|
On June 03 2010 00:02 AmstAff wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 00:00 shiftY803 wrote:On June 02 2010 23:56 PredY wrote:
funny how everyone here argues imba/not imba but noone has suggested any balance solutions yet I suggest reducing thor splash damage to air. Then mutas become a better response to tank/hellion play, which the terran will respond to with marines/vikings etc. Right not I feel like T players simply say, "Mutas? lol build thors." MAYBE and only MAYBE its because thors are THE HARDCOUNTER to mutas? they are made to own mutas.
Which is exactly my point. Terran ground owns zerg ground post roach-nerf. And thors own air. What does the zerg have left? And if another person says "mobility" I am going to cry.
It is the combination of units that are hard to deal with, not the individual units themselves.
|
On June 03 2010 00:02 AmstAff wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 00:00 shiftY803 wrote:On June 02 2010 23:56 PredY wrote:
funny how everyone here argues imba/not imba but noone has suggested any balance solutions yet I suggest reducing thor splash damage to air. Then mutas become a better response to tank/hellion play, which the terran will respond to with marines/vikings etc. Right not I feel like T players simply say, "Mutas? lol build thors." MAYBE and only MAYBE its because thors are THE HARDCOUNTER to mutas? they are made to own mutas.
No one is confused that Thors are supposed to balance mutas. The problem is that with Zerg have no answer to this unit composition.
|
For the longest time, it is always Terran and Protoss have to pressure Zerg because Zerg cannot be left alone. From what I can tell, mech is a very defensive play style that requires some setup time. Surely a Zerg pressuring a Terran and not letting him get setup would be effective. I think Zerg can do quite a bit off one base. Most of the mech opening I have seen involve some harass to an expanding zerg till they can get comfortable with their defenses. Having an army and pressuring would force the terran into other options, and the game can go from there.
|
On June 02 2010 23:07 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 22:47 Keyser wrote:On June 02 2010 22:25 IdrA wrote: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. 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.
You make a lot of good points that I won't argue with since you know more about SC2 than I do, but if playing games like SF3, Q3, AoE2 and WC3 at a high level(one of them professionally) has taught me anything, it is that thinking about a situation as impossible or even really tough is a terrible approach. Games evolve, and I have no doubt that Zergs will find a style of play that can beat mech. As you say, the mech play you describe is relatively new and unrefined. That can just as easily be used as an argument in favor of Zerg, since Zerg hasn't found a proper counter yet. If it turns out no one can find a counter after a good while, there may be a problem, but I feel it's just too early. You can be the guy that found a way, or you can be the guy that stopped talking about it after someone else found a way.
Even if there is an imbalance there, it's just not worth thinking about. It's infinitely better to assume the game is perfectly balanced even if it isn't, as anything else just makes you lose focus.
So the guy has sensor towers and vikings to stop your drops, thors, tanks and some hellions. Lings die to hellions, roaches/hydras are destroyed by the fortified tank line if you attack, you can't really muta harass due to thors/vikings/towers. Fine. He can't stay there forever. He needs to either 1.) Stop your expands or 2.) Expand more himself. Even a mechforce like that can't beat a Zerg with overwhelming economy.
So that's a weakness, right? His mech mainforce isn't mobile. Zerg has awesome mobility and scouting potential(outside bases). You have the tools to catch him in an unfavorable position every step of the way no matter what he wants to do after his natural. And if you can catch him even once like that, that's a serious blow. On some maps you can literally force the Terran to place himself in a terrible position if he wants to move forward.
If I am right, the strategy may very well still be a little too good in practice, but that's not worth thinking about, and if I am wrong, and you are thinking to yourself that what I am saying is absolute garbage, due to some highlevel insight I am not aware of, it doesn't change the fact that thinking about a given strategy as imbalanced is the best way to lose against it. As Henry Ford said, "Whether you think you can or can't, you are probably right".
|
I'm with you shifty. I have a friend that I practice ZvT with. If he goes mech, sure I can annoy him with my "mobility", but eventually he just gets pissed and stomps my base.
|
On June 02 2010 22:53 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +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. 
After over 9,000 posts on a Starcraft forum how can you talk in terms of tiers? What are you talking about anyway with regard to late game Zerg ground? We know nothing more about late game SC2 than we did about late game BW in 1999 when people had never heard of a Defiler, Science Vessel, or Arbiter. New maps are gonna emerge and the game will be released, big events are gonna happen that will shed light on the late game issues. Until those events occur we have no idea.
|
On June 03 2010 00:02 AmstAff wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 00:00 shiftY803 wrote:On June 02 2010 23:56 PredY wrote:
funny how everyone here argues imba/not imba but noone has suggested any balance solutions yet I suggest reducing thor splash damage to air. Then mutas become a better response to tank/hellion play, which the terran will respond to with marines/vikings etc. Right not I feel like T players simply say, "Mutas? lol build thors." MAYBE and only MAYBE its because thors are THE HARDCOUNTER to mutas? they are made to own mutas.
Thors are also hard counter to hydras, and very efficient against roaches.
Furthermore, what we are discussing here is exactly the fact that terran have hard counters to everything while NOTHING hard counters Thors+tanks.
That said, not having hard counters doesn't meen you lost the game, just meens you have to be that much better than your opponent.
|
On June 03 2010 00:06 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 00:02 AmstAff wrote:On June 03 2010 00:00 shiftY803 wrote:On June 02 2010 23:56 PredY wrote:
funny how everyone here argues imba/not imba but noone has suggested any balance solutions yet I suggest reducing thor splash damage to air. Then mutas become a better response to tank/hellion play, which the terran will respond to with marines/vikings etc. Right not I feel like T players simply say, "Mutas? lol build thors." MAYBE and only MAYBE its because thors are THE HARDCOUNTER to mutas? they are made to own mutas. Thors are also hard counter to hydras, and very efficient against roaches. Furthermore, what we are discussing here is exactly the fact that terran have hard counters to everything while NOTHING hard counters Thors+tanks. That said, not having hard counters doesn't meen you lost the game, just meens you have to be that much better than your opponent.
Mutas attack air and ground aswell and are very effective at it, i don't really see how you can complain about a slow ass ground unit that does the same
zerglings / infestors counter thors, but i guess you knew that
But ohwait, now your gonna say a unit that counters the zergling and infestor, and then we make nice circles
|
On June 02 2010 23:43 iCCup.Diamond wrote:
I don't know if this means anything but I asked Artosis last night if he wanted to play in the KOTH and he would not even play because of TvZ mech.
Also if anyone thinks it's not OP watch Sheth vs. QXC. Sheth was throwing everything he could think of at QXC and not making a dent. It was sort of bad....
Sheth vs QXC seemed more like frustration/fatigue than really an impossible scenario. Absolute refusal to make any air, running ultras into a ramp with solid 1000hp wall off and tanks, not mixing empty ovies to tank the AA dmg while dropping, triple infestation pits (!?), waiting for tanks to siege at his expo before running the nydus troops into them, not HSM'ing his ravens even when infestors trapped them in place...don't get me wrong Sheth is a good player but I think he was kind of burnt out by those last games.
I agree the map pool helps mech so much. Steppes of War is pretty much invincible mech defense for the first 3 bases, with 2 more to add on once you turret/tank the watchtower. Bigger maps like desert oasis or even metalopolis make crawling a mech ball across the map really impractical by comparison, so Z can get a lot more bases than T with mutas.
|
O_o
On maps like incernation zone (is it written that way?) and steppes of war it feels really strong (mech that is) cause of the map. on 4 player maps i dont ve the same feeling like on the forementioned maps so i guess this "tvz problem" can be dealt with by new maps but i dont know for sure. i dont play mech vs z as i play it like i did in bw with bio and tanks as support O_<.
|
On June 02 2010 23:56 PredY wrote:
funny how everyone here argues imba/not imba but noone has suggested any balance solutions yet
OVERSEER : add darkswarm
- Reason, overlords can spam some gOooOooOoo so when upgraded to overseer they could spam some "DarkSwarm"
Tanks: damage (+x against armored) not only pure damage or Thors slightly nerfed air-wize
besides that... we're good to go
|
I'd say the only 4 player map that favors Z is Metalopolis. Lost temple is just too cliffed up and choked up.
|
It may be a map problem, but if it is should it be left as is? While some map features will always favor races, it seems less than ideal to force all maps to be large for any semblance of balance. It'd be much better if it was at least close on smaller maps between the two matchups. That way you can have a wide variety of maps in a tournament and players can pick maps that favor their style/matchup without giving them free wins.
Right now I'm not really that concerned about Terran mech, in part because I believe playing the game as is is more important, but more so because I'm concerned about Zerg vs Map balance more. Zerg seem to be way too polarized on map balance. Small map? Anti-zerg. Tough to secure 3rd? Anti-zerg. Choke filled map? Anti-zerg. Expansions away from your opponent? pro-zerg. Sweet spot backdoor? pro-zerg. Main ramp in creep distance from natural? pro-zerg. Good choke on natural? pro zerg. Cliffs near base? Anti-zerg. Open natural? anti-zerg.
I don't think I'm neutral to any map in the pool as a zerg when considering ZvP and ZvT. The closest would be close spawns on metalopolis (back to back close not across close)
There's just so many map features that significantly change the map balance for zerg. Zerg need better options that make them less map dependent, both so they can be boosted vs stuff like mech on some maps AND so they can be better balanced on strong economy positions (diagonal metalopolis for example)
I get the impression that Terran and Protoss are much more flexible to map features. They can 1 base, expand, make use of chokes, make use of wide open areas, do fine on 2 bases, do fine with 3, and so on. Sure they're not completely immune to map features (a good thing), but it seems to be a better balance where it has a 2ndary effect on the game rather than skewing the matchup heavily.
|
On June 03 2010 00:09 Snowfield wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 00:06 Geiko wrote:On June 03 2010 00:02 AmstAff wrote:On June 03 2010 00:00 shiftY803 wrote:On June 02 2010 23:56 PredY wrote:
funny how everyone here argues imba/not imba but noone has suggested any balance solutions yet I suggest reducing thor splash damage to air. Then mutas become a better response to tank/hellion play, which the terran will respond to with marines/vikings etc. Right not I feel like T players simply say, "Mutas? lol build thors." MAYBE and only MAYBE its because thors are THE HARDCOUNTER to mutas? they are made to own mutas. Thors are also hard counter to hydras, and very efficient against roaches. Furthermore, what we are discussing here is exactly the fact that terran have hard counters to everything while NOTHING hard counters Thors+tanks. That said, not having hard counters doesn't meen you lost the game, just meens you have to be that much better than your opponent. Mutas attack air and ground aswell and are very effective at it, i don't really see how you can complain about a slow ass ground unit that does the same zerglings / infestors counter thors, but i guess you knew that But ohwait, now your gonna say a unit that counters the zergling and infestor, and then we make nice circles
Once again you missed my point.
Mutas are ok at everything but 2 thors kills infinite mutas.
If the zerg is a micro god, you may need a third thor for infinite muta kill.
I'm trying to find a unit composition that counters Tank+Thor and there just isn't any. If your answer to Terran mech is going mutas/lings/infestor i think you may need to experiment that for yourself to see how ridiculous that is.
Explain to me how your going to mind control or zergling surround a thor sitting next to a bunch of tanks ?
|
On June 02 2010 20:36 whatthemate wrote:
no its just that zerg players complain. just watch some of the gomtv protosses, they humiliate terran with a build that goes like this: 1.heavy stalker opening with quarter zealot mix +1-2 sentries.
2. as time passes by army becomes more zealot heavy. 3.tricks terran into overproducing factory units.
3. charge is upgraded and zealot + forcefields buy a lot of time. brute force with a ton of gateway.
inefficient but you can brute force it with stronger economy.
4.1-2 stargates you win > mass void ray.
zerg just attack move too much. they play too much simcity and allow terran to critical mass tanks that's all. all the zerg players are playing them the wrong way. zerg are meant to make great use of mind games by burrowing and fighting only when they can win. most zerg players just attempt to cancel out with brute force and watch the battles go to see if their army can win the fight. that's why against terran always burrow if you cannot win the fight.
zerg players need to have the mindset to force terran to get a goddamn useless raven to detect. hydras are only meant to comprise no more than 20% of your army, most of it should be a mix of roaches mutas and zerglings.
Its quite obvious that you dont play as zerg
you have it all backwards, zerg units are overall the least supply effective units in the entire game, which is why as a zerg, you exploit the fact that you can rebuild your army in 1/4 of the time he can (ok, 1/4 is an exaggaration, but you get the point).
this is exploited not by "fighting only when they can win", no, thats not it at all, if there is such as situation, then you as zerg have practicly already won the game.
the extreme production of the zerg is exploited by attacking when "both sides will take losses", see, its not necessary to win the fight, as long as he takes losses approximately equal to yours.
what zergs complain about is that its practically impossible to get a situation where "both sides take losses" vs a mech army, either you win big-time (not counting cannonfodder such as lings), or you lose your entire army without making a dent on the tanks.
this was not the case against bio, which is the reason why it feels so much more simple to vs bio than vs mech. if I send in a bunch of roaches, hydras and lings, I might win, I might lose, but he is sure to take losses, which is what we wanted to accomplish.
but then again, why use roaches, hydras and lings when bio gets dissintegrated by banelings?
which is a perfect example of zerg favouring the "both sides take losses" strategy
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 03 2010 00:06 Failsafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 22:53 Jibba wrote: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. After over 9,000 posts on a Starcraft forum how can you talk in terms of tiers? What are you talking about anyway with regard to late game Zerg ground? We know nothing more about late game SC2 than we did about late game BW in 1999 when people had never heard of a Defiler, Science Vessel, or Arbiter. New maps are gonna emerge and the game will be released, big events are gonna happen that will shed light on the late game issues. Until those events occur we have no idea.
He compared a unit that's obtainable early-mid to something that you can ONLY get at the end of the game. That's why tiers are important. The switch to BLs is extremely difficult to make, and once out, they're fairly fragile.
I've said about a million times that we need real maps to truly analyze the state of balance in SC2. How much more can I mention it?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/search.php?q="maps"&t=c&f=19&u=jibba&gb=date
|
On June 02 2010 20:25 Geiko wrote:
The problem with mech terran is that their units are way more cost effective than that of the other two races because basicaly all their units are a (very) hard counter to something in particular and do just fine with the rest.
For exemple vs Zerg :
Tanks rape hydra very bad., and if well placed own every thing else that doesn't fly.
Hellion own hydra and zergling
Thors vs mutalisks is a joke
Vikings vs anything else that flies
a 100/200 terran mech army runs over a 200/200 zerg.
That being said, the only way to beat a terran mech as zerg is :
a) get an early timing push when he doesn't have his mech build in place
b) get all sorts of possible harass you can using mobility (6 mutas, nydus, drops etc...)
Droping in base is pointless, as you will still get killed by 3 tanks placed at three different corners of the base.
I beleive protoss have the same kind of problems with this build
Its not that OP. a 100 food terran will get demolished by 200 food zerg. You just need the right air to ground nit ratio balance.
|
On June 03 2010 00:13 Konsume wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 23:56 PredY wrote:
funny how everyone here argues imba/not imba but noone has suggested any balance solutions yet OVERSEER : add darkswarm - Reason, overlords can spam some gOooOooOoo so when upgraded to overseer they could spam some "DarkSwarm" Tanks: damage (+x against armored) not only pure damage or Thors slightly nerfed air-wize besides that... we're good to go
haha, that overseer suggestions is cool ^^;
btw, if some z on eu is willing to play me i would be down  no z in ladder what so ever <: pm me!
|
I have found that mech is very strong against zerg.
-Usually, the best answer to mech is a quick push or flank when the terran is just getting started in getting his army up.
-the problem is that the scouting is very difficult in sc2.
-without being able to properly scout, you just do not know the proper timing on when to push into the terran's army and by the time you do scout, the terran will have a huge army.
The idea of dropping into the terran's main is very interesting. It is however risky since improper micro can cause many of your units to die quickly. And the terran will have many vikings which he can split apart and kill your overlords. So thats a problem.
I think that we Blizzard should definitely add something like a spell to counter the terran mech army. Maybe some explosive creep tumors (for 35 energy)? When exploded they can cause 25 damage to units in a nearby radius.
|
On June 03 2010 00:22 Housemd wrote:
I think that we Blizzard should definitely add something like a spell to counter the terran mech army. Maybe some explosive creep tumors (for 35 energy)? When exploded they can cause 25 damage to units in a nearby radius.
That'd basically be a burrowed baneling. Potentially effective, but slow to come out and will only work once as afterwards the Terran will make sure to have detection (which they should have anyways as it prevents burrowed roaches as well).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
