TvP Mech still not viable? - Page 48
Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
Breach_hu
Hungary2431 Posts
| ||
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
On December 20 2012 02:00 Hider wrote: You haven't read his post? Look at what he actually wrote instead of what you think he wrote. Its just one sentence. Also there is no need to argue. Read some of the previous posts in this thread and then you might learn a thing or three. Right now your just someone who doesn't know what your talking about, and sees one game where something you mistakenly call mech "works": Wow, you are completely wrong, you even don't know.. How can you judge me? Who are you? I've played a lot of games in beta for the past 2 weeks. I play mech in all three matchups in WoL and I always watch and discuss with people playing mech. I've watched so many mech replays both in WoL and in HotS that I'm at least sure I know, what I'm talking about. Seriously, you should really think more before judging someone you know nothing about.. Also, what the hell? He wrote he can win vs Bronze league player using mech indirectly implying that the guy who played against Supernova was from Bronze league. I told him that since Supernova is 1st on in GM, there is little to no chance he could be matched against a player from Bronze league.. ??? | ||
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 20 2012 03:47 Breach_hu wrote: Please anyone show a lategame TvP with mech, when P has tempest carrier HT and T actually wins. Just one replay. We shouldn't balance the game based on winning one battle but on giving a race the ability to fight throughout a game slowly gaining advantages along the way. Drop play is fun to watch because fighting is non-stop that when your massive army fights their small army people know that its because their econ was in shambles. Mech should aim for something similar. Not necessarily "beat their deathball with my deathball" but find a way to grind out advantages to turn into wins. Best example of this is watching Hero vs Leenock (just pick any game they do) where Hero outplays leenock for half the game gaining small advantages so it always feels like Hero will win. If you focus on simply a powerful lategame army as a balancing fulcrum then the moment Broods/Thors/Colossus pop out all those advantages disappears. We can't let that happen. Games should be won by incremental gains, not army compositions. Doesn't need to be harass, it could be the ability to take mass bases and defending them safely. (whack-a-mole protoss anyone? old school zerg anyone?) focusing on unit comp vs unit comp is like trying to create a unit tester instead of creating an esport. | ||
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
| ||
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 20 2012 04:18 Everlong wrote: Wow, you are completely wrong, you even don't know.. How can you judge me? Who are you? I've played a lot of games in beta for the past 2 weeks. I play mech in all three matchups in WoL and I always watch and discuss with people playing mech. I've watched so many mech replays both in WoL and in HotS that I'm at least sure I know, what I'm talking about. Seriously, you should really think more before judging someone you know nothing about.. Also, what the hell? He wrote he can win vs Bronze league player using mech indirectly implying that the guy who played against Supernova was from Bronze league. I told him that since Supernova is 1st on in GM, there is little to no chance he could be matched against a player from Bronze league.. ??? I think what he's saying is just because MVP beats MKP consistently, that doesn't mean that we simply copy MVP's builds to beat MKP. The bronziness (or non-bronziness) of the lower level player is irrelevant. He's wrong, but I'm worried for a sudden flame war out of a misunderstanding. | ||
Vindicare605
United States15708 Posts
On December 20 2012 04:22 Thieving Magpie wrote: We shouldn't balance the game based on winning one battle but on giving a race the ability to fight throughout a game slowly gaining advantages along the way. Drop play is fun to watch because fighting is non-stop that when your massive army fights their small army people know that its because their econ was in shambles. Mech should aim for something similar. Not necessarily "beat their deathball with my deathball" but find a way to grind out advantages to turn into wins. Best example of this is watching Hero vs Leenock (just pick any game they do) where Hero outplays leenock for half the game gaining small advantages so it always feels like Hero will win. If you focus on simply a powerful lategame army as a balancing fulcrum then the moment Broods/Thors/Colossus pop out all those advantages disappears. We can't let that happen. Games should be won by incremental gains, not army compositions. Doesn't need to be harass, it could be the ability to take mass bases and defending them safely. (whack-a-mole protoss anyone? old school zerg anyone?) focusing on unit comp vs unit comp is like trying to create a unit tester instead of creating an esport. I agree that deathball vs deathball shouldn't be how the match up is designed except I'm of the opinion that Mech vs Protoss should work a lot like Bio Vs Protoss does only in reverse. The fact that Protoss ground armies are capable of destroying Mech in a straight up ground engagement is what's currently forcing the deathball vs deathball dynamic we're currently seeing. Were Mech not hard countered by Immortals and more effective vs Protoss ground armies in general like they are vs Zerg or Terran ground armies what you'd eventually see is a change in the dynamic to a more mobile style from the Protoss as well as an increased emphasis on air units in the late game. But as long as Protoss has the option of just continuing to build normal deathballs like they do in the other two match ups and winning with it vs Mech there's no need for them to ever explore any other options. Mech can't ever have the kind of mobility that Bio has, the style isn't made for that and will NEVER be made for that. Even if the Siege Tank was replaced the Thor is still one of the most immobile units in the game, even if the Thor was replaced or changed the Siege Tank IS the most immobile unit in the game. The style is built around being powerful in straight up engagements. If we want to change the deathball vs deathball dynamic for Mech TvP it has to be on the Protoss side of things. | ||
Vindicare605
United States15708 Posts
On December 20 2012 04:25 awesomoecalypse wrote: Carrier + Storm was one of the few things that could beat a mech army in BW as well. If Carriers aren't good vs. Mech, they aren't good for anything at all. I think the Carrier being good against Mech is totally fine, in fact I'm even happy with it. What I'm not happy with is that Carriers are just one of several units that are incredibly hard counters to Mech as it exists on the HoTS beta, and their higher cost and difficulty of use makes them still a rare sight when easier alternatives in the Immortal and Void Ray exist. | ||
RanDomFox
United States84 Posts
but when somebody else makes mech work it's 'their opponent was bad and didnt know how to play against it!' everything is impossible until someone actually does it, and its been done. its not the easiest thing to do so people get mad. I suggest that instead of coming on a forum site to whine about it, perhaps energy and time would be better spent actually trying to make it work. | ||
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
On December 20 2012 04:40 RanDomFox wrote: this thread is 'when i try mech, it doesnt work so mech doesnt work!' but when somebody else makes mech work it's 'their opponent was bad and didnt know how to play against it!' everything is impossible until someone actually does it, and its been done. its not the easiest thing to do so people get mad. I suggest that instead of coming on a forum site to whine about it, perhaps energy and time would be better spent actually trying to make it work. The thing is, pure mech winning decisively against a straight up engagement with a Protoss ground army shouldn't be some rare occurance that one has to hunt for, it should be the norm. | ||
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 20 2012 04:32 Vindicare605 wrote: I agree that deathball vs deathball shouldn't be how the match up is designed except I'm of the opinion that Mech vs Protoss should work a lot like Bio Vs Protoss does only in reverse. The fact that Protoss ground armies are capable of destroying Mech in a straight up ground engagement is what's currently forcing the deathball vs deathball dynamic we're currently seeing. Were Mech not hard countered by Immortals and more effective vs Protoss ground armies in general like they are vs Zerg or Terran ground armies what you'd eventually see is a change in the dynamic to a more mobile style from the Protoss as well as an increased emphasis on air units in the late game. But as long as Protoss has the option of just continuing to build normal deathballs like they do in the other two match ups and winning with it vs Mech there's no need for them to ever explore any other options. Mech can't ever have the kind of mobility that Bio has, the style isn't made for that and will NEVER be made for that. Even if the Siege Tank was replaced the Thor is still one of the most immobile units in the game, even if the Thor was replaced or changed the Siege Tank IS the most immobile unit in the game. The style is built around being powerful in straight up engagements. If we want to change the deathball vs deathball dynamic for Mech TvP it has to be on the Protoss side of things. I'm not saying we shouldn't look at the deathball fight (at some point it has to be looked at) but I was merely warning about what happens when we get tunnel vision looking only at the deathball fight. We need to keep looking for stuff Mech can do *other* than fighting the big fights. (A buff to planetaries would be nice for example, although not exactly a solution) | ||
Lyyna
France775 Posts
On December 20 2012 04:43 awesomoecalypse wrote: The thing is, pure mech winning decisively against a straight up engagement with a Protoss ground army shouldn't be some rare occurance that one has to hunt for, it should be the norm. And it's actually the norm, for people who aren't going pure tank/hellion/viking in open space | ||
Hider
Denmark9236 Posts
On December 20 2012 04:18 Everlong wrote: Wow, you are completely wrong, you even don't know.. How can you judge me? Who are you? I've played a lot of games in beta for the past 2 weeks. I play mech in all three matchups in WoL and I always watch and discuss with people playing mech. I've watched so many mech replays both in WoL and in HotS that I'm at least sure I know, what I'm talking about. Seriously, you should really think more before judging someone you know nothing about.. Also, what the hell? He wrote he can win vs Bronze league player using mech indirectly implying that the guy who played against Supernova was from Bronze league. I told him that since Supernova is 1st on in GM, there is little to no chance he could be matched against a player from Bronze league.. ??? No that was not what he implied. He implied that the relative skill level between supernova and the guy he played was similar between him (the poster) and a bronze league guy. Also I am judging you becasue its obvious you haven't read most of the previous posts in this thread, and this is why i despite your attempt at irony. If you had read the previous posts you wouldn't point to this game as a "proof". You could just have stated: "Here is a game of Supernova winning with mech. Seems pretty okay?", or something like that. Instead you chose to use irnoy which indirectly humiliated everyone who has been arguing about mech in the previous pages (which you obvious) haven't read. I think that demonstrates a lot of ignorance. | ||
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
On December 20 2012 05:33 Hider wrote: No that was not what he implied. He implied that the relative skill level between supernova and the guy he played was similar between him (the poster) and a bronze league guy. Also I am judging you becasue its obvious you haven't read most of the previous posts in this thread, and this is why i despite your attempt at irony. If you had read the previous posts you wouldn't point to this game as a "proof". You could just have stated: "Here is a game of Supernova winning with mech. Seems pretty okay?", or something like that. Instead you chose to use irnoy which indirectly humiliated everyone who has been arguing about mech in the previous pages (which you obvious) haven't read. I think that demonstrates a lot of ignorance. No, you missed my point. I was aware Supernova was way better then his Protoss opponent. I wasn't posting it as "proof" that mech works. It's just to show people you are more then fine dealing with Tempests and how current TvP "mech" play is supposed to look like. It is quite obvious I'm not judging viability of mech here with this mech. I see everywhere people complaining that Tempest absolutely hard-counters mech play. I think it's not the case and this Vod is showing how it's done if nothing. Of course this is not a "guide" how to play mech TvP. I just want to show the bigger picture. | ||
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
EDIT: Specifically--I think there is too much friction between people who only want positional play (which does not necessarily have to be from Factory units) and people who want factory units (with or without positional play) | ||
SheaR619
United States2399 Posts
On December 20 2012 05:58 Everlong wrote: No, you missed my point. I was aware Supernova was way better then his Protoss opponent. I wasn't posting it as "proof" that mech works. It's just to show people you are more then fine dealing with Tempests and how current TvP "mech" play is supposed to look like. It is quite obvious I'm not judging viability of mech here with this mech. I see everywhere people complaining that Tempest absolutely hard-counters mech play. I think it's not the case and this Vod is showing how it's done if nothing. Of course this is not a "guide" how to play mech TvP. I just want to show the bigger picture. Well I still dont understand how the hell he was able to get his tempest attacked by thors. Why the hell didnt he ever micro them back into his base instead of staying on the outskirt and getting shot by thors. It was terribly micro by the protoss player. He lost so many tempest carelessly. Tempest power increase exponentially as well so losing like 3-4 carelessly really was bad play. Also it was close position starstation, couldnt ask for a better map to mech imo. Try that on cloud kingdom and day break and it would be much harder. | ||
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
On December 20 2012 07:01 SheaR619 wrote: Well I still dont understand how the hell he was able to get his tempest attacked by thors. Why the hell didnt he ever micro them back into his base instead of staying on the outskirt and getting shot by thors. It was terribly micro by the protoss player. He lost so many tempest carelessly. Tempest power increase exponentially as well so losing like 3-4 carelessly really was bad play. Also it was close position starstation, couldnt ask for a better map to mech imo. Try that on cloud kingdom and day break and it would be much harder. That is true Protoss didn't micro his Tempests correctly. But it really doesn't matter, since your goal with Hellbat/Thor push is to kill as many Protoss bases as possible. Well, if Supernova knew something like Tempest rush is very popular against mech, he would bring 1-2 Ravens to completely stop Tempests and just go rampage on Protoss economy while expanding, upgrading and building more infractructure. Also, you can do enough damage even without PDD, just bring SCVs as Supernova did and you are guaranteed to do fatal damage if Protoss does something like air rush. Also, this map is HORRIBLE for mech TvP, it just wasn't shown in this game. | ||
Qikz
United Kingdom12010 Posts
EDIT: Specifically--I think there is too much friction between people who only want positional play (which does not necessarily have to be from Factory units) and people who want factory units (with or without positional play) I think a lot of people just want a buff to positional play, because arguably the only positional play unit in the game is the siege tank as it literally cannot move when it wants to attack with real damage and is one of the slowest units in the game elsewhat. Siege tank usage rewards really clever play, slow pushes and good decision making. Getting caught unsieged in Broodwar meant you lost to every single army in the game. The issue people have is that sure we have the mine now, but everything "positional" about mech including the widowmine and the tank completely sucks against protoss. | ||
ZjiublingZ
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
On December 20 2012 08:16 Qikz wrote: I think a lot of people just want a buff to positional play, because arguably the only positional play unit in the game is the siege tank as it literally cannot move when it wants to attack with real damage and is one of the slowest units in the game elsewhat. Siege tank usage rewards really clever play, slow pushes and good decision making. Getting caught unsieged in Broodwar meant you lost to every single army in the game. The issue people have is that sure we have the mine now, but everything "positional" about mech including the widowmine and the tank completely sucks against protoss. Yeah the Widow Mine is positional, there's no doubt about that. It's positional against Terran and Zerg in different uses and in different ways. Against Protoss though, with the removing of it's ability to hit cloak, the removing of turning off auto-cast, and now the single target nerf, it's really quite a bad unit to have positioned out on the map to slow down protoss army movements, or to deal with small gateway unit runby's. It's not even particularly good for buffering your siege line, because unless the Zealots are REALLY clumped up, between the overkill and the fact that it takes 2 widow mines to kill 1 Zealot, it's not a supply efficient trade at all. The best use I have found vs Protoss for the Mine is 1) as a slightly different form of probe harass than the Hellion or 2) to flank the Protoss army as they attack you, getting the Widow Mines underneath their Immortals/Colossus/Void Rays/Archons etc. Yeah, you the meching player are flanking the enemy... | ||
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 20 2012 08:27 ZjiublingZ wrote: Yeah the Widow Mine is positional, there's no doubt about that. It's positional against Terran and Zerg in different uses and in different ways. Against Protoss though, with the removing of it's ability to hit cloak, the removing of turning off auto-cast, and now the single target nerf, it's really quite a bad unit to have positioned out on the map to slow down protoss army movements, or to deal with small gateway unit runby's. It's not even particularly good for buffering your siege line, because unless the Zealots are REALLY clumped up, between the overkill and the fact that it takes 2 widow mines to kill 1 Zealot, it's not a supply efficient trade at all. The best use I have found vs Protoss for the Mine is 1) as a slightly different form of probe harass than the Hellion or 2) to flank the Protoss army as they attack you, getting the Widow Mines underneath their Immortals/Colossus/Void Rays/Archons etc. Yeah, you the meching player are flanking the enemy... The widow mine was actually getting to a good place where mech really should be heading. High initial damage but immobile and has glaring "easy" to take advantage of weaknesses where the dance between the two armies hinge on. Kills efficiently on the first volley, weak for 40 seconds. Reinforcements are rebuilt in 20-30 seconds--or 5 seconds if toss. It's actually beautiful and almost perfect. And is also where the Siege tank should be. | ||
Ry2D2
United States429 Posts
| ||
| ||