|
Personally i feel they didn't give people enough time to figure out the counter to mech. They just nerfed it.
Did you know that although tanks did half damage to Smaller units in BW. SHIELDS took FULL DAMAGE.
Something to consider. IMO
But personally vikings are fine. An mobility -wise resulting in out macro can be solved by Hellion Runbys and drops.
Any investment Protoss has to do to kill mech i easily countered by 1) Micro 2) units of lesser gas.
Example: 2-3 ghost counter an infinite amount of Immortals.
Though i still believe Immortals should be 125 gas and 200 minerals to compensate. Being 100 gas allows them to be double pumped off of 1 base. Which is pretty gay since you cant do that with tanks. Maps need to allow for safe Naturals and obtainable thirds. NO BACK DOORS. And PLz multiple paths. Not just 1 route to their base. This way you can actually harrass with hellions more efficiently.
Air transitions arent that scary if scouted. Thors Kill phoenixes, Vikings kill everything else. If they lose their air and switch to mass ground again. YOU do realize your AHEAD in food? And its not like your gonna need a million VIkings. You just need some.
P.S. Vikings have same DPS as Goliaths on ground.
Concerning Upgrades. Consider double armory. 1 for mech weapons another for armor. Using the armor Armory for also air weapons by flip flopping the upgrades.
#1 enemy of mech= Blizzard maps
|
On November 19 2010 04:48 tarath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 04:42 space_yes wrote: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.
Terrans go bio b/c late game mech isn't very good b/c it is too vulnerable to air. The OP mentioned carriers but I found a control group of speed VR the most difficult to deal with. Most of the mech experimentation verse toss at a high level happened during the beta. <--- I'm thinking of Jinro here
EDIT: there are other issues (possibly larger issues) with mech verse toss too, but lack of AA late game is a problem that decreases the viability of mech however marginally
|
Reading this entire thread was a great learning experience for me.
I had a profound realization that 95% of the people who do the actual posting on the TL Strategy forums have terrible, terrible reading comprehension. It's either that or they read only the opening post, half-heartedly, before their excitement to share their poorly-thought out ideas gets the best of them. It's unfortunate for people like Poor Nadagast who actually want to have an intellectual discussion without his thread being polluted by comments like "OMG WHY DO YOU WANT THOR TO BE OVERPOWERED??!!1one!" when he specifically said that to compensate for this added thor capability, that compensations must be made in the form of scaling down the Thor ground damage.
Now, for my contribution.
I don't think it's a matter of changing anything about the thor's attack. As you've stated, the attack priority is the real problem plaguing Terran in these battles. Carriers are fairly worthless without a supporting ground army, especially when confronted with a variety of mediocre but tenable dangers the Terran can pose (i.e. even a few vikings [I think somebody mentioned 2 or 3 matching the cost of a carrier, excluding tech time, etc.], mixed with a bio army and 2-5(debatable number) thors, not to mention EMP). The attack priority will allow the terran to spend his APM elsewhere in the battle (microing bio away from zealots, attacking carriers with marines, sniping guardian shields, EMPing HT; if you think terran is a-walk then you are ignorant). Without a ground army, the carriers will definitely go down, regardless of you composition - so long as you have AA obviously. As was mentioned by multiple posters, economy and more specifically cost-efficiency is key when it's 3+ bases against 3+ bases. If you go too hard on the vikings, you're going to lose the resource-trading war and you'll probably even outright lose to a tech switch and faster army reproduction. With improved Thor attack priority, you can invest a comparatively similar amount that you would put into vikings, except you have much hardier units that are both more practical to repair and retain as well as strong ground-attacking units. The only possible argument I can see to this is that the thors still do relatively small damage (that of a stimmed marine) but that's trivializing the damage thors can do to ground units before hitting the carriers as well as the durability and repair-ability of your giant metal stimmed marine.
|
Just bring back the goliath and vultures. We'll never have real mech play in T v P without those two units. It'll just be boring bio vs everything in all 3 matchups.
Goody and Servyoa, the only two high level players who mech T v P, usually loses, convincingly, when they attempt it.
|
On November 19 2010 05:17 link0 wrote:
Just bring back the goliath and vultures. We'll never have real mech play in T v P without those two units. It'll just be boring bio vs everything in all 3 matchups.
Goody and Servyoa, the only two high level players who mech T v P, usually loses, convincingly, when they attempt it.
You can have vultures and goliaths back as soon as we get scouts and dragoons (with better pathing) back
|
Erm... this assumes that you gave protoss enough time/resources to have a sizeable ground army AND a sizable carrier army. You should probably not do this in the first place...
Also, carrier upgrades are on a completely different path than protoss' ground unit, so so i'm going to guess that the carriers are not well upgraded.
When has terran ever been able to go face to face with a carrier/ground unit army of protoss that has steady income and win consistantly (except flash). Carrier/ground army always has been the ultimate counter to terran. Terran's usual response to that has to be cut off protoss' income, since carriers are useless without steady mineral income. Then as soon as you kill a lot of his probes (with your hellions prob. since they're too quick for carriers) attack, then even if you kill the intercepter he should have a hard time replenishing that. Or, hit with hellions, and if he moves his carriers, flank the carriers while they're seperated from his ground army, then your vikings can go harass, and with the left over unit count mass up unit and attack (yeah yeah, theorycraft, but it's actually more doable). in the time it takes for him to make a sizeable carrier army again, you should be able to steam roll through everything.
Carriers when used with enough ground units are not really a unit you "counter with this unit", it's a unit you counter with strategy.
following your logic countering muta for P is ridiculous, since stalkers only do 10 dmg (with no splash) against mutas, and stargate is on a completely differnet tech path/upgrade. And honestly, you see mutas A LOT more than you see carriers o_O.
Thors are strong enough already. If thors got the damage boost you were talking about their would attack collossus (since it'll start doing more dmg with it's Javelin missiles) from far range with terrible terrible dmg,
|
I agree that Thors should always target ground units with priority. It is easy to tell thors to attack air units, it is extremely not easy to continually tell them not to. Thor AI does a great job of ruining the unit in TvP (and used to in TvT until it was fixed).
|
Another thing is that if they change thors' attack priority they will STILL SUCK against armored air, so armored air is still viable for toss late game. It's not like if you change thors will be good vs anything toss has. You as terran will still have to balance your viking numbers so you don't get raped in the ground battle. As a result you only have a more balanced late game vs toss.
|
The way I see it OP wants T to be the one that forces P to change tech through their incredible long tech tree instead of T being the one having to change just by moving a couple of buildings.
You say that armored air cripples T from using mech but how would this not cripple P from using armored air?
|
On November 18 2010 19:45 Nadagast wrote:
I agree the reason people go bio is not because they are afraid of Carriers. But you'd see other things if Thors could hit armored air well.
true, youd see even more imbalance outside of the scv timing pushes
|
The thor already beats every light air unit, why would it need to beat EVERY AIR UNIT?
Quite simply, if the Thor could beat armored air units as well as light ones, you'd never need more than stimmed marauders and thors to win.
|
On November 19 2010 05:20 Jonas  wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 05:17 link0 wrote:
Just bring back the goliath and vultures. We'll never have real mech play in T v P without those two units. It'll just be boring bio vs everything in all 3 matchups.
Goody and Servyoa, the only two high level players who mech T v P, usually loses, convincingly, when they attempt it. You can have vultures and goliaths back as soon as we get scouts and dragoons (with better pathing) back
Only if our Vultures get better AI when planting mines. 
|
There IS a Terran response to Carriers besides Vikings and Marines. BATTLECRUISERS! They take about the same amount of time to tech to (probably less, since you already have a Starport and can just switch on a tech lab as your fusion core is building), and with Yamato there's no contest. Plus, the only real followup P has is ht + b-stalkers.
Of course, Vikings and Marines are still better, but you wanted diversity...
|
You can have Thors not be distracted by void rays when my immortals actually spend the fight shooting at something that doesn't cost an 8th of their value.
Until then, I guess we're both stuck with microing or going mass colossus/bio. 
|
I think vikings are fine anti-armored AA as they are currently. When people complain about not knowing how many vikings to incorporate, I feel this is an area where skill is involved. It's not just the decision making of seeing X unit and then building Y to handle X, it's also knowing how much Y you need.
For example:
+ Show Spoiler +Corruptors operate the same way. If I just get 7 corruptors, I'm going to have a hard time against a Protoss that goes overboard on colossus -- 7 can't kill them fast enough to stop them from vaporizing my ground army. However, if he only built one, I'm going to burn through it quick and then have a bunch of useless corruptors around.
Change Thor anti-air damage to be 12x4, or 24x2 instead of 6+6lightx4.
I'm not sure this would really change anything. You're complaining that Thor DPS is low versus armies with Protoss air and acknowledge that sufficient numbers of vikings are very effective against at least the air portion. I'd be inclined to agree. Thor GtA DPS is lower than its GtG DPS even against light air. Making thors too effective against armored air would marginalize the vikings' role in the Terran army. Improving thors is dangerous -- they're already an extremely effective unit.
Change Thors to automatically target ground units over armored air units and Interceptors.
This change is by far more reasonable and is the correct answer, I think. It makes no sense that a thor would rather plink away at an overlord 9 range away instead of blasting the roaches right in its face. Thors should always prioritize ground (it's easier to manually tell them to hit air units than have them prioritize air and be forced to focus them on ground units).
EDIT:
...Poor Nadagast who actually want to have an intellectual discussion without his thread being polluted by comments like "OMG WHY DO YOU WANT THOR TO BE OVERPOWERED??!!1one!" when he specifically said that to compensate for this added thor capability, that compensations must be made in the form of scaling down the Thor ground damage.
Nerfing thor ground damage is moving in the wrong direction. Thors, on paper, are fine. It's the fact that the AI makes them do sub-par DPS by default against mixed air+ground that's the issue. You really can't make thors any weaker or you'll break TvZ.
|
the most annoying things are mutas in tvz and thors splashdmg AA radius HAVE TO get fixed imo... its terrible and annoying, other than you have magic box ur mutas and cant focuss tanks as zerg there is almost no viable reason to use thors and they are hardcoutner to mutas???..
And yes i agree the AA dmg to armoured units from thors are terrible, but ive never met carriers on high dmg lvl tbh, more noticable were those 3-4 tvts i lost where my opponent opened banshee viking and went into bcs midgame with only air upgrades and you HAVE TO play thors against it, no chance u get aircontrol for vikings and once bcs pop ur dead...
But as i mentioned, the most reasonable change would be an further splashradius to rly have a counter against mutas since vikings are crap and rines get rickrolled by banelings/infestor.
|
Honestly I believe the reason thor AA is considered weak in comparison to marines is because of the ridiculous damage that marines can put out. The splash light damage makes thors amazing against mutas / phoenix but there is no reason why they should be the end all be all anwser for every situation.
If you want the damage to be better in comparison to a stim marine, make the marine do less damage.
|
Everyone's missing the point. The point isn't that Thors are weak, or Terran needs more help fighting Carriers. The point is that 99% of Terrans use the exact same build vs Protoss because it's really the ONLY viable build. It's not a weakness, its boring.
I'm all for creative play, and the current state of TvP is stale. MMM+Ghost+Viking, every game. Maybe if the Thor was more viable versus Armored air - not hard countering, just viable - maybe through an upgrade or other means, might bring some creativity back to the match-up.
Maybe while giving the Thor a buff versus Armored air, and weakening its strength vs light air, do the opposite to Vikings making them a little weaker vs armored air but stronger vs light air units. Maybe then we'd see more viking play versus zerg, and more mech play versus Protoss.
Again, it's not about balance or Thors being weak. Or even about Terran being OP or UP. I like seeing each race having more options available, and Natagasts point is a good one.
|
Everyone's missing the point. The point isn't that Thors are weak, or Terran needs more help fighting Carriers. The point is that 99% of Terrans use the exact same build vs Protoss because it's really the ONLY viable build. It's not a weakness, its boring.
I'm all for creative play, and the current state of TvP is stale. MMM+Ghost+Viking, every game. Maybe if the Thor was more viable versus Armored air - not hard countering, just viable - maybe through an upgrade or other means, might bring some creativity back to the match-up.
Maybe while giving the Thor a buff versus Armored air, and weakening its strength vs light air, do the opposite to Vikings making them a little weaker vs armored air but stronger vs light air units. Maybe then we'd see more viking play versus zerg, and more mech play versus Protoss.
Again, it's not about balance or Thors being weak. Or even about Terran being OP or UP. I like seeing each race having more options available, and Natagasts point is a good one.
|
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.
Lord al fucking mighty, why don't you understand this? You know what happens when you select multiple thors and shift attack every stalker? You'll overkill every single one of them and waste your DPS. There is _no way_ to do it manually without giving up DPS. Even if somehow you had the APM to manually target one stalker per thor, by the time you'd get to the last thor, your first thor will have killed its stalker, and started firing at the carrier, ignoring all of the other stalkers. Carriers see plenty of play at high level TvP against any non-bio macro build, and they fucking tear shit up. There is no counter for carrier/templar. Period. It's a big issue and it completely invalidates mech play. In fact, tvp's in which terran goes mech or air are the most fun to watch... right up until carriers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
