem of thors vs carriers is that you have to micro them so they don't waste shots on interceptors vs Tempests, well, i don't see what"s the problem... It's all about dancing in front of your tank line
Now the carrier has it's leash range attack change thing (which is great btw), it really does hinder the usage of thors against carriers.
Goli's worked in those situations as you could move quickly away from the interceptors and target them down, but with the thor it's too slow and if the toss is really good he'll attack from deadspace.
I'd still stay vikings are better than thors, not that that's a problem though
|
On December 11 2012 04:14 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 03:48 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 11 2012 03:43 Hider wrote:On December 11 2012 03:18 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 11 2012 01:11 Hider wrote:On December 11 2012 00:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 19:52 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 10 2012 19:27 Qikz wrote:On December 10 2012 19:24 Everlong wrote:On December 10 2012 19:09 submarine wrote: Generally speaking: Tanks are just too weak against toss units. Sieged up tanks just do not trade well with toss units except maybe sentries and templars. That is a simple fact. It is true in WoL and in HotS. Go to the unit tester and A-move a chargelot, immortal archon army into sieged up tanks. It's not even a close fight. Now imagine the toss would do some splitting, or drops! If you want to make positional tank based TvP possible sieged up siegetanks need to trade well with normal toss ground units. As others already have said: The best solution i can think of is to add a damage upgrade to tanks against shields at either the armory or the fusion core. That way you can directly tune tanks without affecting the other match-ups or 111s. In the long run you would still have to get some ghosts to deal with immortals.
Tanks trade mobility for firepower, but right now the firepower is just not there. Yeah, I think that is true if you want to play the traditional BW style mech (which truly is mech). But I'm not sure this playstyle has it's place and bright future in SC2 due to the nature of how units clump, how much dmg they do, how fast the game is and how the maps look like. Blizzard wants Terran to use all tech paths. But who knows. Now it's good time to try to buff tank and see how it playes out. But I'm afraid that if they were ever willing to do so, they would've done it before all those changes supposed to help mech. Blizzard is just not going to buff tanks I'm afraid. I think they will buff tanks, but they wanted to try everything else before they tried it to see if it really was the weak tank causing the issues or not. They made the warhound as a "core" unit for HOTS after all. I think they know the Tank "problem" in TvP and they just don't want mech to be BW like, for whatever reason. On December 10 2012 19:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 18:05 Sissors wrote:On December 10 2012 17:55 AngryPenguin wrote: People don't understand that mass tank is not "mech", they start to mass tanks and they think that everything is fine with that.. Have you ever tried to play a game by mass colossi? (lol)
Mech IS mass tanks. Sure augmented by other units, but mech is the positional play inherent to tanks. Sure you can make a hellbat - thor army, but thats not what is meant by mech. i stopped using cloakshees long ago. maybe i forgot a few references in the guide about this.. I would say more than a few Disagree... any heavily factory based composition is mech. Maybe you should call mass tanks as BW style mech, but even that sounds weird. SC2's a different game, units have changed and so do the strategies. Also, just because tanks are much more positional than other mech units doesn't mean those other mech units still aren't more positional than bio. Their slow nature and transformation abilities make it more important to position them before the battle, unlike bio where you are faster and can reposition easier. If you are talking about mass tanks... why not just call it mass tanks? Or tank heavy mech. Otherwise if I talk about thor hellion tank. with less than half of my army being mech, I will have to call it thor hellion tank banshee all the time...? You can build so many hellions, if I have 3 reactor factories and 3 TL factories on 3 base like Liquid Sea, and I'm saving up more lots of hellions to suicide them at 2 of his bases (which have lots of canons), while also saving some for defense, and my hellion supply is larger than half my army... suddenly it's not mass tank, and it's not mech? I don't think so You know that by "mech" people are not referring to the unit description or the building it comes from, but about the play style. Marine Tank is much more mech like then Thor+Hellbat. Hell, Thor/ Hellbat plays much more like bio then mech. Though i agree we should probably use terms like: Tank based mech, to be more clear. And lets not kid ourselfs with "positioning" here, a Thor Hellbat composition is a "1a" comp, without the positioning aspects of Tank based comps and without the micro abilities of bio. Thors in general are ugly units when massed. First of all I don't think a significant majority of the people consider that to be the definition of mech. Yes, mech has been iconically defined by positional siege tank play from BW, but that doesn't have to be the same with SC2. As we can see, tanks are quite weaker in SC2, and thus are already used in different ways. They are still positioning units, but because of their even small differences in usage, it's already a different style. Also if we are to define it by play style, then how shall we define play style? The overall focus of the player in a game? The overall intended focus of the player from the start of the game, before anything happens? Let's take a game where a mech player is going hellion siege tank. He happens to burn all of his opponents' probes due to a mistake he made. Since the terran doesn't want to drag it out, he attacks with all his SCVs+2-3 tanks + Hellions, before siege mode is even done. He kills the protoss. Are we here to then say he played bio? The playstyle is certainly not positional -- he harassed like a bio player and attacked aggressively. If someone asks "did he go bio or mech", what will the answer be? He was intending to go mech but ended up playing more like bio. Are you really saying that it's not ok to ask "did he go bio or mech" but instead he must ask "did he open with barracks tech and barracks units or did he open with factory tech and factory units"? Also lets not kid ourselves with positioning here, a mass baneling army will destroy a thor hellion composition, as seen in Nestea vs Nada in GSL, on Belshir Beach. It is not 1a. You can 1a but even with protoss deathballs that is an exaggeration. Watch thor hellion boxer vs zenio back in GSL; notice that thor hellion positioning? Whether or not the majority of the players just clump up and 1a doesn't matter, when there is a significant advantage to positioning them, and because of that people should strive to micro them and not just 1a, even pros. Nada got punished heavily by it, so there is no reason not to micro your army to the best you can, even if you are ahead. Im sorry but you are just wrong. Mech revolves around tanks and positional play. That's what people imply when they argue that they want mech to be viable. Tankless mech is more boring than bio (because at least you can micro that). Mass thors for instance, is just boring gameplay. I assume Blizzard has the same deifnition, but they really are clueless to the fundemnetal problem. In WOL the only style of mech that was viable was the ultra heavy turtling invented by Lyyna. But it's not really an entertaining way of playing (as you need to wait like 35/40+ min of turtling and getting ravens/bc's, ghosts, ........) to be able to beat the toss in a striaght up fight. I believe the kind of mech that should be viable in tvp is the same kind of mech that is viable as in tvt (mech vs bio). You can turtle and defned well o n3 bases against drops/multipronged harass etc, which are always entertaining. BUt when you get that 200 ball of tanks/hellions (maybe 1-2 thors), you own the bio player in a straight up fight. So either the bio player needs to counterattack or tech up to air. The same thing sohuld apply to the protoss. The protoss should be abusing the immoblity while teching up to tempest/carriers etc. (or he could just commit completely to harass and thuse never allow the terran to reach 200 food of mech army). ANyway the fundemental problems could be fixed by giving terran mech options to deal with archons and immortals (without the use of EMP). I am interested in knowing how seeker missile could solve this problem, but I think ravens probably are too gas heavy to really be viable along with mech (untill you are on 4+ bases). One "easy" solution could be to change the cost of ravens to 200/150 or something like that (maybe even 200/125), and see how it works out. That change wouldn't really distrube the balance of the other matchups signifcantly. You say I am just wrong, but you don't address any of my counter examples? Also your argument just saying that lots of people don't call that mech... is weak, don't you think? Our observations can obviously differ, so I think we should stick to arguing it based more on "reasoning" and not "most people do this", because let's be honest, lots of people use other terms wrong too (for example people considering starport units to be mech just because they are mechanical). I am not saying I want mech to be thor hellion. Also mech revolving around tank play being blizzard's focus is subjective. They have never (correct if wrong) stated that mech should be heavily centered on tank. They have mentioned they like positional strategies, but that does not mean the tank is the only unit that has to fulfill that role. Even Thors, for anti-muta as an example, is positioning; it's like an AA siege tank. I would like to stay away from balance and viable strats as well, as I think that can be an entirely different argument. There have been many successful mech games in TvP with tank hellion. If you want me to list some replays/games where mech worked, without significant mistakes on any side, and showing that there are no huge holes to make it completely unviable (difficult is one thing, but is it not up to the player to decide what strategy they are most comfortable with?) Anyways, as good as Lynna is, he's not a Code S player (duh), and yet you see mech very rarely, though it does win games (again, whether or not protoss are simply losing because they are not used to it is another thing -- if someone was to argue that they are losing due to inexperience, and that they will adapt and crush mech if mech becomes popular, then someone else could equally argue that the mech player could adapt as well, since the game is asymetric). I would like to not go further than that, but maybe if you think it's necessary then we can. On December 11 2012 02:06 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 11 2012 00:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 19:52 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 10 2012 19:27 Qikz wrote:On December 10 2012 19:24 Everlong wrote:On December 10 2012 19:09 submarine wrote: Generally speaking: Tanks are just too weak against toss units. Sieged up tanks just do not trade well with toss units except maybe sentries and templars. That is a simple fact. It is true in WoL and in HotS. Go to the unit tester and A-move a chargelot, immortal archon army into sieged up tanks. It's not even a close fight. Now imagine the toss would do some splitting, or drops! If you want to make positional tank based TvP possible sieged up siegetanks need to trade well with normal toss ground units. As others already have said: The best solution i can think of is to add a damage upgrade to tanks against shields at either the armory or the fusion core. That way you can directly tune tanks without affecting the other match-ups or 111s. In the long run you would still have to get some ghosts to deal with immortals.
Tanks trade mobility for firepower, but right now the firepower is just not there. Yeah, I think that is true if you want to play the traditional BW style mech (which truly is mech). But I'm not sure this playstyle has it's place and bright future in SC2 due to the nature of how units clump, how much dmg they do, how fast the game is and how the maps look like. Blizzard wants Terran to use all tech paths. But who knows. Now it's good time to try to buff tank and see how it playes out. But I'm afraid that if they were ever willing to do so, they would've done it before all those changes supposed to help mech. Blizzard is just not going to buff tanks I'm afraid. I think they will buff tanks, but they wanted to try everything else before they tried it to see if it really was the weak tank causing the issues or not. They made the warhound as a "core" unit for HOTS after all. I think they know the Tank "problem" in TvP and they just don't want mech to be BW like, for whatever reason. On December 10 2012 19:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On December 10 2012 18:05 Sissors wrote:On December 10 2012 17:55 AngryPenguin wrote: People don't understand that mass tank is not "mech", they start to mass tanks and they think that everything is fine with that.. Have you ever tried to play a game by mass colossi? (lol)
Mech IS mass tanks. Sure augmented by other units, but mech is the positional play inherent to tanks. Sure you can make a hellbat - thor army, but thats not what is meant by mech. i stopped using cloakshees long ago. maybe i forgot a few references in the guide about this.. I would say more than a few Disagree... any heavily factory based composition is mech. Maybe you should call mass tanks as BW style mech, but even that sounds weird. SC2's a different game, units have changed and so do the strategies. Also, just because tanks are much more positional than other mech units doesn't mean those other mech units still aren't more positional than bio. Their slow nature and transformation abilities make it more important to position them before the battle, unlike bio where you are faster and can reposition easier. If you are talking about mass tanks... why not just call it mass tanks? Or tank heavy mech. Otherwise if I talk about thor hellion tank. with less than half of my army being mech, I will have to call it thor hellion tank banshee all the time...? You can build so many hellions, if I have 3 reactor factories and 3 TL factories on 3 base like Liquid Sea, and I'm saving up more lots of hellions to suicide them at 2 of his bases (which have lots of canons), while also saving some for defense, and my hellion supply is larger than half my army... suddenly it's not mass tank, and it's not mech? I don't think so You know that by "mech" people are not referring to the unit description or the building it comes from, but about the play style. Marine Tank is much more mech like then Thor+Hellbat. Hell, Thor/ Hellbat plays much more like bio then mech. Though i agree we should probably use terms like: Tank based mech, to be more clear. And lets not kid ourselfs with "positioning" here, a Thor Hellbat composition is a "1a" comp, without the positioning aspects of Tank based comps and without the micro abilities of bio. Thors in general are ugly units when massed. First of all I don't think a significant majority of the people consider that to be the definition of mech. Yes, mech has been iconically defined by positional siege tank play from BW, but that doesn't have to be the same with SC2. Even in SC1, many times a player would have a very very high goliath count to deal with carriers, much more than his tanks. If we were to define what he's doing in that particular moment, or even in the overall duration of the game if they were doing carrier vs goliath for that long, would we no longer call it mech? What playstyle would we refer it to, goliaths? It's similar to how we both agree on trying to be more specific about things (like tank based mech), we could call it goliath heavy mech, but even then it means that it isn't the only kind of mech. As we can see, tanks are quite weaker in SC2 in many aspects, and thus are already used in different ways. They are still positioning units, but because of their even small differences in usage, it's already a different style. Also if we are to define it by play style, then how shall we define play style? The overall focus of the player in a game? The overall intended focus of the player from the start of the game, before anything happens? Let's take a game where a mech player is going hellion siege tank. He happens to burn all of his opponents' probes due to a mistake he made. Since the terran doesn't want to drag it out, he attacks with all his SCVs+2-3 tanks + Hellions, before siege mode is even done. He kills the protoss. Are we here to then say he played bio? The playstyle is certainly not positional -- he harassed like a bio player and attacked aggressively. If someone asks "did he go bio or mech", what will the answer be? He was intending to go mech but ended up playing more like bio. So would it not be ok to ask "did he go bio or mech" but instead he must ask "did he open with barracks tech and barracks units or did he open with factory tech and factory units"? Also, although a thor/hellion kind of composition can 1a, especially when ahead (and usually used as an all-in build or push), 1a'ing isn't the maximum you can micro your army to, and thus we shouldn't describe it as a 1a composition. For example, a mass baneling army will destroy a thor hellion composition, as seen in Nestea vs Nada in GSL, on Belshir Beach despite having so many BFH in front of his thors. You can 1a but even with protoss deathballs that is an exaggeration. If you remember thor hellion boxer vs zenio back in GSL, he noticed Zenio's composition and spread out his thors so much so that banelings and fungals would do almost nothing. He would run his hellions behind his thors, instead of tanking for his thors, just like marines running behind tanks, forcing the infestors and banelings to be ineffective, while the still alive hellions prevent the zerglings from engaging and disallowing them from surrounding the hellions. Whether or not the majority of the players just clump up and 1a doesn't matter, when there is a significant advantage to positioning them, and because of that people should strive to micro them and not just 1a, even pros. Nada got punished heavily by it, so there is no reason not to micro your army to the best you can, even if you are ahead. I agree with the marine tank being a lot like mech, but it is also a lot like bio. But again if we were to strictly define it by playstyle, then would bomber's 3 base marine tank build (used several months ago to success) be considered mech since he literally defends and does not drop or harass, and just does a 3 base push? Honestly, i think this blog explains it better then i could ever do: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=360325We could rename the barracks to factory 0.5, and add mechanical status to the marine and marauder and we would have "mech" right (ironicly, that's what Blizzard was doing with the Warhound lol)? Of course not, mech as a style is something rather unique to starcraft. Use long range but imobile units to control areas of the map, so on and so forth. The siege tank is what makes this style what it is, there's just no getting around that. On mass Thors. Come on, doing a little spreading is positioningor micro? That is at most a small tactic that is used only on occasion...hardly a characteristic of the style. Like i've said, you don't have the positioning aspects of tank-mech nor the micro of bio. It is a very boring way to play, let alone spectate. Similar to BL/C/Inf actually. Slow moving,easy to control death army, BORING. I think it's worth fighting for this unique style instead of being all jolly that we can mass Thors and pretend it's interesting. I'm not pretending (whether you are addressing just me or people in general) or wanting thor based mech to be the main and most fun way to play mech. However it is a type of mech. If you only consider tank heavy based mech (and again, even you said it's good to clarify mech as tank based mech -- so that means tank based mech isn't the only kind of mech, or would you like to rephrase it?) to be mech, then what is thor hellion? I have to say it's thor hellion? Also I understand what Falling is saying, that mech in BW was very positional and the tank was very iconic. I do enjoy tank based mech. I'm not saying I want mech to not be positional, and I'm not saying that I want thor/hellion to be the main mech composition. I don't think that blog really addresses what I'm saying though. I'm not saying at all that mech just means the unit is mechanical. However, all factory units are more positional than barracks units. You say that a little thor spreading is not positioning micro -- then what is tank spreading? Do you not spread thors to help deal with mutas picking off tanks while you push? Do you not position thors with hellions vs baneling ling muta infestor, leap frogging thors slowly as Boxer and others did, to push forward? Again, you can split with bio as well -- however, mech is slower to position, especially because they have to transform, while bio can stim instantly and is, arguably, less forgiving on positioning because they have the speed to run away (especially with medivac pick up + emergency thrusters now). Mech cannot micro as well in fights as regards to stutter stepping and such, nor can it reposition in a fight as easily or effectively as bio can. Therefore, it is more positional than bio. It must rely on prior positioning because there is little you can do in the battle besides target firing (and is that not similar to tank based mech? You siege up, then target fire the right units). Again, just like the other poster, I don't feel you really address my counter examples at all. If you are talking about the style, do we say someone like bomber who is going defensive turtle marine tank on 3 bases is going mech? We can say he is playing like mech, or he is playing defensively as if meching, but he is going bio [composition]. Bio/mech is the composition, not the playstyle. If we go by this, then we can easily signify a mass tank style as... tank heavy mech, or tank centered mech. Again, do you call those carrier vs goliath battles in BW to be bio? No, there is positioning. They aren't tanks, but there is still positioning and micro -- things like making sure to, as you push or move your army, to stay away from cliffs to prevent carriers from microing too well. I don't want to accuse you of not fully reading my post, but I feel neither of you really addressed my counter arguments to show why the meanings you want "mech" to be associated with (as well as its connotations) should be the way you say they should be. And again, if I missed some point somewhere, please feel free to correct me. So I guess in short, we are not separating the ideas "playstyle" "composition" and "tech" well enough. I think mech and bio should refer (its main, plain usage, with no further clarification) to composition (barracks, factory, starport). To refer to playstyle, we can say "he is playing like mech" or "he is playing defensively and positionally like mech". When a game has not progressed very far, but they are about to have much more factory/barracks/starport buildings/tech than the others, then we can say they are going either bio, mech, or starport. Other people have said the same thing, becuase it makes 0 thing to talk about non positional a moving units such as maurauders/thors/warhounds as mech units (unless tanks are included in the composition). Mech needs that strategically/postionaly element, and that's what people say when they talk about mech. Carrier vs goliath battles arose after initla tank play. IF terrans in bw just only massed goliaths the whole game, tvp would be boring as ashit as well. I'm getting frustrated because I've provided specific examples and even specific games that support my argument that thors are more positional than bio units, and you don't address that at all. If you're not going to address the actual arguments in my post, we can't really get anywhere constructive. I know my posts are really long, and possibly too wordy, but if you don't want to read it all you maybe shouldn't post, because again we won't be able to discuss things accurately nor timely. Initial tank play... but it's not heavy tank based. At that point in time, most of the supply is NOT in tanks. Therefore, how can you still call that mech, as I believe you say mech means or should be heavily tank centered (where much of your supply is in tanks, and your playstyle is very positional, whether it be defensive or aggressive). I'm not talking about the overall playstyle nor composition of the game, I'm talking about that specific point in time. Would you or would you not consider that moment or phase of a theoretical game, where the players are going heavy carrier vs heavy goliath, to be mech? If you still consider that mech, then it is an exception to what you're saying that mech is tank based or heavy on tanks. And with that we can easily make an exception for thors too, which again, are AA siege tanks, even if they are not as strong as tank's long range power. the thing is that your definition of positional play is different. Here we are talking about controlling space.
I don't think that's the thing. Positional play is basically the same thing as controlling space is it not? By positioning your army well, you are controlling that space by making it hard for him to engage. By controlling space, you are setting up a offensive/defensive position. (Right?)
And I think even if our definitions differ slightly ( i don't see in what way ) you could still answer the question?
|
On December 11 2012 04:17 RandomMan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 03:55 ZjiublingZ wrote:On December 11 2012 03:32 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 03:23 ZjiublingZ wrote:On December 11 2012 02:51 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 01:52 ZjiublingZ wrote:On December 11 2012 01:28 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 01:25 Everlong wrote:On December 11 2012 01:07 RandomMan wrote:On December 11 2012 00:55 Everlong wrote: [quote]
I mean, c'mon.. Mech finally just got something.. How, why do you want HT's to counter mech? You've got whole robo tech + zealots + stargate tech against mech.. You really want all tech paths to counter mech right? Zealots counter mech in HOTS? Helbat got remove like warhound? Robo does not counter mech, depending whether you recognize air units, particularly raven as part of mech. Oh my god, I think we can now abandon this discussion.. "Robo does not counter mech" is enough for me. Guys, save your time, we might try next time.. Please enlighten me how an immortal kills off, or simply any unit in robo, kills off raven, before the seeker missile 1 shot immortal or reduce colossi to 50 hp? Against my better judgement I will respond to you RandomMan, even though you have been acting like a child throughout this thread (where the Mods at?). Using a 200 gas unit, that takes 2 minutes to "counter" a 100 gas unit, that takes at most 55 seconds to make, isn't generally an example of a counter. It's akin to saying Carriers "counter" Roaches. Yes, they do beat them, but it's not realistic to use them for that purpose throughout the game. Of course it could be useful to have 1 Raven now with cheaper DT's, the usefullness of PDD, auto-turrets to block chargelots, and now HSM to kill off 1 Immortal. That's enough utility to make them worth it for sure IMO. But as far as making multiple Ravens just to counter multiple Immortals - there's only one specific situation where that makes any sense at all: In a maxed out situation where the 2 supply Raven killing the 4 supply Immortal is a supply-efficient counter AND when resources aren't a limiting factor to your composition. I.E. you can't max out on Ravens in your first max out, or you are vulnerable to attacks before that, wherein you have traded 200 gas to remove a 100 gas unit from the fight, that's not cost-efficient. Not being cost-efficient in engagements (with gas at least) against Protoss - who should have more bases than you - is a recipe for failure. So... toss struggling to get out a unit that cost 150 gas and takes 1 minutes 30 seconds to "counter" a 0 gas unit, that takes at most 25 seconds to make, is not generally an example of a counter,. Or maybe worse, Using a 200 gas unit, that takes 1 minutes 15 seconds to "counter" a 0 gas unit, that takes at most 25 seconds to make, is the worse counter ever... okay I understand now, that is the reason why most toss struggling against bio ball, because they choose the wrong counter, for more than 2 years. That isn't a valid comparison at all. You are talking about units that counter many multiples of units. 1 Colossus doesn't just counter a single marine. We are talking about using 1 unit to counter 1 other unit - and not contribute anything else to the fight. Do you understand the difference? (seriously Mods, this guy is ruining discussion, where you at...) Well just in case you did not know, seeker missile 1 shot void rays and out range them, and if you do not already know about it, void rays and immortals are the 2 only toss unit that toss able to counter thors, all thanks to the tempest nerf, and these 2 happens to be hard counter by ravens, FYI. PS. actually not only void ray and immortal, even colossus, archon and carrier are easily soften up, and easily kill off by supporting units like thors or marines. Dude, now you're literally just ignoring what I have said. I gave you a valid and well explained argument as to why using Raven to "counter" Immortals isn't a good idea in most situations, you gave me a counter-argument, and I explained to you why that counter-argument isn't applicable. And now you're just back to saying Ravens do hard-counter Immortals. If you can't give me a reason why my analysis that Raven's are in fact not a good counter to Immortals, you cannot continue to claim that Ravens do indeed hard-counter them. That's just not how a discussion works. Dude, your arguments is: ravens do nothing after HSM launch, but you forget there is a auto turret you are missing. So using a 2 supply unit 1shot a 4 supply unit is no good, so now what? Make HSM cost 100 energy so it can pick off 2 targets in one battle? In a battle, there is just so much units you can have in a same time, because there is a supply cap. Imagine you suddenly lost 40 supply worth of army, and your opponent just having 20 supply worth of army TEMPORARY disable from the battle (actually not true, cause auto turret cost 50 energy only) and do not suffer any casualties at all, and it was just 3 seconds after the confrontation commence, how do you feel, do you feel that, as a toss, having half or even all your immortals gone in 3 seconds, can stand a chance againts the new thors? As for how to get the ravens, all you need to do is just play defensively till late game. Afraid of skytoss? How powerful skytoss is if most void rays get 1 shot even before they kill a single thor? Kill thors with tempest? carier?
Go to the Unit Tester.Voids and Carriers beat Thor in 1v1.Tempest only increase damage from nowhere...Vikings cant get them because of 15 range.Raven with 200 energy cast 1 HSM and 1 turret.Do you really think it got the time to cast the turret?I have just see the replay from Golem on Cloud Kingdom.Enemy got 16 Immortals.Can T ever got 16 Ravens???Just think about it.Actually HotS Mech die easy to Mass Tempest+Carriers.
You algo forgot,after losing 40 supply by ravens P can warp same supply Stalkers or Zealots to kill whatever of the T army remain on the battlefield.T cant warp instantly and wherever they wish...
|
|
|
|