EPT[G] Lyyna’s TvP : How to mech every protoss cry - Page 12
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
DreamChaser
1649 Posts
| ||
|
perser84
Germany399 Posts
they are very very very long the one i saw was 54min well its like 2 armies have deathballs and refuse so fight until the map is mined out | ||
|
Mista_Masta
Netherlands557 Posts
 | ||
|
LloydPGM
85 Posts
Since the beta, the mainstream strategy vs protoss is full barracks units with viking/medivac and the factory is used to build a reactor for starport, then scout and get destroyed. Lyyna is showing something ELSE with another unit composition that rely mainly on factory units (tanks) and 0 marauder !! Of course you need to mix tanks with other units depending of protoss's composition. Call it "pure mech" or "mech mixed with air" or anything you want , who cares ? More globally, I think that sc2 is becoming ultra scripted game. When I watch streams/obs games, I always see the same stuff, build orders are not evolving and I'm getting quickly BORED to watch that. I'm not saying the game is boring to PLAY, I say I'm not having fun to watch streams showing the same stuff... and the game is not 2 years old... Lyyna is showing another way to play the game and I like that, even if it's not new, at least it changes and it's cool. This is just my opinion, maybe this could be debated on another topic. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Since the beta, the mainstream strategy vs protoss is full barracks units with viking/medivac and the factory is used to build a reactor for starport, then scout and get destroyed. Lyyna is showing something ELSE with another unit composition that rely mainly on factory units (tanks) and 0 marauder !! Of course you need to mix tanks with other units depending of protoss's composition. Call it "pure mech" or "mech mixed with air" or anything you want , who cares ? Let me quote Lyyna for you, Lloyd, @Danglars : well, for me mech is everything involving metal-like units. And this is ok for me to use it because actually, for a lots of people, mech = factory units = A moving 50 tanks brainlessly into opponents army. It's a bio like saying "Marine/Tank" versus Z for example . . there is medivacs, there is vikings,there is marauder,etc. Actually i want the "mech" concept to evolve in the same way, thinking of it as an ball of both "mech ground" and "mech air" units. I'll probably not succeed to start this evolution (actually,succeeding at spreading this build and the turtling concept in the community would already be an huge victory for me), but it is one of my ultimate goals :D What the discussion achieved is that Lyyna hopes to evolve the term mech to mean something that it doesn't mean right now. It's a fine goal. I love it. But, Lloyd, don't object to the questioning leading up to Lyyna's explanation of it. Re-read Yoshi's post, please. What's being presented here is tank-centric play leading up to a potent air and mech army with a few ghosts. Now, I hope you're done and believe Lyyna when he says that he's trying to move the term in another direction. This part of the discussion is ended for me. Roll on, tanks. | ||
|
Norseman
United States223 Posts
I'm perfectly happy saying any army that has more than half it's units from the factory is 'mech-based' play. I think Lyyna was even trying to say even 'Bio' has medivacs, vikings, the occasional tank and/or raven, yet it's still considered bio. The core of the army is mech. As it goes into late game it adapts and sometimes it goes battlecruier-heavy, but that's just adjusting for the game. It would be silly to get to that point in a game and say 'I know battlecruisers would help here, but since I'm going mech I can't make them. I'll just build more tanks." A discussion, and guide, such as this shouldn't be getting bogged down by how to label the playstyle. Call it whatever you like: to me it's Mech and I don't see anything wrong with calling it that. | ||
|
Lyyna
France776 Posts
On March 27 2012 14:13 perser84 wrote: my problem about your games is they are very very very long the one i saw was 54min well its like 2 armies have deathballs and refuse so fight until the map is mined out As i often say, better to play 1H game and be sure to win after a certain point if you're good,than playing 20 minutes games where it's nothing about you but all about your opponent having enough IQ to know when he should 1 A out of his base for the win | ||
|
YyapSsap
New Zealand1511 Posts
On March 27 2012 17:52 LloydPGM wrote: Please to people discussing about semantic, just don't... Since the beta, the mainstream strategy vs protoss is full barracks units with viking/medivac and the factory is used to build a reactor for starport, then scout and get destroyed. Lyyna is showing something ELSE with another unit composition that rely mainly on factory units (tanks) and 0 marauder !! Of course you need to mix tanks with other units depending of protoss's composition. Call it "pure mech" or "mech mixed with air" or anything you want , who cares ? More globally, I think that sc2 is becoming ultra scripted game. When I watch streams/obs games, I always see the same stuff, build orders are not evolving and I'm getting quickly BORED to watch that. I'm not saying the game is boring to PLAY, I say I'm not having fun to watch streams showing the same stuff... and the game is not 2 years old... Lyyna is showing another way to play the game and I like that, even if it's not new, at least it changes and it's cool. This is just my opinion, maybe this could be debated on another topic. No.. sc2 is a young game so give it time. Joking aside, I find 4 fact (+1 reac Rax) timing push off 2 base in 12mins are superior to any sort of "turtle" mech play. It often catches them off guard especially those who took a fast 3rd. If they went immortals the chances of ending the game goes dramatically up. Plus even if the push doesn't kill, you can follow up with a 5 Fac(3xreac, 2xtech), 1 reactor port push + 3rd base. And fully agreed on the bit where Blizzard is forcing us to play a specific style and use certain units. Its downright hurting the game quality, and yet there are people on these forums saying "meta game will change, need more time, need to explore these units more.." well I for one think almost everything in SC2 has been explored "unit comp wise" already outside of new timings. Sad thing is that pros will never risk to entertain the crowd by going pure mech or anything like that because too much is on the line (some do and get heavily punished). | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10362 Posts
On March 27 2012 22:13 Norseman wrote: Guys, c'mon, really? Are you going to argue definitions of 'mech' now? I'm perfectly happy saying any army that has more than half it's units from the factory is 'mech-based' play. I think Lyyna was even trying to say even 'Bio' has medivacs, vikings, the occasional tank and/or raven, yet it's still considered bio. The core of the army is mech. As it goes into late game it adapts and sometimes it goes battlecruier-heavy, but that's just adjusting for the game. It would be silly to get to that point in a game and say 'I know battlecruisers would help here, but since I'm going mech I can't make them. I'll just build more tanks." A discussion, and guide, such as this shouldn't be getting bogged down by how to label the playstyle. Call it whatever you like: to me it's Mech and I don't see anything wrong with calling it that. If part of the reason why you say that is cus of my response to Lyyna, then I would like to point something out. The point is not that you have to stick to having ONLY factory heavy composition, but that there is such a thing as a transition, as you say. But you are suggesting that since you were playing with mech for most of the game, or started out with mech, you cannot call it a transition into air? That is called an "air transition" if the BCs become a majority of the army, and the style switches from a passive mech style into an air style. It may not switch permanently, but so long as the units and/or playstyle is there in that point of the game, it is "air style". Lyyna does not seem to be saying exactly what you said about Bio. You are right, he is saying that Bio is not just marine marauder, but also includes support tank medivac viking, maybe a raven, etc. However, he seems to be saying that if you go for a BC transition (assuming he means a big one, like a remax...), it is still mech, simply because air compliments mech well. In that case it would simply be an air transition. He says he wants it all to be considered mech just because the two styles mech and air synergize so well together, and for a minor reason, because they are both dealing with metal, mechanic-type units. If anyone, it is Lyyna who is trying to change the definition of mech to include air units, rather than regarding the air composition/style as its own genre, such as bio and mech. As he says himself, he is hoping to revolutionize the definition of mech. My point is simply that changing such a definition is unnecessary and unhelpful. What then would we call mech without significant air support? Air-less mech? What would we call a half-half composition of mech/air ? Mech? How would we distinguish between a heavy factory style, or a factory focused style but with equal support from both bio and air, vs something like, for example, a half-half- composition of mech/air? It would simply be silly to change the meaning of mech to include air units playing a role of 50% of larger (it is still called mech even though half your strategy/army does not revolve around factory units). They are two different styles with two different compositions. Also would just like to point out blizzard seems to be quite in conflict -- which makes sense, as developers/balances are people and have different goals/opinions. If you read the situation reports, and compare them to, let's say, dustin's interviews, you can notice discrepancies in explanations or ideas or opinions. For example, David Kim said the tempest was to counter mass mutalisks. However, dustin said that tempests were designed to counter everything air. Quite a big difference there! Another thing is the thor being nerfed and its size being reduced just for the "visuals" and "art team". Also, David has said before that he would like to make mech "viable" work as well as bio, but I remember other answers from blizzard/dustin where they said they would like to see Bio as the main choice of composition/style in TvX. Just want to make sure people consider this, that there are some fighting for mech (like david it seems)! | ||
|
Lyyna
France776 Posts
| ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
So what is the safest way to open mech considering that 80+% of the Protoss opponents either goes 4-gate, 3 gate/rob, fast blink stalkers, dt, warp prism drop etc? I am thinking 2 rax, one with reactor one naked plus siege tanks and early engineering bay and a bunker? Only build CC inbase when you either A) Have a tank with siege mode in your base. B) Your opponent expands. | ||
|
Jermman
Canada174 Posts
| ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On March 29 2012 02:15 MockHamill wrote: What is the safest mech opening that does not rely on scouting? I generally dislike openings that rely on scouting too much, for instance only building an engineering bay early if you see a dark shrine is borderline insane in my book. So what is the safest way to open mech considering that 80+% of the Protoss opponents either goes 4-gate, 3 gate/rob, fast blink stalkers, dt, warp prism drop etc? I am thinking 2 rax, one with reactor one naked plus siege tanks and early engineering bay and a bunker? Only build CC inbase when you either A) Have a tank with siege mode in your base. B) Your opponent expands. 111 expo | ||
|
Thylacine
Sweden882 Posts
| ||
|
perser84
Germany399 Posts
On March 28 2012 06:03 Lyyna wrote: As i often say, better to play 1H game and be sure to win after a certain point if you're good,than playing 20 minutes games where it's nothing about you but all about your opponent having enough IQ to know when he should 1 A out of his base for the win i mean after a certain point you have the infastrukture for bc and and the uppgrades why not force a attack with all your mech combo or do you fear the base trade so much ? i mean its good to see him owning like a z but there should be a other way do reduce the game time abit | ||
|
Lyyna
France776 Posts
@perser : There is various push timings available,and in endgame you can push when you get your 'final' deathball. But i choose to wait because it makes the protoss suffer . . . :D | ||
|
Bommes
Germany1226 Posts
On March 29 2012 02:15 MockHamill wrote: What is the safest mech opening that does not rely on scouting? I generally dislike openings that rely on scouting too much, for instance only building an engineering bay early if you see a dark shrine is borderline insane in my book. So what is the safest way to open mech considering that 80+% of the Protoss opponents either goes 4-gate, 3 gate/rob, fast blink stalkers, dt, warp prism drop etc? I am thinking 2 rax, one with reactor one naked plus siege tanks and early engineering bay and a bunker? Only build CC inbase when you either A) Have a tank with siege mode in your base. B) Your opponent expands. I use a 1 rax expand variation in which I get a gas at 13 or 14, mine 50 gas and get a reactor on that one rax after 2 marines. I stop gas mining until the CC and a bunker is started, then I resume gas. Depending on what I scouted I'll get a factory and start tanks and continue marine production (scouted 2 gas and no expo) or swap rax with factory and start some early hellions. Also get a second factory in that case for tank production, or get a starport and some banshees up if you like that more. Because you got a reactor on your rax you can actually get out a decent number of marines which makes you safe against any 1 base play a protoss can do. Blink stalker all-ins are tough and you have to be really careful to not lose your first 2 or 3 tanks too early and to get some scvs into battle to repel their attack fast. But they are definitely not an autoloss. Also because the protoss scouts that your gas is taken he actually can't be sure what build you are doing, it could be anything. That said I face 80% early expansion protosses on ladder, and if someone goes 1 base it is usually an easy win for me if they don't have 100% perfect micro and execution. I think defending 1 base all-ins is very little about the build and more about being prepared. A simple bunker with 4 marines can defend against a lot of units if you pulled the repair scvs early enough. Also I recommend a 2 supply depot bunker walloff for the early game. Replace bunker with another depot later in the game. Helps so much against everything. | ||
|
Lyyna
France776 Posts
I'm working on a delayed 111 (getting 15 gas) which seems good,as you can afford a relatively FE while getting the starport | ||
|
perser84
Germany399 Posts
cuz there must be toss player who use their mobility like blink stalker or prism drops better then those in the replays i mean with your death ball you cant not defend every expansion at once the good thing about this mech strat is that toss has no proper anti air stalker archon <<<< tanks pdd carrier void ray <<<< bc viking raven :hsm the only way i see you lose if the toss try to base trade you and that is not so easy because of sensor tower everywhere | ||
|
Lyyna
France776 Posts
Well, they cant really use their mobility as i have basically a maphack due to sensor tower + mass orbitals + turrets rings. You can just defend one expansion with hellions and 1 BC, the another with others BC and ravens,and still have your tanks at the front. And if he commits too much to his blink harass . . just let him kill your expo (you have mass CC,you dont care) and A move his weakened army also, i'll probably start streaming again (probably tomorrow, 7pm french hour) | ||
| ||
