EPTUser was warned for this post
TvP – A Terran’s view - Page 24
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
darth_hater
Canada76 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
derppp
44 Posts
On December 19 2010 19:50 darth_hater wrote: basically whoever decided to make thors and hellions a unit in sc2 should be fired i would add colossus to that list, only red alert tainted mind would change river which required skill and finess to use to fast moving 1a cliff walking unit which breaks ground army balance in this game, when massed it basically forces opponents to go air because theres no ground unit which can match with its power and changes pvp into stupid war of worlds. | ||
|
Arcanefrost
Belgium1257 Posts
"Please do NOT flame and keep it a nice discussion. I putted some work in this thread and I don't want an admin to close it. I advice to watch the replays before commenting." I find this very ironic as you seem to be doing everything to make it look like you just lose because protoss is imba. | ||
|
adamb111
27 Posts
collosus is supposed to own ground. wtf are you people talking about? its like youve never played the game. collosus is a t3 unit. however, that doesnt mean for a second that they are imbalanced. they force you to make air? so what? what kind of fucking argument is this? banshee forces robo. marauder forces air or zealots. mass banshee forces air (care to see me get owned by it like an idiot? omg i my 40 stalkers got beat by 40 banshee oomg IMBA IMBA). the term counter comes to mind. | ||
|
Strut
United States182 Posts
most of the arguments against it were due to lack of detection and anti air, but after watching a game with goody, he solved this by making lots of turrets. to pay for all these turrets, he completely cut marines except for a few early game. he also opened with blue flame helion drop (which wasn't very successful), and continued to harass minerals lines with them. this made the toss make defensive cannons. one key point to making his mech work was very fast upgrades to +3 vehicle weapons. he also builds ghosts of course. it's a hard turtle for protoss to crack. overall i've had some success with this, but theres 2 problems. the first is you're pretty vulnerable early (this i feel i can eventually fix) and second is protoss mass expanding without attacking. because of that second problem i generally only use this on smaller 2 player maps. i love this build on jungle basin but yea, turrets are really good against protoss air, especially with the +1 range upgrade from the ebay. | ||
|
Lurk
Germany359 Posts
On December 19 2010 20:50 adamb111 wrote: collosus are t3 collosus is supposed to own ground. wtf are you people talking about? its like youve never played the game. collosus is a t3 unit. however, that doesnt mean for a second that they are imbalanced. they force you to make air? so what? what kind of fucking argument is this? banshee forces robo. marauder forces air or zealots. mass banshee forces air (care to see me get owned by it like an idiot? omg i my 40 stalkers got beat by 40 banshee oomg IMBA IMBA). the term counter comes to mind. Yes, we get that collossus and Storm are T3 and therefore own T1 units. The fundamental problem is that, unlike your T3, our T3 units do not work that way. Thors would be the technicological counterpart the the collossus. However, they lose badly to T1 (zealots), even without charge. They also do not deal splash damage like the collossus do (which is linear splash btw, not like our tanks radial splash). So please, when you state something like "colls are T3 they SHOULD roflstomp T1", please provide insight to what T3 unit we should use to roflstomp your T1. We terrans are very well aware of the fact that P lategame units own our T1. The only reason we still stick to T1 is that our alternatives do not work. This the the whole point of this threat: to discuss what alternatives we have to bio in lategame. BTW: IMO "tier" system is not applicable to SC2 and should therefore not be used. Whatever is T1/2/3 anyway ? T1 = barracks, T2 = factory, T3 = starport ? So technically my T3 would be only air ? So what are BCs then ? T4 ? So please, unless someone can specifically define the tier-system, don't use it. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
If it uses 1-2 food, it's Tier 1, if it uses 2-4 food, it's Tier 2, and if it uses 5+ food it's Tier 3. Rax units are Tier 1, except for the marauder which is, uh, Tier 1.6. Hellions are Tier 1 or 2, and Tanks are Tier 2. Thors are tier 3. Anything that comes out of a Starport and isn't a Battlecruiser is Tier 2, and the Battlecruiser is Tier 3.. This kind of breaks down when you have units like High Templar which are 2 food and are not tier 1, and probably not tier 2, or Archons which are 4 food but probably better than 2x Vikings... Basically, when people talk about "T3" or something, they basically are talking about food-intensive units. I don't think "T3" always roflstomps "T1" since the Tiers are not really well defined, and you get questions like "well what does Mothership do against like 8 Marines" etc etc. Clearly balance between tech can't be easily shunted into a Tier system, but people do it anyways since it may aid conversation. Like any simplification of a complex system, you lose detail but MAY gain insight. I think it's more reasonable to say that Templar take a lot of teching to get to, and Marines usually don't, and Templar are designed to be good against Marines, so they are highly cost-effective. Inevitably, we pose the question: what similar cost-effective high-tech answers can Terran bring to the table, similar to the Templar? | ||
|
understandable
Korea (South)79 Posts
On December 19 2010 19:50 darth_hater wrote: basically whoever decided to make thors and hellions a unit in sc2 should be fired rofl really | ||
|
terranghost
United States980 Posts
Also in other note to those who say that the people trying mech in tournaments just lose to things mech is supposed to lose against. Well duh... Do you think the toss would of won with that composition if the terran went for a more infantry centric build? Maybe, maybe not. These top tier players wouldn't be randomly trying it in a tournament unless it was working for them on the ladder or with their practice partners. Also of course their are not many games up with the terran going mech. Mech is not the standard therefore replays will be limited. I will close this with an example day9 liked to use. In BW FEing in a pvz was unheard of and zerg apparently had a decently high win ratio vs protoss. Then the bisu build becomes popularized and suddenly fast expanding works a lot better. I didn't follow the sc1 pro scene too well so if their other ways this build came about then I apologize. But it seems to me without any interference from blizzard toss players made it work. | ||
|
Lurk
Germany359 Posts
On December 20 2010 00:28 Blazinghand wrote: I think it's more reasonable to say that Templar take a lot of teching to get to, and Marines usually don't, and Templar are designed to be good against Marines, so they are highly cost-effective. Inevitably, we pose the question: what similar cost-effective high-tech answers can Terran bring to the table, similar to the Templar? The unit that fills a similar role to the templar (caster based-aoe) in the terran army is the raven. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of games with more than one (if even) raven being used by the terrans. And even then it's usually not used for the aoe but rather as mobile detector and for other utitlity (PDD). Mass Raven is a tactic i have rarely seem and never in a TvP. So why do P use mass templars yet T don't use more Ravens ? - Raven offers Detection while Templars do not. - Ravens are faster and more mobile due to air. - Ravens have 140 hp compared to 80 and have 1 armor compared to 0. - Ravens have 3 spells compared to templar's 2 - Ravens can be build out of a building that most terrans get anyway, while templars specifically require Templar Archives. sounds good so far, however: - Ravens cost 100/200 rather than 50/150. - Ravens are build out of a 200/125 cost building rather than a 150/0 Gateway. - Templars can be warped in anywhere near a pylon / prism. - Ravens take 60s to build while Templars only 45s. So Templars are cheaper, easier and more conveniently mass-produced. Which is ok, given that Ravens are more mobile, have more hp and have detection. Now compare the main spell, Psi-Storm to Seeker Missile. - Psi Storm is 80 damage over 4s, homogeniously in the casting area (1.5 radius). - Seeker Missile is 100 damage, radial splash (only 100% in 0.6 radius, 50% in 1.2 radius and 25% in 2.4 radius). - Psi Storm is 75 energy, Seeker Missile is 125 energy. - Psi Storm is casting range of 9, Seeker Missile has only 6 - Psi Storm can be partially avoided by moving out all affected units (you will still get at least 1 tick, 2 with slower units). - Seeker Missile can be completely avoided by moving out the affected unit, partially avoided with very slow units. This is only comparing the main AoE spell of both units, obviously they do also have secondary spells that are also useful. I think it is obvious that Psi Storm and Seeker Missile are comparable spells, however the reduced casting range and obscenely high energy cost make Seeker Missile the inferior spell. If Seeker Missile would only cost 75 energy and had a casting range of 9 (hello, beta), we'd see a lot of ravens used in the MU as well. I think that the raven was the intended high-tech counter to mass gateway units, just like templars are the high-tech counter to mass barracks units. However, in the current state of the game, they cannot fulfil this role, due to how over-nerfed Seeker Missile was. Edit: I forgot to mention that Missile can be spammed while Psi-Storm doesn't stack, which is huge, obviously. However i still think both spells are comparable and should thus, cost the same. | ||
|
ocdscale
United States61 Posts
But I see a lot of Protoss arguing that of course T3 toss units beat T1 terran units. Sorry, but that's not how the game works. Do you ever stop building zealots because "they're T1, I have colossi now, so that's all I need?" What's the correct response if you see the Terran player is massing thors? A: Thors are T3, so you can only respond with Void Rays and Carriers if you want to win. B: Thors are slow and get destroyed by zealot stalker mixes, so expand and outproduce. Going by patch history, it looks like Blizzard wants Thors to be an endgame terran unit (removing energy to prevent feedback, nerfing tanks and battlecruisers). But they just don't work as-is because they get beat pound for pound by zealots and outranged by colossi. Vikings are only a half answer because they serve little use after colossi are off the field and (unless you grossly overproduce them) they won't kill the colossi until terrible terrible damage has been done already. Vikings and thors highlight another problem with late game PvT. Late game toss armies benefit from the same +attack +armor upgrades as early game armies. Not true of any terran transition, which dramatically increases the startup costs of a tech switch. Also hellion splash is horrible in straight up combat. Colossi have the best splash (due to units' natural tendency to arc out horizontally) hellions have the worst splash (due to the same). | ||
|
Wampaibist
United States478 Posts
On December 20 2010 01:09 ocdscale wrote: Tiers are a matter of tech, roughly corresponding to hatchery, lair, hive. Zealots and stalkers are T1. Chargelots and immortals are T2. Colossi are T3. But I see a lot of Protoss arguing that of course T3 toss units beat T1 terran units. Sorry, but that's not how the game works. Do you ever stop building zealots because "they're T1, I have colossi now, so that's all I need?" What's the correct response if you see the Terran player is massing thors? A: Thors are T3, so you can only respond with Void Rays and Carriers if you want to win. B: Thors are slow and get destroyed by zealot stalker mixes, so expand and outproduce. Going by patch history, it looks like Blizzard wants Thors to be an endgame terran unit (removing energy to prevent feedback, nerfing tanks and battlecruisers). But they just don't work as-is because they get beat pound for pound by zealots and outranged by colossi. Vikings are only a half answer because they serve little use after colossi are off the field and (unless you grossly overproduce them) they won't kill the colossi until terrible terrible damage has been done already. Vikings and thors highlight another problem with late game PvT. Late game toss armies benefit from the same +attack +armor upgrades as early game armies. Not true of any terran transition, which dramatically increases the startup costs of a tech switch. Also hellion splash is horrible in straight up combat. Colossi have the best splash (due to units' natural tendency to arc out horizontally) hellions have the worst splash (due to the same). it would be cool if hellions could have an activated beam attack.... like chippers ulti in hon | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
On December 20 2010 01:03 Lurk wrote: The unit that fills a similar role to the templar (caster based-aoe) in the terran army is the raven. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of games with more than one (if even) raven being used by the terrans. And even then it's usually not used for the aoe but rather as mobile detector and for other utitlity (PDD). Mass Raven is a tactic i have rarely seem and never in a TvP. So why do P use mass templars yet T don't use more Ravens ? - Raven offers Detection while Templars do not. - Ravens are faster and more mobile due to air. - Ravens have 140 hp compared to 80 and have 1 armor compared to 0. - Ravens have 3 spells compared to templar's 2 - Ravens can be build out of a building that most terrans get anyway, while templars specifically require Templar Archives. sounds good so far, however: - Ravens cost 100/200 rather than 50/150. - Ravens are build out of a 200/125 cost building rather than a 150/0 Gateway. - Templars can be warped in anywhere near a pylon / prism. - Ravens take 60s to build while Templars only 45s. So Templars are cheaper, easier and more conveniently mass-produced. Which is ok, given that Ravens are more mobile, have more hp and have detection. Now compare the main spell, Psi-Storm to Seeker Missile. - Psi Storm is 80 damage over 4s, homogeniously in the casting area (1.5 radius). - Seeker Missile is 100 damage, radial splash (only 100% in 0.6 radius, 50% in 1.2 radius and 25% in 2.4 radius). - Psi Storm is 75 energy, Seeker Missile is 125 energy. - Psi Storm is casting range of 9, Seeker Missile has only 6 - Psi Storm can be partially avoided by moving out all affected units (you will still get at least 1 tick, 2 with slower units). - Seeker Missile can be completely avoided by moving out the affected unit, partially avoided with very slow units. This is only comparing the main AoE spell of both units, obviously they do also have secondary spells that are also useful. I think it is obvious that Psi Storm and Seeker Missile are comparable spells, however the reduced casting range and obscenely high energy cost make Seeker Missile the inferior spell. If Seeker Missile would only cost 75 energy and had a casting range of 9 (hello, beta), we'd see a lot of ravens used in the MU as well. I think that the raven was the intended high-tech counter to mass gateway units, just like templars are the high-tech counter to mass barracks units. However, in the current state of the game, they cannot fulfil this role, due to how over-nerfed Seeker Missile was. Edit: I forgot to mention that Missile can be spammed while Psi-Storm doesn't stack, which is huge, obviously. However i still think both spells are comparable and should thus, cost the same. Ever played against FeedBack. Hell if my ghosts all get perfectly feedbacked every TvP imagine Ravens. Thats why you can't put your gas into ravens. Feed back murders them. And like Templar they don't dish out alot of damage until their massed. P.S. HSM is 125 gas. Thats 1 missle. And HSM has a range of 6. By the time it launches the Ravens Dead | ||
|
OutlaW-
Czech Republic5053 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On December 20 2010 00:28 Blazinghand wrote: Having listened to a lot of discussions where people mention tier, I think "Tier" refers usually to the amount of food a unit uses. If it uses 1-2 food, it's Tier 1, if it uses 2-4 food, it's Tier 2, and if it uses 5+ food it's Tier 3. Rax units are Tier 1, except for the marauder which is, uh, Tier 1.6. Hellions are Tier 1 or 2, and Tanks are Tier 2. Thors are tier 3. Anything that comes out of a Starport and isn't a Battlecruiser is Tier 2, and the Battlecruiser is Tier 3.. This kind of breaks down when you have units like High Templar which are 2 food and are not tier 1, and probably not tier 2, or Archons which are 4 food but probably better than 2x Vikings... Basically, when people talk about "T3" or something, they basically are talking about food-intensive units. I don't think "T3" always roflstomps "T1" since the Tiers are not really well defined, and you get questions like "well what does Mothership do against like 8 Marines" etc etc. Clearly balance between tech can't be easily shunted into a Tier system, but people do it anyways since it may aid conversation. Like any simplification of a complex system, you lose detail but MAY gain insight. I think it's more reasonable to say that Templar take a lot of teching to get to, and Marines usually don't, and Templar are designed to be good against Marines, so they are highly cost-effective. Inevitably, we pose the question: what similar cost-effective high-tech answers can Terran bring to the table, similar to the Templar? Lol...reading this post made me laugh, so I decided I'd make a response to it. I've already made my opinion on the OP clear. Tiers generally refer to how far up the tech tree one needs to go in order to obtain a unit. With the release of SC2 people started to rename tiers with halves (which makes little sense, really.) Tiers are not always consistent, but you can come up with a rough, general outline. Tiers by race: Protoss: T1 is zealot, stalker, sentry. Some call stalker and sentry 1.5 because of the cybercore requirement. T2 is immortal, Phoenix, voidray. T3 is colossus, carrier, HT/DT, mothership, archon You'll notice that in most games, at most 2 tech paths are chosen. A lot of the time one tech path is used for a majority of the game (particularly the robo tech) Terran: T1 is Marine, Marauder, Reaper. Some players consider Maurauder/Reaper to be 1.5 because of the techlab requirement. T2 is Ghost, Hellion, Siege Tank. T3 is Thor and everything Starport. Battlecruisers are often considered T 3.5, I'd call them T3. Zerg: T1 is Zergling, Queen, Roach, Baneling. Banes and roaches are often considered 1.5 because of the tech buildings required. T2 is Hydra, Muta, Corruptor, Infestor. T3 is Ultra, Broodlord. Some people call broodlords 3.5 but I have no idea where that logic comes from. On ravens: HSM was probably overnerfed. As it is vs P currently, Ravens are great to watch out for DTs and lay down PDDs, but they (and the PDDs) are too easily feedbacked. This makes it pretty hard to get a missile, and very discouraging when your raven gets caught as it's trying to fire one (and subsequently gets two shotted thanks to the HP it lost) I think the biggest problem for T players really is dealing with chargelots. My intuition tells me that the solution lies in Hellion play, but this raises a few issues. Hellions are remarkably frail (they feel weaker than vultures) and their attack animation/wait thing is just too damn long. At 100 minerals each you pretty much have to forego marines for them. Maybe the solution is hellions and tanks with support: vikings for stargate/colossi. Ghosts. Banshees if it's a pure robo build. Single raven. IMO the key is in the support and Hellion micro. It should be possible for tanks to waste everything if EMPs take out all the shields, and hellions should soak up damage and kill the chargelots/sentries/HTs. Vikings on colossi is a no-brainer. When I've tried this, though, the problem is always the chargelots. Charging zealots take very little splash damage from hellions and tanks alike, because they charge at slightly different times, causing them to spread naturally prior to engaging. The rapid close also means that you need to immediately shift click tanks on stalkers and whatnot, or they'll blow each other up because of the chargelots. Difficult situation, indeed. | ||
|
ltortoise
633 Posts
On December 20 2010 01:33 OutlaW- wrote: So so many clueless people in this thread. It's really starting to grow me tiresome, 90% of the arguments here is complete and utter bullshit that should be deleted so that nobody can see it, what's wrong with TL nowadays.. I really don't get why the 10% keeps on posting the same logical arguments when they are just going to get quoted and laughed at by some fucking idiot who doesn't know shit about this game. Would you care to point out some of the bullshit and bad arguments, or would you prefer to just be a jerk in the thread with zero constructive feedback? | ||
|
zekie
Canada380 Posts
just my 2 cents. | ||
|
bluesoup
Macedonia107 Posts
On December 20 2010 02:41 zekie wrote: i feel like its kind of like TvZ in BW. its a battle of ghosts EMP and HT storms or vikings and colossus. i do feel like the amulet upgrade is VERY VERY strong and makes it really hard to kill a toss. but I think the reason every T complains (besides the amulet) is because its easier for toss to get storms off than it is to get good EMPs. if the Terran does get good EMP's on most of the templay the terran is almost guaranteed to walk over the toss army because zealot/stalker/sentry isn't near as strong without the support of collosus or HT. just my 2 cents. The current issue with amulet and ghosts is that even if you manage to EMP every last one HT on the field, you achieved nothing. The moment you do that, 3-4 more will just wrap-in just where needed and still storm your entire army. After the engagement, if both of you lost HTs and ghosts (feedback, snipe, etc...), P will spam few more storm ready in HTs in a few seconds. How much time you need to replenish EMP ready ghost ? The game is over by then... Reinforcements are what kills Terran (HTs easy on minerals, zealots easy on gas), as there is no way to reinforce casters and meat shield for Terran as toss can. But this has been said so many times before, in this thread and elsewhere... Simply, ghost is not counter for HTs once amulet is researched. Nothing is, that's why it is imba... | ||
|
zekie
Canada380 Posts
On December 20 2010 03:15 bluesoup wrote: The current issue with amulet and ghosts is that even if you manage to EMP every last one HT on the field, you achieved nothing. The moment you do that, 3-4 more will just wrap-in just where needed and still storm your entire army. After the engagement, if both of you lost HTs and ghosts (feedback, snipe, etc...), P will spam few more storm ready in HTs in a few seconds. How much time you need to replenish EMP ready ghost ? The game is over by then... Reinforcements are what kills Terran (HTs easy on minerals, zealots easy on gas), as there is no way to reinforce casters and meat shield for Terran as toss can. But this has been said so many times before, in this thread and elsewhere... Simply, ghost is not counter for HTs once amulet is researched. Nothing is, that's why it is imba... you can upgrade ghosts to have 75 energy when they are finished so just reinforce them and you're ready to EMP all the ones that just got warped in. | ||
|
derppp
44 Posts
On December 20 2010 03:29 zekie wrote: you can upgrade ghosts to have 75 energy when they are finished so just reinforce them and you're ready to EMP all the ones that just got warped in. unlike protoss units they cant be instantly produced and teleported in the battlefield | ||
| ||
