EPTI'll concede that a one base thor push vs zerg is too strong, but this isn't because of the thor, it's because of the marauder. Banshees could use a damage nerf as well, but that's neither here nor there.
Is terran mech really that imba? - Page 3
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
HalfAmazing
Netherlands402 Posts
I'll concede that a one base thor push vs zerg is too strong, but this isn't because of the thor, it's because of the marauder. Banshees could use a damage nerf as well, but that's neither here nor there. | ||
|
Keyser
102 Posts
On June 02 2010 21:40 nyshak wrote: Weird rationalization. Following your logic you'd call a game balanced in which one race always has to end the game early to win, because if they don't the other race will dominate. Shouldn't it be more like: every race has an equal chance to win at any time (early, mid, late game)? I am not sure where you found your conclusion. That is not the destination your reach when following my "logic" at all, but rather the destination you reach when misunderstanding completely. Just because a 200 pop vs 200 pop fight ZvT is in the Terran's favor, that does not in any way mean the Zerg isn't competitive in the late game. In fact I went to great lengths in my post, that you quoted, to explain that Zerg actually has the advantage late-game most of the time. You can't simply break a game up into "this and that race has an advantage at time x" though. Zerg has an advantage late game if they managed to secure a lot of expansions, which they have the ability to do. Terran however also has tools to prevent these expansions, and need to use them. The late game is in the favor of whoever managed the mid-game better. Zerg wants to expand midgame, Terran wants to stop the expands midgame. If a battle on equal terms(economy-wise) occurs, Zerg has failed to expand midgame and/or the terran has done a better job at preventing Zerg from doing so. This is not a disadvantage for Zerg, but rather a failure to understand how to take advantage of Zerg's strengths. The way you describe early, mid and late game, you seem to suggest that these 3 parts are seperate and not related to one another, which is a great mistake. Both races can win all three "stages", it is just that ZvT tend to be decided in the midgame. The game may very well carry on into the lategame, but the actions in the midgame almost always decide how it will turn out. Let me simplify: If both races sit in their base doing nothing until 200 supply each, the Terran will probably win, but that is not a fair representation of late-game balance. If such a situation occurs, I would say to the Zerg that he lost because he didn't use the advantages Zerg have(like expanding). If the Zerg expanded and the Terran did not, Zerg would reach 200 supply faster and win. If so, I would tell the Terran he lost because he didn't stop the expands. If the Terran expanded too, so both players had two bases, the Terran would probably win, and I would tell the Zerg that he lost because he didn't use the advantages Zerg have(expanding again). If the Zerg expanded many times and the Terran only expanded once, the Terran would lose and it would be because he didn't stop the expands. Because Zerg has a natural advantage at expanding, and Terran has a natural advantage at winning even supply fights(provided the positions aren't skewed in the favor of Zerg, like surrounds), you end up with a situation where the Terran must be aggressive to win and Zerg must expand to win. So really, when the late-game comes, the outcome is already decided most of the time. Of course, none of this has anything to do with my main point, which is that balance is irrelevant to anyone trying to become good. Irrelevant in the sense that the current balance shouldn't even enter your mind as you play the game, and in the sense that talking about it or whining about it not being in your favor is not a good way to improve your situation, even if you were right. Most of the time, percieved imbalances are just related to current trends and not the actual game, so there's almost always a way to turn the matchup around by playing differently. You won't find the best players complaining about balance because it is the losers' way of dealing with difficulties. | ||
|
AmstAff
Germany949 Posts
On June 02 2010 20:57 Kfish wrote: dark swarm used to help get close to tanks arbiter stasis field used to help get close to tanks corsair disruption web used to help get close to tanks queen broodling used to help agains tanks tanks used to all shoot at even one unit, now they are "smarter" you could exploit the tanks firing then droping a reaver or templar to storm, now you can't as much Tanks in SC2 are not to be treated as tanks in SC1 :| Tanks destroyed Zerg units even under swarm, because they had LOL low HP (expect lurkers that already were burrowed). phoenix lift ability is nearly the same expect its a channeling "spell" and tanks cant unsiege and drive away to resiege. now you have infestors for NP + they have FG and are not THAT useless like Queens were in SC1 yes right, but now terran doenst have vultures to snipe HTs (and dont say hellions are a counter to HTs because they ARE on PAPER but in reality every ranged P unit kills them before they even get near to the HTs) yes because now p have stalker with blink and immortals and void rays. P shouldnt have any problems with mech play, its different compared to sc1 but not harder (imo pure mech play is even easier to beat). in TvZ/ZvT its the same like sc1. zerg uses his mapcontroll for mass expos and his nydus/doom drop to win BUT they have now broodlords that are like guardians but outrange vikings + make double the damage + are strong like shit + make tanks attack own units (thx to broodlings). no way that this is harder than in sc1. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On June 02 2010 22:14 avilo wrote: to OP: no, it's not. and to person mentioning what LZ said after playing moman, LZ was spot on. And too many players right now have "one control group command and conquer syndrome" so that is also making mech very lol strong versus Zerg. It is the same as SC1. If you suicide into their army, you're going to lose. Overlord drops, nydus worms, burrowed roaches, mass MASS muta (SC1 ZvT vs mech style was mass hydra/muta), infestor usage...all of these are good versus mech. The people saying that muta's suck seem to be the ones that build 12 and stop producing them entirely. And I actually think mass banelings have potential with muta and/or mass roaches versus mech. edit: and oh how I miss the days of brood war where players would actually brainstorm and come up with strategies / solutions to builds and such rather than giving up and saying, "oh that's imba! nerf it blizzard!" just sighs. those were the good old days. overlord drops are a joke given sensor towers + vikings flying around. burrowed roaches and nydus worms both depend on your opponent not playing properly, as there are very simple 100% solutions to both, and i assume you're joking when you say mass muta. mutas were good vs sc1 mech... because thors didnt exist. i dont see how infestors are gonna do anything to break a siege line. sure theyre helpful in a lot of situations but the real problem is that theres never any way for zerg to kill terran before they get this big invincible army. nothing you've suggested changes that. everyone says that you're not supposed to attack a mech ball, thats true. but if thats true then there has to be other ways to win the game. the combination of sensor towers turrets and vikings, and the fact that thors counter mutas so ridiculously hard, kinda puts an end to any of that. and again, you dont even know how to play terran. dont try to give zergs advice based on what beats you because it doesnt beat good players. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 02 2010 22:14 avilo wrote: edit: and oh how I miss the days of brood war where players would actually brainstorm and come up with strategies / solutions to builds and such rather than giving up and saying, "oh that's imba! nerf it blizzard!" just sighs. those were the good old days. What fantasy world did you live in? People had 10 years to come up with counters and there were still tons of complaints about DTs, P max army vs. T max army, 1a2a3a, bisu build, get ultras->win, etc. | ||
|
nyshak
Germany132 Posts
I see what you mean, and your right ofc. I misunderstood. I disagree about the last bit though. Especially on TeamLiquid I've hardly seen real whining. Instead, for the most part, I see players who try to give constructive feedback based on their experience. Plus, discussing the balance of the game is totally legit and actually makes you better as long as you reach a conclusion and then try it out ingame (which I do). | ||
|
ymirheim
Sweden300 Posts
But at the same time both units are slow, and vulnerable to attacks from the air. Taking them out when well supported by other units is hard though but not impossible. | ||
|
Keyser
102 Posts
On June 02 2010 22:25 IdrA wrote: overlord drops are a joke given sensor towers + vikings flying around. burrowed roaches and nydus worms both depend on your opponent not playing properly, as there are very simple 100% solutions to both, and i assume you're joking when you say mass muta. mutas were good vs sc1 mech... because thors didnt exist. i dont see how infestors are gonna do anything to break a siege line. sure theyre helpful in a lot of situations but the real problem is that theres never any way for zerg to kill terran before they get this big invincible army. nothing you've suggested changes that. everyone says that you're not supposed to attack a mech ball, thats true. but if thats true then there has to be other ways to win the game. the combination of sensor towers turrets and vikings, and the fact that thors counter mutas so ridiculously hard, kinda puts an end to any of that. and again, you dont even know how to play terran. dont try to give zergs advice based on what beats you because it doesnt beat good players. I guess by "never" what you are really trying to say is "in your games" since your play is often exceptionally uncreative. Cool didn't seem to have these problems vs Maka during the World Cup. The way I see it, people are way too quick to point out the counters to something that could be done. Both burrowed roaches and nydus worm was used to great effect in recent tournaments, by players who are a step above you at the moment, so obviously just because counters exist, the best players find ways and no one has an impenetrable defense. Infestors even broke a siege line in the semi finals by mind controlling tanks/thors up a cliff with an overlord scout. Basically the ways are there, but Zerg needs to be a bit more creative. On the bright side, destroying a mech ball is generally much more of a gain than destroying Zerg units. I think people, including some top players, are too quick to look for a solution that will solve the problem every time rather than consider all the options(nydus, infestors, burrowed roaches, overlord drops, mineral line harass w/lings/banes/mutas, traps etc) and find one that will suit that particular game and situation. You can find counters to all of them all day long on a forum, but in my experience from playing and watching top games there always tends to be at least one solution for every game, and all the options above are used regularly. Honestly, you're a good player, but you're never going to be among the very best if you don't quit the pessimistic "they'll just do x"-attitude and start believing you can find a way every game. | ||
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
| ||
|
Darpa
Canada4413 Posts
Last nights ICCUP match of MoMaN vs LZ, all the zerg were screaming imbalance when all he had to do was build 10 mutas, and smash LZ's mineral lines while his thors were outside protecting his tanks. But instead he threw 3 200/200 ground armies against a tank line. He lost, big suprise (not that MoMan didnt play absolutely amazing tho, fake drops, ftw. <3) | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 02 2010 22:46 ymirheim wrote: I can't see how tanks are any less fair than broodlords which are essentially flying siege tanks. Both units got sick range, both units can only hit ground. Both units are kind of bad when you just got one or two but when they reach a critical mass they can keep any units from even getting in range. But at the same time both units are slow, and vulnerable to attacks from the air. Taking them out when well supported by other units is hard though but not impossible. The difference is tier 2 vs tier 3.5? and upgrades, since upgrading air is not really viable for Zerg. Even if you can get there (and avoid the Vikings and Ravens), there's an underlying issue that lategame Zerg ground should be viable, and right now it's not. Yes, it's a different game, but ultraling is just a staple of Zerg. I don't want my TL icon to be a Broodlord, I want it to be an Ultralisk.  | ||
|
Ighox
Norway580 Posts
Like moving out with tanks without turrets or a raven then dying again and again to burrowed roaches is something a lot of terrans do to throw away games, dropping works if the terran does a mistake and doesn't expect it, if he's greedy and try to expand a lot with orbital commands instead of planetary fortresses he can get easily punished for that. It's still too early in my opinion to yell out that it's OP, but I'll gladly say that it feels slightly too strong at the moment. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On June 02 2010 22:47 Keyser wrote: I guess by "never" what you are really trying to say is "in your games" since your play is often exceptionally uncreative. Cool didn't seem to have these problems vs Maka during the World Cup. The way I see it, people are way too quick to point out the counters to something that could be done. Both burrowed roaches and nydus worm was used to great effect in recent tournaments, by players who are a step above you at the moment, so obviously just because counters exist, the best players find ways and no one has an impenetrable defense. Infestors even broke a siege line in the semi finals by mind controlling tanks/thors up a cliff with an overlord scout. Basically the ways are there, but Zerg needs to be a bit more creative. On the bright side, destroying a mech ball is generally much more of a gain than destroying Zerg units. I think people, including some top players, are too quick to look for a solution that will solve the problem every time rather than consider all the options(nydus, infestors, burrowed roaches, overlord drops, mineral line harass w/lings/banes/mutas, traps etc) and find one that will suit that particular game and situation. You can find counters to all of them all day long on a forum, but in my experience from playing and watching top games there always tends to be at least one solution for every game, and all the options above are used regularly. Honestly, you're a good player, but you're never going to be among the very best if you don't quit the pessimistic "they'll just do x"-attitude and start believing you can find a way every game. maka didnt play mech, he used bio+2 fac tank which has significantly more weaknesses. he also played aggressively, while what we're talking about is pure defensive mech with viking support which is far stronger. there are very few good terrans on the asian server and ensnare is the only top one who plays pure mech regularly, but if you look at some of the sen vs tlo and check vs rainbow games it shows you how ridiculously strong mech is. ya the zergs won the series, but really those zergs shouldnt even be losing games to those terrans. infestor mc range is 3 or 4 shorter than tank range, as i said infestors are useful in alot of situations and should be made, but they are not a solution to turtle mech. i dunno what game you're talking about but infestors are not gonna let you break a tank line that you couldntve anyway. burrowed roaches are not something that you can just use to take advantage of a situation, you have to get 2 expensive slow upgrades well before hand. its a significant investment that really just isnt worth it given how easy to prevent it is, and how valuable gas is. nyduses and overlord drops are something that you can use to take advantage of vulnerabilities, but given how easy it is to prevent both of them they are not a solution to mech. they win you a game here and there, but depending on your opponent making significant, basic mistakes is not a good way to approach the game. you talk about taking advantage of weaknesses and particular situations, you dont realize just how easy it is for terran to eliminate those weaknesses, not allow those situations to happen because of sensor towers + the ridiculous efficiency of their units. when terran can see every drop coming from halfway across the map, hold attacks with a handful of units that cost a quarter as much, absolutely hard counter most of zerg's unit choices. you're making the assumption that terran has to play perfectly to be invulnerable, and thats just not the case. of course terrans have lost games, but this mech play is relatively new and very unrefined, and most top players, including all of the best terrans on the us server + morrow will tell still you that its overpowered already. you get a competent player using it and they would literally never lose to zerg on most of the current maps. | ||
|
psion
106 Posts
On June 02 2010 22:20 Keyser wrote: If the Zerg expanded and the Terran did not, Zerg would reach 200 supply faster and win. If so, I would tell the Terran he lost because he didn't stop the expands.. This isn't really the case, though. If the Zerg expands everywhere, leaves the Terran to do his thing on his main+natural, and gets a 200 supply army then Terran will have enough firepower by then to chew through anything the Zerg can throw at him. Especially if he has a good defensive position. The only real way I can see to stop a mech play is to make an early timing push and constantly harrass to delay the Terran from getting his critical amount of firepower as much as possible. If he properly defends all your attempts to delay him, you're going to need to throw several max supply armies at him to take him down. | ||
|
boySAILOR
Norway14 Posts
I usually abuse Mutalisks (both harass and focus fire etc in fights) in addition to mass zerglings. With the Zerglings (in huge numbers) you can flank and over them the same way a flood fills the interior of a sinking ship. In late/long games I tend to use Roaches and/or Ultralisks as a supplement, but I generally have no big problems vs Terrans. | ||
|
Failsafe
United States1298 Posts
On June 02 2010 22:25 IdrA wrote: overlord drops are a joke given sensor towers + vikings flying around. burrowed roaches and nydus worms both depend on your opponent not playing properly, as there are very simple 100% solutions to both, and i assume you're joking when you say mass muta. mutas were good vs sc1 mech... because thors didnt exist. i dont see how infestors are gonna do anything to break a siege line. sure theyre helpful in a lot of situations but the real problem is that theres never any way for zerg to kill terran before they get this big invincible army. nothing you've suggested changes that. everyone says that you're not supposed to attack a mech ball, thats true. but if thats true then there has to be other ways to win the game. the combination of sensor towers turrets and vikings, and the fact that thors counter mutas so ridiculously hard, kinda puts an end to any of that. and again, you dont even know how to play terran. dont try to give zergs advice based on what beats you because it doesnt beat good players. Here's a rare moment when I completely agree with Idra. In SC2, TvZ mech play is ridiculously strong. Compared with SCBW, everything is more difficult for the Zerg. Remember, Zerg's wildfire macro was and is essential to beating mech play. Subtle!!! Terran has more openings (think Reapers, Hellions, Banshees, FE, infantry mass, etc.). Non-retarded Terran players can conceal many of these openings until the crucial moment and so Zerg's ability to macro is more constrained than in SCBW. The Blizzard maps are small. This complements Terran's array of openings and further constrains Zerg's ability to macro. Blizzard maps are not only smaller, they have less money. Mech play is extremely efficient so less money is a huge disadvantage for Zerg. Obvious Terran Mech units are much better than their SCBW equivalent while relevant Zerg units are statistically pretty similar to their SCBW counterpart. Relevant Zerg Zergling: Slightly worse than before. Cost is the same. Hydralisk: Roughly the same as before. Cost is substantially increased. Relatively slower off creep. Mutalisk: Roughly the same as before. Roach: New and exciting! Although powerful in straight forward combat, 3 range means that the Roach is easily abused by Siege Tanks with 13 range. At 2 supply per, this is not an ideal unit for a maxed out battle situation. Infestor: If your macro has dropped off and you have a lot of Vespene, this is a good way to reduce your Vespene store. The Infestor will not help you against mech armies. If you think Neural Parasite is generally effective, PM me so I can tell you about target firing. Banelings: Not against mech, sorry. Drop these on the enemy SCVs or something. Relevant Terran Siege Tank: In SC2, the Sieged Tank does equal damage to all units instead of reduced damage against small units (as in BW). Units in SC2 clump way more than in SCBW, further enhancing the Siege Tank. The unsieged Tank is much more effective against armored units than its SCBW equivalent. The Siege Tank's 3 supply cost (and 25 more Vespene) is important; however, the additional benefits far outweigh the additional costs. Thor: Thor or Goliath? Not even close. Thors rape Mutalisks. Goliaths kind of, sort of, beat Mutalisks. Thors are great support against ground units while Goliaths are mediocre at best. Engineering Bay: Terran mech has always suffered from mobility problems against Zerg. Two major developments have negated that issue. First, the Sensor Tower is ridiculously good. Second, the SC2 Missile Turret is insane. The new Missile Turret costs an additional 25 minerals, but in return the new turret has 50 more HP and does 24 damage instead of 10 to Mutalisks (and there's a range upgrade). The Engineering Bay makes mech's lack of mobility a much smaller issue. Hellions: You probably wouldn't be making Zerglings anyway given that they clump up and the new Siege Tank deals a round 60 damage (and has smarter AI). But supposing you did make Zerglings, Hellions completely rape them. Hellions also have a lot of potential against Hydralisks. This potential is wasted given how Tanks rape Hydralisks, but there is potential nonetheless. Unfortunately the Hellion is not as cool as the Vulture. The Hellion is unwieldy, slower, and does not have Spider Mines. I don't like the Hellion, but it's damn good at what it does. In a nutshell, Zerg's on the receiving end of a bad deal. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On June 02 2010 22:51 Darpa wrote: Tanks are really no different than they were in BW, so im not sure why people are screaming imbalance over them. thats not true at all, they dont overkill anymore and their targeting is much smarter, makes them much, much stronger. | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
so its better than overkill but its still not as good as many would think it would be i honestly dont think mech should be called imba YET because zerg players r still figuring out new bos and playstyles to beat it it works pretty much as sc1 where terran would mech then zerg would take 5 bases when he would normal have 3 against bio and that would pretty much even out most of times but in sc2 zerg players didnt really learn to adapt all the new expansion timings yet mech is also very map dependant where large maps it sucks hard and small maps like stepps of war its just increadible strong so my guess on this would be that we have too little experience with different types of maps to call mech imba because most maps in the map pool are so small and favors mech because of that oh and btw, tanks is a very different unit than sc1. it deals very little splash on their allies and they attack so fast and r so incredibly strong unsieged too. what i mean by that is that u dont really get into positions where ur tanks teamkill ur own units compared to sc1 where there were tactics like shuttle bombs and minedragging walking close etc all just to abuse terrans splash dmg on himself. but this doesnt play into role at all in sc2 and i think this is also a reason why the tanks r so good now i wouldnt disagree if blizzard changed so the siege cannon did extra dmg vs armored instead of making pure dmg against all. they r just so insanely strong against light units like marine, ling, hydra which imo ruins the gameplay a little because that is supposed to be what hellions counter zerg has been OP as fucking hell all beta and now terrans win alittle and u suddenly think mech is op because ur 100% roach dont win vs me 80% tank 20% thor ) | ||
|
Failsafe
United States1298 Posts
On June 02 2010 23:12 IdrA wrote: thats not true at all, they dont overkill anymore and their targeting is much smarter, makes them much, much stronger. They also don't do reduced damage to anything. That's a pretty big deal. | ||
|
Sealteam
Australia296 Posts
On June 02 2010 23:00 Ighox wrote: Terran mech to me just feels like it's extremely unforgiving, it might not be totally OP and it might be mostly a map issue, but I feel like a ZvT is just waiting around for the terran to do a mistake and throw the game away. Like moving out with tanks without turrets or a raven then dying again and again to burrowed roaches is something a lot of terrans do to throw away games, dropping works if the terran does a mistake and doesn't expect it, if he's greedy and try to expand a lot with orbital commands instead of planetary fortresses he can get easily punished for that. It's still too early in my opinion to yell out that it's OP, but I'll gladly say that it feels slightly too strong at the moment. I agree it's unforgiving, catch a terran mech army completely out of position and it's toast... But if you have your army 100% out of position then you aren't playing in high diamond. I'm 500 diamond so take it as you will but personally I find that even if I do continually harass well, the mech army gets bored of defending and comes and stomps my 3-4 bases without a problem anyway. I feel the problem with this matchup for TvZ is not so much tanks, but thors. Imagine this matchup without grouped (4 or so) thors being so ridiculously powerful against mutas (like, one shotting 5-20 at a time if your muta control isn't insanely good). There, you can build mutas to counter the tanks. Now, the terran player can react by adding more marines to react to the muta threat, which in turn can be countered by banelings (mainly drops), and the dynamic continues. I know that everyone here is focused on the tanks, but I personally see mech as not the tanks being the problem, but all the reasons I can't counter the tanks being a problem. Also, Broodlord + Corruptor does not counter mech, thors still deal with them piecemeal IF played correctly (repairing is required, as is not blowing your own shit up with tanks). Proof: http://www.sc2rc.com/index.php/replay/show/6791 The zerg is Artosis so it isn't a scrub match. On the matter of constantly harassing... can be effective for a little while after getting drop but it is quite an investment to baneling bomb, muta harass, ect. Once there are a sensor tower or two, a thor in the mineral line and missile turrets freaking everywhere (mech has little problem with minerals), plus responsive vikings, harass is simply not cost efficient. tl;dr - The problem isn't so much the tanks as the T mech's incredibly effective responses to any attempt to counter the tanks. Harass can be dealt with. | ||
| ||
