|
I think people are misunderstanding the situation I'm referring to. You haven't seen very many high level long TvPs because almost everyone goes bio and either loses or wins before P gets on 3+ bases.
I'm talking about late game 4+ bases for each, where you both have pretty much the full tech tree. Marines are not a good unit at this point because he can have so many Templar and Storm decimates your Marines. You can EMP (and it works great if you hit all of his HTs and force a battle right after) but it is extremely risky to have significant supply stuck into marines lategame since with one spell you can lose 20+ food instantly.
And the strategies I'm talking about aren't about pure mech. But giving the Factory a response to armored air that is somewhat effective will open up options for Terran in TvP, IMO. Not pure mech options, it's too immobile. But bio+mech will become much more viable, and a mix of bio/mech/air will become much more viable.
|
Him going carriers is as big of an investment as you going bcs. Try going Bcs and see if you're going to have a strong army.. The answer is that you won't. Since he probably won't have collosuss with that composition bio becomes really strong so I'd suggest bio + vikings. As it allows you to own a non aoe ground while having the upper hand in the air and marines also boost your AA.. So to be honest if you can't beat this you were already behind when he got carriers so stop QQing over something that is clearly counterable. Since it's not until very late game he can go carrier + ground aoe and have both of them strong and have an army back them up.
Edit: Saw your last post.. all I can say is that late game terran needs some tweaking but your strentgh is in your mobility you can harass him pretty much everywhere and if youre in such a late game stage you should be able to get vikings to get his carriers and although they aren't great vs ground they still reduce his carrier count quite quickly. And though they aren't strong vs ground they can still assist but the thing is they are strong! Their weakness is their movement speed. The carriers eat into a lot of money / supply even at 4 base. And hts are just as they always are .. quite annoying but with ghosts you can nullify them a bit at least. Bcs are something to consider with yamato they eat carriers and hts don't do shit against them however the feedback is a threat but if you keep your energy low with emp or using yamato it could work quite well.
|
marines rape carriers so hard it's not even funny... interceptors don't stand a chance vs them... turrets that are being repaired are also good... vikings have bigger range, move faster and can be repaired... bcs are better than carriers/interceptors... I even saw terran fighting them off with HSM
also you mentioned vikings are weak on ground, they actually have bigger dps than stalkers (vs light and armored)
seriously... show me a replay where you're having problems vs carriers
yes thors are bad vs carriers, but you have a lot of viable options
|
On November 18 2010 20:25 sleepingdog wrote:
You just NEED to work more with EMP - try EMP-ing the carriers (they are godawfulslow, impossible to miss), then they die like paperplanes.
If you say feedback, then yes, toss ALSO needs templars in play. But then again he can't have everything, all the time, everywhere.
The whole point of Vikings is that they require 0 teching outside of what's standard for a TvP Bio build (some of them might even get a few out on principle, because P always seems to counter Bio with Colossus). Ghosts are obviously a fantastic supporting player in the build, but they generally don't show up until after the first engagement because resources are going into teching to Medivacs.
|
I guess I haven't been clear enough on another point: the presence of an armored air unit turns the Thor into less DPS than a stimmed marine, unless you manually target each of your Thors (which is very difficult to keep up for 5+ Thors in a large battle).
Just the fact that a Void Ray or Carrier exists on the field means that your Thors are doing terrible damage unless manually targeted. I'd be okay with them simply changing the attack priority to have armored air and interceptors as a Thor's lowest priority.
|
On November 18 2010 20:40 Nadagast wrote:
I guess I haven't been clear enough on another point: the presence of an armored air unit turns the Thor into less DPS than a stimmed marine, unless you manually target each of your Thors (which is very difficult to keep up for 5+ Thors in a large battle).
Just the fact that a Void Ray or Carrier exists on the field means that your Thors are doing terrible damage unless manually targeted. I'd be okay with them simply changing the attack priority to have armored air and interceptors as a Thor's lowest priority.
Well .. what purpose would the viking serve if the thor was strong vs all air? I'd say that it requires u to be a bit more reactive but still if the thor was good vs all air with it's strentghs vs ground it just wouldn't be a balanced unit.
And also if it requires micro to make them efficent that's great there's too much 1 a these days in my opinion.
|
I didn't really realize that this was that big of an issue...
How many 200/200 vs 200/200 colliding balls of death between thors and carriers happen on the pro-level?...
I just feel like OP is tackling the whole argument incorrectly:
1) Thor AA should NOT be an end-all be-all solution to both armored AND light air. That's just OP
2) Instead of a+clicking and leaving it at that, I don't think its too much to consider manually making your thors target high value targets like HT/archons/colo (when applicable), and immortals.
I just don't know how to feel about this topic because its soooooooo situational. Closer to theorycrafting than anything.
|
On November 18 2010 20:40 Nadagast wrote:
I guess I haven't been clear enough on another point: the presence of an armored air unit turns the Thor into less DPS than a stimmed marine, unless you manually target each of your Thors (which is very difficult to keep up for 5+ Thors in a large battle).
Just the fact that a Void Ray or Carrier exists on the field means that your Thors are doing terrible damage unless manually targeted. I'd be okay with them simply changing the attack priority to have armored air and interceptors as a Thor's lowest priority.
Then replace the Thor with a Stimmed Marine and build units you know how to/are willing to micro.
|
On November 18 2010 20:43 simme123 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 20:40 Nadagast wrote:
I guess I haven't been clear enough on another point: the presence of an armored air unit turns the Thor into less DPS than a stimmed marine, unless you manually target each of your Thors (which is very difficult to keep up for 5+ Thors in a large battle).
Just the fact that a Void Ray or Carrier exists on the field means that your Thors are doing terrible damage unless manually targeted. I'd be okay with them simply changing the attack priority to have armored air and interceptors as a Thor's lowest priority. Well .. what purpose would the viking serve if the thor was strong vs all air? I'd say that it requires u to be a bit more reactive but still if the thor was good vs all air with it's strentghs vs ground it just wouldn't be a balanced unit.
'Strong' isn't a binary property. Vikings would still be stronger vs air and are much more mobile than slow walking Thors.
What I am proposing would simply be to make the Thor outdps a stimmed Marine on armored air targets. 50/0 vs 300/200 and the Marine does more dps. What I am proposing is giving Thors roughly the equivalent of 2.5-3 stimmed Marine's dps against armored air.
|
For all the people replying telling me to simply build bio... I know.
I am not saying that the matchup is imbalanced, I am saying that Thor's AA weakness limits Terran creativity. Unless you want to see Marine/Marauder/Ghost/Viking/Medivac against Protoss until the end of time, this is important.
On November 18 2010 20:45 SwizzY wrote:
I didn't really realize that this was that big of an issue...
How many 200/200 vs 200/200 colliding balls of death between thors and carriers happen on the pro-level?...
I just feel like OP is tackling the whole argument incorrectly:
1) Thor AA should NOT be an end-all be-all solution to both armored AND light air. That's just OP
2) Instead of a+clicking and leaving it at that, I don't think its too much to consider manually making your thors target high value targets like HT/archons/colo (when applicable), and immortals.
I just don't know how to feel about this topic because its soooooooo situational. Closer to theorycrafting than anything.
If Thors did more than 1 stimmed Marine's DPS vs armored air, you'd have already seen different things in this matchup.
|
On November 18 2010 20:47 Nadagast wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 20:43 simme123 wrote:On November 18 2010 20:40 Nadagast wrote:
I guess I haven't been clear enough on another point: the presence of an armored air unit turns the Thor into less DPS than a stimmed marine, unless you manually target each of your Thors (which is very difficult to keep up for 5+ Thors in a large battle).
Just the fact that a Void Ray or Carrier exists on the field means that your Thors are doing terrible damage unless manually targeted. I'd be okay with them simply changing the attack priority to have armored air and interceptors as a Thor's lowest priority. Well .. what purpose would the viking serve if the thor was strong vs all air? I'd say that it requires u to be a bit more reactive but still if the thor was good vs all air with it's strentghs vs ground it just wouldn't be a balanced unit. 'Strong' isn't a binary property. Vikings would still be stronger vs air and are much more mobile than slow walking Thors. What I am proposing would simply be to make the Thor outdps a stimmed Marine on armored air targets. 50/0 vs 300/200 and the Marine does more dps. What I am proposing is giving Thors roughly the equivalent of 2.5-3 stimmed Marine's dps against armored air.
Well the thor doesn't only have the dps it's hp is much higher than that of a marine. And what you pay for when you get a thor isn't a strong anti armored air unit. It's fine as it is if you ask me. It's still really strong vs light air and all ground (with support).
|
On November 18 2010 20:49 Nadagast wrote:For all the people replying telling me to simply build bio... I know. I am not saying that the matchup is imbalanced, I am saying that Thor's AA weakness limits Terran creativity. Unless you want to see Marine/Marauder/Ghost/Viking/Medivac against Protoss until the end of time, this is important. Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 20:45 SwizzY wrote:
I didn't really realize that this was that big of an issue...
How many 200/200 vs 200/200 colliding balls of death between thors and carriers happen on the pro-level?...
I just feel like OP is tackling the whole argument incorrectly:
1) Thor AA should NOT be an end-all be-all solution to both armored AND light air. That's just OP
2) Instead of a+clicking and leaving it at that, I don't think its too much to consider manually making your thors target high value targets like HT/archons/colo (when applicable), and immortals.
I just don't know how to feel about this topic because its soooooooo situational. Closer to theorycrafting than anything. If Thors did more than 1 stimmed Marine's DPS vs armored air, you'd have already seen different things in this matchup.
I do see your point but my answer would be to get rid of the thor and add the goliath it was ok vs all air and the range was it's strength but it didn't have the vs ground strentgh that the thor has.
The viking is pretty much the same unit but I think being able to use both weapons without having to morph is better.
The protoss doesn't leave room for much creativity either. You have to do the collosuss build to like make it in the midgame. I think both races have their limitations in the matchup. And this is just like scbw. You didn't see much bio vs toss back then. Because it simply wasn't good. It's all about adjusting for each matchup.
|
Not sure what I'm missing, Viking and/or Marine/Medivac is all you'll need against any Protoss air, besides mass Phoenix (Which Thor is for)
|
On November 18 2010 20:47 Nadagast wrote:
'Strong' isn't a binary property. Vikings would still be stronger vs air and are much more mobile than slow walking Thors.
What I am proposing would simply be to make the Thor outdps a stimmed Marine on armored air targets. 50/0 vs 300/200 and the Marine does more dps. What I am proposing is giving Thors roughly the equivalent of 2.5-3 stimmed Marine's dps against armored air.
simply no, because thors and marine fullfill different roles. Build the units that are up to the task that you intend to use them for. if thors do badly against carriers, build something else to battle them, dont come complaining that your favourite unite is unable to kill everything there ist.
Wasted DPS is not a problem specific to Thors, if you build a thor-heavy army, you must be willing to micro accordingly. Just as protoss must be carful not to waste immortal DPS against lings, just as zerg needs to be careful not to waste banelings on armoured units.
|
On November 18 2010 20:49 simme123 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 20:47 Nadagast wrote:On November 18 2010 20:43 simme123 wrote:On November 18 2010 20:40 Nadagast wrote:
I guess I haven't been clear enough on another point: the presence of an armored air unit turns the Thor into less DPS than a stimmed marine, unless you manually target each of your Thors (which is very difficult to keep up for 5+ Thors in a large battle).
Just the fact that a Void Ray or Carrier exists on the field means that your Thors are doing terrible damage unless manually targeted. I'd be okay with them simply changing the attack priority to have armored air and interceptors as a Thor's lowest priority. Well .. what purpose would the viking serve if the thor was strong vs all air? I'd say that it requires u to be a bit more reactive but still if the thor was good vs all air with it's strentghs vs ground it just wouldn't be a balanced unit. 'Strong' isn't a binary property. Vikings would still be stronger vs air and are much more mobile than slow walking Thors. What I am proposing would simply be to make the Thor outdps a stimmed Marine on armored air targets. 50/0 vs 300/200 and the Marine does more dps. What I am proposing is giving Thors roughly the equivalent of 2.5-3 stimmed Marine's dps against armored air. Well the thor doesn't only have the dps it's hp is much higher than that of a marine. And what you pay for when you get a thor isn't a strong anti armored air unit. It's fine as it is if you ask me. It's still really strong vs light air and all ground (with support).
Against Carriers:
10 Marines (500/0) vs 1 Thor (300/200)
550 (450) HP vs 400 HP
69.7 dps vs 5.3 dps
All I'm asking is that Marines aren't 13 times more effective against armored air. Thors will still be worse than Marines and Vikings against armored air, but they will be doing better than shooting blanks which is basically what they are doing now.
|
On November 18 2010 21:00 Nycaloth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 20:47 Nadagast wrote:
'Strong' isn't a binary property. Vikings would still be stronger vs air and are much more mobile than slow walking Thors.
What I am proposing would simply be to make the Thor outdps a stimmed Marine on armored air targets. 50/0 vs 300/200 and the Marine does more dps. What I am proposing is giving Thors roughly the equivalent of 2.5-3 stimmed Marine's dps against armored air. simply no, because thors and marine fullfill different roles. Build the units that are up to the task that you intend to use them for. if thors do badly against carriers, build something else to battle them, dont come complaining that your favourite unite is unable to kill everything there ist. Wasted DPS is not a problem specific to Thors, if you build a thor-heavy army, you must be willing to micro accordingly. Just as protoss must be carful not to waste immortal DPS against lings, just as zerg needs to be careful not to waste banelings on armoured units.
Wasted DPS is not a problem specific to Thors. Wasted DPS on this order of magnitude absolutely is. Immortals shooting non-armored is not even close to as much of a damage loss, and they don't automatically target non-armored. Banelings are much easier to move around in a pack and explode on what you want them to than it is to individually target every single shot for every single one of your Thors (if you don't target, they will attack the air units, where they do basically 0 damage).
You basically need 50 APM for each Thor (or small group of Thors that can target as one) you have in a battle that involves Carriers or Void Rays.
|
I don't know about carriers, but terrans definitely are forced to go bio in TvP because of two specific units: void rays and immortals.
Both of these units completely devastate pure mech play from terran because of the lack of any decent anti-air besides marines for void rays, and the the fact that tanks/hellions/thors get completely demolished in small numbers vs small numbers against immortals.
I really really wish pure terran mech was a legitimate option, but sadly, with how things are currently, it's not at all. You need marines, and that's all there is to it.
I agree though that if Thors were able to compete against void rays/air in general besides mutas in any fashion, mech would be a lot more appealing as an option for TvP.
|
On November 18 2010 20:24 X-Codes wrote:
450 Minerals + 250 gas for 1 Carrier = 3 Vikings + 25 Gas leftover. 1 Carrier and 3 Vikings also have equal supply cost. Also, a Reactor'd Starport produces 3 Vikings in roughly the same amount of time it takes to create 1 Carrier from a perfectly Chronoboosted Stargate. With just a little more micro than a moving the Vikings into the Carriers, you should be able to not lose a single viking in this exchange. Yes, not ONE. Why not? Because Carriers are so laughably slow, even slower than Vikings, that they just can't catch a retreating Viking, and they can't escape from an engagement with them. I'm also not taking into account the inevitable Marine support that the first wave of Vikings will have.
Also, if you do any scouting at all then the Protoss player can't go all Suddenly... CARRIERS! on you. If they don't completely neglect their ground army, then they can probably fund 1 Stargate off 1 base and 3 Stargates off 2. So, you have an opportunity to scout their fast expo easily enough. Next is that it takes 1 minute to build the stargates and 1 more to build the Fleet Beacon. Only then do they get the pleasure of spending 2 minutes building 3 Carriers off these two bases. That's a huge window of opportunity to scout the stargates and build Vikings to counter whatever they're doing (and Vikings really do counter WHATEVER they do with Stargates).
Carriers vs. Terran is a trap of Ackbarian proportions.
I'm an unbiased Zerg player but I couldn't agree more with this. If you fail to scout his carrier tech then DUH of course you wont be prepared for it. If you do scout it then as stated, 3 vikings vs 1 carrier = 3 vikings alive 1 carrier dead, and you spent less than he did. Vikings superior range and speed make any air unit basically useless against them (Aside from Yamato)
Why are you complaining about having to micro in battles? 5 thors... select all right click ground unit, hold down shift, right click another ground unit, repeat until all ground units have been right clicked, then shift right click carriers. So hard.
|
so shift-queue your targets, but please, please stop complaining about how a unit not being used in its intended fashion is bad!
|
For all the people replying telling me to simply build bio... I know.
I am not saying that the matchup is imbalanced, I am saying that Thor's AA weakness limits Terran creativity. Unless you want to see Marine/Marauder/Ghost/Viking/Medivac against Protoss until the end of time, this is important.
how creative is it going to be if you just kill everything with thors?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
