|
Currently, I find lategame TvP between 2 good players very exciting to watch. Firstly, there is the importance of army positioning and choosing a good terrain to engage. Then there is the dance between ghosts vs HT. If colossi are present, the terran needs to focus fire using vikings and kite their bio-ball. Of course, if 2 poor players are playing, it can get pretty boring.
The OP makes this claim:
Another issue i have with TvP is there's minimum micro in fights, all you do is make concave before the fight them stim and run in. Cast some emps. Then you watch if you have enough or not. Theres no micro against banelings or infestors like in TvZ. Micro will never save your ass like in TvZ. Good position will never save your ass like in TvT, because you have no tanks, and warpgates are pretty good eh! Nothings angers me more than cutting off protoss expo from his main army and have 20 zealots warped in to my back, same with drops.
However, as Thorzain points out, he disagrees (like I do), with this assessment:
On October 01 2011 06:16 Thorzain wrote:
I feel that TvP IS really micro intensive. EMP everything, move your units out of storms, focus fire individual colossi with vikings and kite zealots if he's zealot heavy. And while you're kiting zealots you have to move back your ghosts so that they dont all get killed in the blink of an eye. All these things at the same time. It's freaking hard if you ask me!
|
Russian Federation899 Posts
On October 03 2011 13:05 sunman1g wrote:
god.. people quoting artosis almost literally regarding the marauder makes me laugh every time.
well, even artosis can be right once in a while ;>
|
On October 03 2011 13:53 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 13:05 sunman1g wrote:
god.. people quoting artosis almost literally regarding the marauder makes me laugh every time.
. People aren't quoting artosis, there are a ton of people that hate the marauder, and surprisingly a lot that do hate the marauder are actually TERRAN players!
Terran players hate the marauder in much the same way that protoss players hate the colossus. Luckily for terran, they only have to endure making their hated unit in one matchup. Hopefully they are both changed significantly in HotS.
|
PredY mah dude! :D Interesting post.
|
I'm not saying I don't see your point, but I disagree that the match up is stale to watch. I do agree that there could be more viable strategies added in the coming expansions but the ones we have are pretty fun to watch as well as to play.
TvP is very micro intensive from my point of view it requires a lot of fast paced aggression from the Terran and good tactical decisions from the Protoss.
It's a lot different than the other match ups, but I don't think it's necessarily bad. I do wish that siege tanks were a bit more viable than they are in that match up but I think that has more to do with the fact that Hellions are not even close to as viable against Protoss as Vultures were as a support unit for Siege Tanks.
|
Maybe remove the maruader and add mines to hellione
|
Well from a lore point of view, why would you always expect one weapon or technology class to work equally well against 3 separate races? Tanks dominate T and Z when used right, but the toss are aliens from a higher race and all that.
I don't mind the differences in tactics required for Tv T/P/Z. But I would love to see some HOTS change to collossi. 4 collossi is like 8 tanks dps with a much higher movement rate and no penalties whatsoever compared to trying to move 8 tanks.
To make tanks worthwhile in TvP, maybe a health decrease to the zealot, or a firing delay to the collossi or movement speed decrease to collossi, or tanks become massive once sieged, or faster unsiege or faster siege, or reduced self-splash damage, decreased gas cost to factory etc.
There's lots of possibilities to try and even things out. But currently there is no corresponding scarefactor to protoss when we sacrifice mobility by going tanks because there are simply too many toss counters to tanks and even thors in TvP.
I think we can start to see tank play in TvP only if it can be done without breaking TvZ/T. Given the trend towards larger maps, mmmvgr is always going to be more manouverable and keep us in the game longer vs chargelots/blink/phoenix/collossi.
|
On October 03 2011 06:02 ThatGuy89 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 05:54 Quotidian wrote:
I wish the OP never mentioned "micro" in this context, because how fast someone a-clicks and presses s/h isn't what makes a match up fun to watch or interesting to play, regardless of whether there are tanks on the map or not. Like what has been stated already, the fact that tanks aren't viable in tvp means that there is no fighting for position. It's all just mashing two lumps of groups together and hoping you do whatever magical thing it is that you need to do in order to win engagements.
I think tvp is going to remain a really lame match up throughout the life of SC2 and all its expansions. No way are Blizzard going to remove warp gate tech, even though the game would be much better off if they did. Blizzard also has this really flawed design mentality of wanting to cater to every style of play, via map size/style (rush vs marco). This basically means that it is impossible to balance the tank properly. A 60-70 damage per round siege tank is broken on rush maps, and a 35 (+15) damage tank is too weak on a "macro" map the size of tal darim, where you don't always want all your tanks in one big ball, but rather have smaller groups of units in different key locations. 2 siege tanks protecting an expo isn't a deterrent to any of the races at the moment.
Seriously, the way protoss is designed really makes me want to make an RTS mod for DOTA2 or something - just take the advances blizzard made over BW and disregard all the retarded stuff. wow i dont know the exact cost of tanks, but wanting 2 to defend an expo is completely retarded. If that was possible then terran, and tanks, would be completely broken.
If you remove the warp mechanic, you reduce the build time, or buff every gateway unit, or do something that isnt going to completely destroy the game - which is what would happen if you simply remove warp gate tech. Id be amazed if they werent trying to find ways to change it right now, but its alot harder then some people like to think, the people who think they know how to balance this game. Which to them is basically making every race that isnt their own weaker and worse. And i dont think blizz are too stubborn to go back on themselves, if they realise that warp in really doesnt work then they'll remove it. But that would result in a complete overhaul of toss, cos their main ability to counter attack and apply pressure would be gone and then they;d just be a turtling race - if you last past the early-mid game, what with terran tier one units being cheaper, quicker to build, and just all round better. They're much better off trying to fixWG as apposed to removing it, and then rebuilding toss as it were
The whole point of having a couple of units beat a whole army is to reduce 200/200 blob vs blob wars, and have more tactical squad based games. You think 2 tanks defending an expo is bad? A 2 vulture, 1 tank drop can win you the Grand Final :D.
|
So I think I just basically read this:
I want to make tanks and have vultures in TvP and micro more than I already do because I don't like marauders or the micro involved and if you don't have vikings or ghosts when you need them you lose. There is no solution to this but maybe it will get changed.
...
"give some feedback"
What the hell do you want feedback on? How to not hate marauders or how to better tell people how you feel about one MU not playing out how you want it to?
|
On October 03 2011 15:24 Shebuha wrote:
So I think I just basically read this:
I want to make tanks and have vultures in TvP and micro more than I already do because I don't like marauders or the micro involved and if you don't have vikings or ghosts when you need them you lose. There is no solution to this but maybe it will get changed.
...
"give some feedback"
What the hell do you want feedback on? How to not hate marauders or how to better tell people how you feel about one MU not playing out how you want it to?
So I think I can basically read your post and tell you to re-read OP the point of the discussion is NOT a BW rant/balance discussion/or a "I like Tanks so we should always have tanks" The point of this thread is that the OP is claiming that this MU is extremely uninteresting due to bad game design. Collsi/maruder/warp gate/FF/mainly tier 1 units/ no positional play or control/blob vsblob/battles over in 3 secs/T feels more like Z. Its not fun to play seemingly for either side. Tanks were a suggestion from the OP as one possible way of addressing this issue
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
I really think that HT's feedback is the thing that breaks the match up.
It counters basically everything except for bio - thors, ravens, banshees, BCs. You need these thors to anchor the tank forces, but with feedback thors are just a loke.
same goes for ravens and battlecruisers, skyterran is a joke against templars.
So... Just make mmmvg and rely on good EMPs. Not that it was boring (very intense!), it's just monotonous to have a single option in the MU.
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
and many people here were mentioning Goody... Goody is an exception that underlines the rule: don't go mech in TvP. I've seen Goody win with it only against casual GM protosses. When Goody's tanks clash on a guy like Naniwa or Huk, they get crushed just as miserably as any other tanks in TvP.
|
On October 03 2011 12:41 Zelniq wrote:
This guy gets it. Tanks, and other units that control space (like lurkers/tanks did in bw) are what made starcraft such a good game. They make various RTS principles important, such as map design/layout, controlling areas on the map, the 'dance' between strongly held areas and mobile forces circumventing said areas, which in turn spreads the defender more thin as the number of bases increases, promoting more smaller engagements around the map rather than just a giant blob wars.
I do hope for example that colossus become very immobile units in HotS so they can start fulfilling the same role as the tank/lurker did, rather than the opposite of that which is what it is now, with unit-walking and cliff-walking, which is the main reason why games involving colossi tend to come down to huge army vs army battles.
I actually made a very long post about the fundamentally wrong design of colossus's mobility half year ago and got closed by some mod who thinks I'm a average QQer crying for the death-ball. The content is pretty much the same as u said here.
Being a unit with cliff-walking and long range AOE, colossus is already an ideal unit for defense. But the problem is it's mobility in the normal walk and overlap with ground unit. With blink stalkers, this totally makes positioning a joke in SC2. With the power of warp-in, basically it makes protoss army more like zerg army. And Blizzard have to nerf the protoss units coz they are so mobile...
Also the idea of AOE unit created from BW always follows a role of defense and positioning. Like tank, lurker, reaver, templer. If you want it more moblie, fine, get a shuttle and use your micro. Otherwise, these AOE allow u to have great defense power. But if you want to use these power for offense, these units could be easily caught off guard and be punished. So we have the defense advantage in macro game.
Colossus is just such a bad design. I always joke that considering you make a tank being able to move in the seiged mode, at the speed of your bio ball and it overlaps with it, it will be more entertaining to watch...
|
I would say that TvP was the least micro-intensive matchup at the highest levels of play in Broodwar (barring vulture shenanigans), and the MMM + ghost vs. Colossus sentry zealot stalker is quite refreshing to watch compared to some of the slow-push with mines + turret mechanics from BW.
I think what you're longing for is the knife-edge matchups in Broodwar: A poorly positioned Terran army, once flanked, gets utterly demolished by Protoss. A well positioned Terran army, on the other hand, with buildings and mines to cover flanks, will roll over a Protoss army all day long, but at the cost of massively reduced mobility.
I don't entirely agree with your assessment that the warpgate is a stupid mechanic. It really lets Protoss be the versatile tech-based reactive race it was meant to be from Broodwar (with respect to the PvT matchup). Unlike T, P can say "I need a zealot now, so I will build a zealot now." Its units being somewhat less cost-effective for most battle situations balances out this time-knowledge advantage.
|
Being a master league protoss player I honestly think you're wrong. There's sooooo much finesse revolving PvT. Especially after the latest patch. It's NOT just colos/gateway all in (seeing from the P point of view) - there's tosn of builds:
- Gateway heavy build with double forges/twilight
- Stargate play revolving around harrass/timings making expansions more safe
- DT play giving mapcontrol and punishing greedy terrans for muling and not getting enough detection
- Warp prism drops making the midgame a more cross-harrassing state - rather than P expandind/upgrading while just defending harrass
- Scouting (for both races) is not at all impossible - making both players able to adapt to eachother.
If you're not counting early game pressure, expansion pressure, harrasment, proper decisionmaking, mappools, multitasking, forcing mistakes, match-ending mistakes (missed FF's/EMPs) being factors then sure. Both players just lean back and go 3base 200/200...
Oh wait... This DOESN'T happen. Pro players (and even "just" on my master league level) people are CONSTANTLY harrassing, dropping, bansheeing, dt'ing, immortaldropping, hellion roasting etc etc... Imo this matchup is one of the best and most intensive matchups.
And being a protoss player - I dont find neither the colossus nor the hightemplar being the issues as both of these have groundbreaking hardcounters. The biggest problem is chargelots. Chargelots with 3/3 and guardian will have 4(+2) dmg reduction from bio - making them tank AND damage like bosses - for 100mins.
Just my 2cents
Edit: 1 thing I DO find terrible is the strength of terran 1base all in. And the lack of consequence (mules / having the most costeffecient units / ability to "just" fly OC to natural if mined out)
|
Wow. You feel the exact way about TvP I do. Great OP
|
I'll never understand how one's personal opinion can be sold as a "strategy thread". Oh well, one of life's many mysteries.
Also, don't care what they do with tanks, just don't mess with my bio.
|
I agree, remove marauders! :D
while theyre at it they can throw away roaches, sentries, corrupters, and the mothership too.
replace them with scourge and arbiters.
the more like BW the better (in my little perfect world) ^^
|
On October 03 2011 16:01 Ganseng wrote:
I really think that HT's feedback is the thing that breaks the match up.
It counters basically everything except for bio - thors, ravens, banshees, BCs. You need these thors to anchor the tank forces, but with feedback thors are just a loke.
same goes for ravens and battlecruisers, skyterran is a joke against templars.
So... Just make mmmvg and rely on good EMPs. Not that it was boring (very intense!), it's just monotonous to have a single option in the MU.
I don't get it, whats stopping you from getting a few ghosts in the late game to support your mech army? Its not like you can only go either pure mech or MMMVG. The snipe before feedback battle that currently exists between ghosts and high templars still applies just the same, only difference is that this time the templar is trying to feedback something else.
|
On October 03 2011 11:35 Banex wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 10:09 NicolBolas wrote:
What is wrong with having one matchup without those Goddamned Siege Tanks in it? There are quite a few people in this thread who share this sentiment. But the fact of the matter is that the siege tank has been the backbone of the terran army since the starcraft 1 was released. Tanks are what terran has always been all about. Quite frankly, if you don't like the siege tank as a unit then you really are not a terran player at heart and should think about playing a different race.
Yes, and there were matchups in SC1 where STs were once unlikely to appear. TvZ, namely. The matchup I enjoyed most, precisely because it wasn't a tank-fest. It wasn't a fight between slow units and slow units. It was a free-wheeling melee between M&M running around shutting down Zerg expos, and the Zerg trying desperately to hold on to some territory. A game of harass vs. harass, eventually culminating in one side being resource starved and killed.
Nowadays in SC1, STs have managed to infest TvZ to a much greater degree, and I don't care for it much anymore. SK-Terran for life!
I don't hate Siege Tanks per-se. But there is no reason that they should be viable in every matchup. I don't want to see Mech in every game involving Terrans. I want there to be matchups where Air or Bio is viable. And in order for that to happen, Mech cannot be viable in that match.
The simple fact is that Mech is all-consuming. If Mech is viable in a match, it will almost always be the strongest strategy. It may require more work, but you get more out of it, so all Terran play eventually gravitates to it. Once you master the mechanics and micro of positional play, it owns all. Ensuring that there is at least one matchup where Mech is non-viable is a good thing.
Just watch. Mech is already the only way to play TvT. TvZ is already moving heavily towards playstyles that lead to Mech. In another year, assuming HotS changes nothing about this, Bio in TvZ will be relegated to support at best, nonexistent at worst.
On October 03 2011 12:00 XXXSmOke wrote:
So many people are missing the whole point of this thread.
The key word is uninteresting MMMVG vs Collsi/Gateway has almost zero strategy to it and is extrmeley uninteresting.
OP was suggesting tanks as a way to make the MU interesting but since he used the "BW" word alot of people gave him shit.
Now while im with the OP and many other Terrans that would love to see the tank and a "BW" Style TvP. It doesnt mean that has to be the fix. As I said earlier, the MU could turn into Thor/Hellion/Raven/BC still be tankless and be 1000 times more interesting than it currently is.
Even if I subscribed to your premise that the current TvP is uninteresting, how would Thor/Hellion/Raven/BC be better? Thors are basically giant Marauders that can shoot up. Hellions aren't particularly interesting in and of themselves. Ravens have some nice spells, but so do Ghosts. And BCs are just flying Marines with loads of Hp. Slow, flying Marines.
The principle difference in that composition is that it's slow. Oh good, because that's what a free-wheeling game needs: to be slow.
The current TvP state of play involves a lot of the Terran harassing the Protoss with drops and so forth. While it does eventually come down to two armies running into one another, there is a lot of harassment intended to slow the Protoss down. How well the harass is executed and how well it is dealt with is often what determines who wins or not.
I'm not saying that every matchup needs to be that way. But some diversity would be nice. I don't want every Terran match to be "how do I get around his Goddamn Siege Tanks?" And if there's one good thing that Marauders do, it is that they give Terrans a real alternative to using STs everywhere.
But I fucking hate spamming the D key, I hate warp gates and stupid hard-hard counter units lik immortals - and I hate not being able to use tanks as the backbone of my army. It just doesn't feel right.
I love it when people call the Immortal a "hard-hard counter unit". As though SC1 didn't have the quintessential hard-counter unit.
Why don't Terrans go Bio in SC1 TvP? On the face of it, it seems like a good idea. Marines have lots of DPS. Dragoons only do half-damage to them. And so forth. Go ahead and try. Build up a nice force of M&M, then walk up to a Protoss and attack their natural. As you approach, a glowing orb of destruction will jump out of the fog of war, and all your units will die.
Reavers. Reavers are the primary reason SC1 Terrans cannot go M&M. The best you can do is go for some kind of Marine all-in before Robo-tech gets out. Because if even one Reaver hits the field, it's game over. They hard-counter everything that comes out of the Barracks. Quickly, easily, and far more cost-effectively than Immortals kill Siege Tanks. One Reaver can kill virtually unlimited numbers of Marines, even without a Shuttle. Two Immortals will eventually be brought down by STs.
The only reason Immortals get crap is because they dare to be designed to kill Siege Tanks, unlike Reavers who make those boring Marines obsolete. And Immortals have the gall to "cheat": they use a special ability to do it. Unlike Reavers who just do metric-assloads of AoE damage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
