|
On November 19 2010 03:39 Antisocialmunky wrote:
Nadagast's post is a very good one. People should read it and not go "OMG whine" post. I think the bigger issue though is that T has no reliable AA late gave vs Toss except for turrets. Vikings are a waste of supply and die to everything especially storm and marines just get stormed to death.
The +1 range +2 armor turret is pretty much your only bet if you see Carrier/Templar.
Ok so early game TvP is favored to the T, late game PvT is favored to the P... There needs to be something done about this, obviously, I'm sure we can all agree on that but making the thor a unit that is mixed into every matchup in every situation just seems far out there for me. I really don't think they should do well against armored air because they do so well against light and ground, it would be a 1 unit wrecking machine.
|
On November 19 2010 03:47 statikg wrote:
This thread is about targeting priority you morons, and one of the possible ways to fix the problem but unfortunately since 75% of you are illiterate you can't figure that out. As it is I wouldn't bother with thors in my composition because of this targeting issue.
All protoss constantly whine that why are T so newb they should just use a better mix of units, but the difference is ground atk upgrades apply to both gateway and robo whereas we have 2 different ground upgrades required and hence its harder to use a mix of both (which is what we have to do with the current state of protoss late game), and please don't say oh well we have air upgrades as well because so do we making your point void.
The OP was not asking about a targeting issue alone.. OP wanted to double damage of thor against armored air
|
On November 18 2010 20:24 KaiserJohan wrote:
Can someone point me to a game where mech actually dominated lategame? I've only seen Goody do it TvP at high level, and he gets rolled more often than not, judging from the replay packs and whatnot.
How is mech with non-existant mobility beat a colossus+HT+gateway(assuming late late game as you said), let alone toss air.
I think most people go bio simply because bio / biomech > mech tvp
Mech was good at high level TvP until it was nerfed (*cough david kim*) because of being "too powerful" or some shit (*cough davidkim had trouble with siege tanks*)
So yeah, with zealots getting changed + tanks, mass tank mech became 10x harder. And i agree with nadagast, if thors actually could kill carriers (HELLO SC1 GOLIATHS) then yeah...there'd be more mech options and such.
How about get rid of the useless ground to ground cannon of thor, and make it a Ground to Air ability that does that huge damage to air targets...it's still NEVER ever beneficial to research the cannon otherwise.
|
On November 19 2010 03:58 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 03:39 Antisocialmunky wrote:
Nadagast's post is a very good one. People should read it and not go "OMG whine" post. I think the bigger issue though is that T has no reliable AA late gave vs Toss except for turrets. Vikings are a waste of supply and die to everything especially storm and marines just get stormed to death.
The +1 range +2 armor turret is pretty much your only bet if you see Carrier/Templar. Ok so early game TvP is favored to the T, late game PvT is favored to the P... There needs to be something done about this, obviously, I'm sure we can all agree on that but making the thor a unit that is mixed into every matchup in every situation just seems far out there for me. I really don't think they should do well against armored air because they do so well against light and ground, it would be a 1 unit wrecking machine.
Ideally I want a viking that doesn't suck vs ground completely ie, Viking ground takes ground ups and is slightly buffed on the HP front. However this necessitates buffing P's mid-game gateway/AA stuff.
|
Thor targeting priorities are an issue with its range attack. Most units will pick a target and shoot until it dies. The Thor's Anti air range is 10, vs its 7 ground range. This means they'll typically shoot air units first in any engagement, and continue to fail until they die.
|
Welcome to manual targeting. Every race with a unit that has different types of attacks or different damage outputs (armored vs non-armored) have to do it. Immortals automatically target marines because they are up front (range 5) compared to the marauder (range 6). Hell, even some units with only one type of attack have to be manually controlled during battle such as Collossi to use them to full potential. Void rays automatically target marines instead of the armored marauder.
Despite the tedious nature of having to manually control such units, we still see all of the units used because manually controlling units in battle is part of the game.
Edit: Everyone who says that the OP's point of his post is about Thor's attack priority... please re-read the OP. It starts out as a point about Thors, but somehow at the end, he's talking about Terran's lack of AA options and diversifying Terran build order.
|
On November 19 2010 04:08 Antisocialmunky wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 03:58 GreEny K wrote:On November 19 2010 03:39 Antisocialmunky wrote:
Nadagast's post is a very good one. People should read it and not go "OMG whine" post. I think the bigger issue though is that T has no reliable AA late gave vs Toss except for turrets. Vikings are a waste of supply and die to everything especially storm and marines just get stormed to death.
The +1 range +2 armor turret is pretty much your only bet if you see Carrier/Templar. Ok so early game TvP is favored to the T, late game PvT is favored to the P... There needs to be something done about this, obviously, I'm sure we can all agree on that but making the thor a unit that is mixed into every matchup in every situation just seems far out there for me. I really don't think they should do well against armored air because they do so well against light and ground, it would be a 1 unit wrecking machine. Ideally I want a viking that doesn't suck vs ground completely ie, Viking ground takes ground ups and is slightly buffed on the HP front. However this necessitates buffing P's mid-game gateway/AA stuff.
I don't see vikings as sucking horribly, they can shred zealots and storm is not too effective against them since they are so large... And AFTER some upgrades they hold their own against stalkers.
|
obviously the problem here is that the stimmed marine is too strong 
|
On November 19 2010 04:14 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 04:08 Antisocialmunky wrote:On November 19 2010 03:58 GreEny K wrote:On November 19 2010 03:39 Antisocialmunky wrote:
Nadagast's post is a very good one. People should read it and not go "OMG whine" post. I think the bigger issue though is that T has no reliable AA late gave vs Toss except for turrets. Vikings are a waste of supply and die to everything especially storm and marines just get stormed to death.
The +1 range +2 armor turret is pretty much your only bet if you see Carrier/Templar. Ok so early game TvP is favored to the T, late game PvT is favored to the P... There needs to be something done about this, obviously, I'm sure we can all agree on that but making the thor a unit that is mixed into every matchup in every situation just seems far out there for me. I really don't think they should do well against armored air because they do so well against light and ground, it would be a 1 unit wrecking machine. Ideally I want a viking that doesn't suck vs ground completely ie, Viking ground takes ground ups and is slightly buffed on the HP front. However this necessitates buffing P's mid-game gateway/AA stuff. I don't see vikings as sucking horribly, they can shred zealots and storm is not too effective against them since they are so large... And AFTER some upgrades they hold their own against stalkers.
Except you won't be upgrading both mech and air at the same time and they do get stormed to death when they are doing their AA job which is what they should be doing most of the time anyway. They are hardly cost effective against any unit, even carriers take them for cost.
|
I'm really confused. Are carriers actually built in PvT at all consistently at high levels? I thought terran problems endgame were due to storm/collosus/gateway balls. I'm only 1900 diamond but I would say I see carriers in less than 2% of games. Can anyone link to a pro replay that demonstrates the problem the OP is talking about?
|
Although not ideal, Protoss can handle anything with a mix of gateway units/immortal and smart sentry usage. Unfortunately this is botched due to Bansheephobia.
In Broodwar the protoss always poked terran wall with dragoons until the first tank. The addition of the marauder has changed everything, but protoss should be perfectly safe to poke with stalker and still have a chance to retreat (referring to stim/concussive).
|
I just went through 7 pages and can't find a single replay. Don't tell me your argument, SHOW ME
|
There's one on the first page of Goody TvP Mech thread. It'll only happen in late-late games as in mine out on most maps.
|
Germany1059 Posts
well the way I see it once there is a strong Thor/tank/hellion force there is no way to beat that stuff on the ground so air is a natural counter to it. The problem is that the thor is too much of an allround unit to be also a hard counter against heavy air.
|
This is as simple as doing the one change you suggested. Make Thors prioritize ground units. Done.
|
On November 19 2010 04:25 tarath wrote:
I'm really confused. Are carriers actually built in PvT at all consistently at high levels? I thought terran problems endgame were due to storm/collosus/gateway balls. I'm only 1900 diamond but I would say I see carriers in less than 2% of games. Can anyone link to a pro replay that demonstrates the problem the OP is talking about?
Re-read the OP, the problem is terran strategic creativity not that terrans are finding it impossible to deal with carriers.
|
I kinda think this is funny now when somebody goes on to say, "Terran Mech has no good anti air! T.T" Ummm, Protoss Robo HAS NO ANTI AIR... Literally, none, not one unit that can shoot up. And anti air units can actually target one of those units (colossi) and without a squishy stalker ball to shoot at those flying anti air units, your colossi are screwed.
How about we get rid of the thors ability to shoot air at all? That would solve the problem right there and then you'd be in the same boat as the Toss in having a great anti ground unit that can't do crap against the air and has to rely on the rest of your army to do that (*cough*marinesvikings*cough*) I mean, it seems the air attack for the Thor is only situational at best (Mutas) so why not just get rid of it?
|
On November 19 2010 04:42 space_yes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 04:25 tarath wrote:
I'm really confused. Are carriers actually built in PvT at all consistently at high levels? I thought terran problems endgame were due to storm/collosus/gateway balls. I'm only 1900 diamond but I would say I see carriers in less than 2% of games. Can anyone link to a pro replay that demonstrates the problem the OP is talking about? Re-read the OP, the problem is terran strategic creativity not that terrans are finding it impossible to deal with carriers.
Ah so his claim is that terrans are forced to go bio because they will die to carriers otherwise? Surely there must be a replay somewhere were a pro tried going mech and carriers shut him down? I'm just not at all convinced that the problem that carriers limit terrans options in any way is a real one.
|
On November 18 2010 21:29 Seagull_ wrote:
He doesn't want another counter to armored air, he wants an attack priority change so he doesn't need to have 500apm just for microing the Thors in his army when there are armored air units out and about (the most common instance of this being Carriers in late-game PvT).
Most people don't get to late-game PvT and don't understand why this is a needed change so Nadagast looks a little crazy, but as the game progresses and strategies mature, carriers will likely see a lot more use vs mech terran in lategame (which is currently a very popular strategy amongst high level players)
How is it selecting Thors and shift-clicking to attack ground units 500 apm?
And... I haven't seen any late game diamond/pro Protoss players going carriers. They often go Imm/Coll/HT but I haven't seen mass carriers. Have you got any proof of pro/diamond players going mass carriers in late game?
I'm gonna be polite so I will stop writing here.
|
On November 19 2010 04:49 Setev wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 21:29 Seagull_ wrote:
He doesn't want another counter to armored air, he wants an attack priority change so he doesn't need to have 500apm just for microing the Thors in his army when there are armored air units out and about (the most common instance of this being Carriers in late-game PvT).
Most people don't get to late-game PvT and don't understand why this is a needed change so Nadagast looks a little crazy, but as the game progresses and strategies mature, carriers will likely see a lot more use vs mech terran in lategame (which is currently a very popular strategy amongst high level players) How is it selecting Thors and shift-clicking to attack ground units 500 apm? And... I haven't seen any late game diamond/pro Protoss players going carriers. They often go Imm/Coll/HT but I haven't seen mass carriers. Have you got any proof of pro/diamond players going mass carriers in late game? I'm gonna be polite so I will stop writing here.
This thread isn't about toss going mass carriers and how to respond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
