|
On July 01 2013 08:00 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 07:45 TheDwf wrote:On June 20 2013 20:04 althaz wrote:On May 24 2013 01:35 MockHamill wrote:
But the problem I see is this, in TvP mech have all the classic downsides of mech, but is not actually stronger than bio. A maxed out sieged up Terran army with lots and tanks and buffer units can still be a-moved over by the Protoss army, something that could never happen in TvT and very seldom happen in TvZ.
Protoss is actually stronger in a straight mid/late game engagement both compared to bio, and compared to mech. Only by hurting the Protoss players economy by splitting the army in many small groups and do simultaneous attacks can Terran gradually build up enough advantage to actually win the game. Bio is better against Protoss when split up, but mech is not. This is categorically false. Even if it's pure immortals vs pure tanks, tanks still win (when army sizes are big enough, you can do a search for this having been tested), a more normal composition sees a one-sided landslide victory for mech vs Toss. Protoss cannot kill a mech army in (or even two) attacks. What?? Protoss ground armies can 1a 15-20 Tanks with ease. Only Ghosts can give Terran the upper hand. For a blue poster you're pretty hyperbolic at times. It really does depend on what the army is. Pure gateway armies just die to that many tanks for example.
Why are you even talking about "pure gateway armies" against 15-20 Tanks? Why would your opponent have 0 robo or stargate unit by the time you get that army?
|
United Kingdom12023 Posts
Even with Collosus, the tanks should win.
If you mix in immortals yes, but there's no way you'd ever have only pure tanks against immortals. I'm talking purely 15-20 tanks and no buffer units (which would never happen).
If we're talking about tanks with buffer units and you mix in blue flame hellions (against mainly archons) or hellbats (against mainly zealot immortal) 15-20 tanks can hold their own pretty damn fine against anything that isn't stargate units or mass, mass, mass immortal.
|
Debating about how well 15-20 tanks will deal with any protoss composition is as useful as talking about pure marines vs 8-10 colossi - it's not a realistic situation. What is important about tanks aren't how many tanks you have, it's what support they have...
|
On July 01 2013 08:29 Qikz wrote:
Even with Collosus, the tanks should win.
If you mix in immortals yes, but there's no way you'd ever have only pure tanks against immortals. I'm talking purely 15-20 tanks and no buffer units (which would never happen).
If we're talking about tanks with buffer units and you mix in blue flame hellions (against mainly archons) or hellbats (against mainly zealot immortal) 15-20 tanks can hold their own pretty damn fine against anything that isn't stargate units or mass, mass, mass immortal.
Sorry, I assumed it was fairly obvious that when I said "15-20 Tanks," it was implied there was something in front of them. I don't understand why you talk about BFH since Hellbats die in the same number of hits (~3) against Archons, but have +50% hit points against other units and deal way more damage to Zealots. And yes your opponent will have a lot of Immortals since Protoss going ground against mech will have 2 and sometimes even 3 robos. Without Ghosts, Zealots/Archons/Immortals will easily trash a Tank-centric army.
|
On July 01 2013 08:39 TheDwf wrote:
Without Ghosts, Zealots/Archons/Immortals will easily trash a Tank-centric army.
Untrue. A Hellbat/tanks/thors army in the right position (aka, not open field) can deal with this army. It is far from being efficient or a good trade or anything, but the mech player can win the battle itself. It was also doable in WoL with BFH. Of course in an open field the protoss army will destroy the terran, but if you're pushing middle map with these compositions into play, the terran is probably far from an half decent mech player
|
United Kingdom12023 Posts
On July 01 2013 08:39 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 08:29 Qikz wrote:
Even with Collosus, the tanks should win.
If you mix in immortals yes, but there's no way you'd ever have only pure tanks against immortals. I'm talking purely 15-20 tanks and no buffer units (which would never happen).
If we're talking about tanks with buffer units and you mix in blue flame hellions (against mainly archons) or hellbats (against mainly zealot immortal) 15-20 tanks can hold their own pretty damn fine against anything that isn't stargate units or mass, mass, mass immortal. Sorry, I assumed it was fairly obvious that when I said "15-20 Tanks," it was implied there was something in front of them. I don't understand why you talk about BFH since Hellbats die in the same number of hits (~3) against Archons, but have +50% hit points against other units and deal way more damage to Zealots. And yes your opponent will have a lot of Immortals since Protoss going ground against mech will have 2 and sometimes even 3 robos. Without Ghosts, Zealots/Archons/Immortals will easily trash a Tank-centric army.
I've found through playing a hell of a lot of games that blue flame hellions are actually better against archon centric armies as they don't clump up half as much as hellbats do so they can't do all the extra splash damage they need. You also have a longer line of AOE damage so you hit the stuff behind the archons a lot easier than you could do with hellbats.
I've even tried with a friend to test this theory by setting up an engagement then trying once with the hellions transformed and once when they're not and It was the exact same situation both times, but I won convincingly when I used hellions instead of hellbats and actually lost everything with the hellbats.
People may think Hellbats are supremely better in every single situation, but I've found from testing and playing that this simply isn't the case. TvT mech vs mech for example I've found BFH to be much more effective than battle hellions if you're in a defensive position.
|
On May 24 2013 02:15 Juice! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 02:13 Qikz wrote:
It's viable, it's possible and it against a ground protoss force is stronger in every single way than Bio is.
The only difference is, is at the highest level there's very few terrans playing mech as they know they can go bio and have been practicing and using that for 3 years now. Mech is outside of a few players unexplored in TvP at the highest level, but it's certainly strong.
As soon as people explore it more, it'll be used. Much like Mech vs Zerg. I agree with this aswell! It's like Flash and all the others are soo used to BIO play. Why change what you know =) (this is I think the reason they don't try mech .. because they know they can win/play good with BIO)
Flash and co. played mech tvp in BW1 so they don't have that extensive bio practice vs. protoss that you speak of.
|
On July 01 2013 08:45 Qikz wrote:
I've found through playing a hell of a lot of games that blue flame hellions are actually better against archon centric armies as they don't clump up half as much as hellbats do so they can't do all the extra splash damage they need. You also have a longer line of AOE damage so you hit the stuff behind the archons a lot easier than you could do with hellbats.
Hellions have the some collision size as Hellbats, so assuming a similar formation for both units you will be dealt the same amount of splash damage (in percentage).
I've even tried with a friend to test this theory by setting up an engagement then trying once with the hellions transformed and once when they're not and It was the exact same situation both times, but I won convincingly when I used hellions instead of hellbats and actually lost everything with the hellbats.
I have tried BFH too against Protoss, trying to soften up the Zealot wall with some hit & run before the fight, but honestly I never faced a situation in which it ended up being better than 1aing Hellbats. Quite on the contrary, I lost many games in which having Hellbats instead would have netted me the win for sure. Hellions are just too frail against the brutality of Protoss armies.
People may think Hellbats are supremely better in every single situation, but I've found from testing and playing that this simply isn't the case. TvT mech vs mech for example I've found BFH to be much more effective than battle hellions if you're in a defensive position.
Again, I really don't know where this comes from. Each time I have tried BFH/Tanks against Hellbats/Tanks, I have been completely demolished. The only advantage BFH have is that they can hit & run against Hellbats, but then you face the same issue you had in WoL against Zealots, either you stand before your Tanks and his beefier melee line murders yours before smashing your Tanks, or you keep hitting & running, end up behind your Tank line and his melee units just slaughter your unprotected Tanks. BFH do have some use, but in actual massive engagements there are only very few situations in which they will do better than Hellbats.
|
United Kingdom12023 Posts
Hellion range is 5, where as Hellbat's range is only 2. If you have lots of hellions and he has lots of hellbats, your hellions unless he's perfectly lined up and not clumped at all, not only do bonus damage vs light, but they also hit the hellbats stuck behind which are doing no damage. If you're defending up the top of a ramp for example, there's no way they're ever going to break you with hellbat tank if your tanks are not in a completely terrible place.
Same goes for not only zealots, zerglings as well as archons and stalkers. It all entirely depends on what sort of position your in. If you're in a very open space or you're up a ramp but your enemy is in a choke it's more beneficial to use BFH (depending on what your facing)
However if you're in a big open space and so is your enemy, it's better to use hellbats. This isn't completely ridiculous by the way, I've been playing mech since the beginning of the WoL beta and I've played extensively throughout the HoTS beta and the actual release testing all this stuff since I find it very interesting. Maybe I'm wrong and what I'm seeing in my own games is incorrect, but based on the numbers as well as my own data collected from playing, that's my opinion.
Also the transformation servos upgrade going back to that is a lot better for reinforcing as if you need hellbats, you rally in hellions which move a lot faster and then just transform them.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina72 Posts
Mech very strong but need to be like maestro and think outside box.
Also good defense and position. Very important.
Building blocks ground unit.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dV94iRZ.jpg) He goes air, me tank viking. I win after he lose fight. Counterattack. Viking is strong against air and colossus. Tank kill other. PM for help or replay. Keep mech playing, Terran brothers. 
|
Really no offense meant, and this is the first time I ask someone, but are you bronze? Because that won't work in higher leagues. He is way ahead of you, my guess would be he severely lacked production facilities, possibly upgrades.
On June 20 2013 23:14 BTCOMM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2013 22:43 Sissors wrote:
I concentrate EMP's more on immortals and archons. Sure if possible I also EMP templars, but tanks also kill templars fast. While you really want EMPs to kill archons and immortals fast.
Regarding ravens and seeker missiles, there is a significant delay before they will hit, you got quite some time to split them off. And the problem is HTs. They will feedback ravens without delay. So if you launch from shortrange you lose all ravens to EMPs (many before they launch), if you do it from long range he can just move back a bit and they all fail.
You are correct vikings are important, but their problem is (besides that toss air is pretty good against them) that if he doesn't go air it is really easy to overproduce them. I have lost at least as many games to toss due to viking overproduction as due to not enough vikings. Sure you can land them, but the result generally isn't pretty, and it was definately not a great investment of your resources.
The only reason I think mech works somewhat against toss is that it is only a minority that uses mech, so toss aren't used to dealing with mech. As simple example, luckily on ladder the vast majority of the toss attack directly into my army, while they could also have walked around my army and just gone for my base. And then I would have to unsiege tanks and run after a toss army that can turn around at any time. Also for example a group of raiding blink stalkers aren't exactly easy to counter with mech. Why in the world would you try to chase down the toss army instead of going for a base trade? Your buildings can float and the toss cannot do that.
Why in the world would you go for a base trade in such a situation? If your base trade is based around the idea that you can float your buildings away it is a very bad idea, unless you are really early game (which clearly wasn't the case here).
Oh yeah I have gone for base trades with mech vs toss, but in general it isn't a good idea. The toss army is much faster, so it can simply demolish your base faster. And if you want to somewhat fast kill the toss base you have to stay unsieged, which means you will take alot more damage. Aditionally the toss can warp in units with his main army, while your new production gets slaughtered when it spawns. Finally he can simply kill your base, and before you are ready to kill his main he recalls back and defends.
And not to forget he can rebuild his infrastructure + army way faster. So while sometimes an option, in general I really wouldn't advice to base trade with mech vs a toss.
|
I know the picture above with the missle turrets is kinda goofy, but the concept I think is more important. Why dont we see terran players bringing along some scvs to construct some kind of barrier? imagine how much better engagements would go if zealots had to either go around some supply depots or try to cut through them.
Im not saying that you will necesarily have time to build a forretress or that the toss player will be dumb enough to attack into it, but if you see the toss army bearing down on you and you know that an engagement is coming, wouldnt it help if the zealots had to kill 5 or 6 75-100 health supply depots? the extra time it would buy isnt much, but your seige line could maybe get another shot off.
This was an integral part of playing mech against toss in bw as I understand, and we all know that mech has plenty of minerals to spare. is there a solid reason that i have never once seen this, not even in practice?
|
On July 03 2013 07:49 Aveng3r wrote:
I know the picture above with the missle turrets is kinda goofy, but the concept I think is more important. Why dont we see terran players bringing along some scvs to construct some kind of barrier? imagine how much better engagements would go if zealots had to either go around some supply depots or try to cut through them.
Im not saying that you will necesarily have time to build a forretress or that the toss player will be dumb enough to attack into it, but if you see the toss army bearing down on you and you know that an engagement is coming, wouldnt it help if the zealots had to kill 5 or 6 75-100 health supply depots? the extra time it would buy isnt much, but your seige line could maybe get another shot off.
This was an integral part of playing mech against toss in bw as I understand, and we all know that mech has plenty of minerals to spare. is there a solid reason that i have never once seen this, not even in practice?
Well, problems are
-Time : If you're in a defensive position you'll already have shit in front of your tanks, and if not, you'll often see him too late to build stuff + position tanks + etc etc
-Resources : you can't always have like 1k resources (honestly supply aren't that good you need rax) in midgame, and . ..
-In lategame (or even in midgame depending of his comp) there will be air which don't care about any wall, and since zealots get demolished by hellbats now the main threat are distance units. In fact that walling thing was good in WoL because you could force zealots to get funneled and destroyed by BFH but since hellbats are way better in a 'line vs line' frontal fight it's overkill in HoTS
and if i remember correctly, that was mainly done in bw with turrets to compensate for lack of AA when needed
|
ha, just listened to Flash talk about mech and identifying the supply of Tanks being to high and Immortals being to much of a hard counter as the reasons mech is bad. How long will it take Browder to swallow his pride and fix mech...or maybe we need a few more years of "exploring"
|
On May 24 2013 01:35 MockHamill wrote:
We all know the downsides of mech:
1. Harder to respond to harass.
2. Much harder to remax army.
3. Less benefit from strong micro skills compared to bio.
4. Requiring much better positioning skill compared to bio.
5. Harder to punish a greedy opponent.
The upsides are:
1. Less fragile.
2. Less reliant on micro skills.
3. Stronger in a straight up engagement in TvT and TvZ.
But the problem I see is this, in TvP mech have all the classic downsides of mech, but is not actually stronger than bio. A maxed out sieged up Terran army with lots and tanks and buffer units can still be a-moved over by the Protoss army, something that could never happen in TvT and very seldom happen in TvZ.
Protoss is actually stronger in a straight mid/late game engagement both compared to bio, and compared to mech. Only by hurting the Protoss players economy by splitting the army in many small groups and do simultaneous attacks can Terran gradually build up enough advantage to actually win the game. Bio is better against Protoss when split up, but mech is not.
Am I wrong in this assumption? Is it actually pointless to use mech in TvP since mech is just as weak as bio in the actual engagement but lack all the advantages of bio? Is there actually any point in using mech in TvP apart from mech being easier to micro?
Mech is shit because your army is terrible until you are maxed. I can play greedy, i can hide air, i can do anything. When i VS mech on ladder i laugh as i collect my free win.
With that said i think mech all ins are viable, but in a macro sense not at all
|
I am a Terran player myself and I wish playing mech in all match ups, but TvP is different...
In TvT and TvZ, a maxed out mech army is far superior than your opponent's army. But of course it is much slower and much more difficult to re-max..etc. (All the downside of mech)
But in TvP, mech does NOT do better than bio. The fire power of tank is not as rewarding due to the nature of protoss units.
They are beefy, bigger size and relatively high HP. Zealot is high HP, light unit. Stalkers being big unit radius (Reduce splash damage), and of course the Immortals which are able to soak up a large amount of damage.
Is mech truly less fragile against protoss? I feel marauders/hellbat/viking is far more robust than mech. A healbat does not die against any gateway unit. The composition is less fragile against storms and colossus (2 main protoss AOE).
I think it will be until LOTV that we see some true mech in TvP.
|
Hellion runbys are awesome, widow mines do damage to stuff like Immortals, and tanks shred gateway units.
The only issue I see is responding to robo/colossus play.
Ooh, maybe tomorrow I'll try 2 base factory shenanigans then adding on viking/banshee vs toss....
|
I find mech-ghost really good vs Protoss in late-game as long as you don't make any tanks since they are horrible.
Thor-Hellbat-Raven with the standard Ghost-Viking support and a dozen Pfs + 40 turrets + 10 sensor towers + Massive orbital farm is really strong and I think it's superior to bio when you play below high master.
The only good composition vs this imo would be some kind of Skytoss-Templar-Cannon army. Tempest get absolutely demolished by PDD, and void rays clump up like nothing else in this game, seekers and javelin missile wreck them.
It all comes down to the Templar vs Ghost fight in the end anyway though.
The biggest problem for the Terran is obviously getting to this point.
I should stop talking now before someone gets angry.
|
On July 08 2013 03:01 DavoS wrote:
Hellion runbys are awesome, widow mines do damage to stuff like Immortals, and tanks shred gateway units.
The only issue I see is responding to robo/colossus play.
Ooh, maybe tomorrow I'll try 2 base factory shenanigans then adding on viking/banshee vs toss....
Zealots are very good vs Tanks, Archons tank as much as Immortals and do bonus to Hellbats, HT storm Hellions/Hellbats. Tanks do not shred anything Protoss.
|
On July 08 2013 05:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 03:01 DavoS wrote:
Hellion runbys are awesome, widow mines do damage to stuff like Immortals, and tanks shred gateway units.
The only issue I see is responding to robo/colossus play.
Ooh, maybe tomorrow I'll try 2 base factory shenanigans then adding on viking/banshee vs toss.... Zealots are very good vs Tanks, Archons tank as much as Immortals and do bonus to Hellbats, HT storm Hellions/Hellbats. Tanks do not shred anything Protoss.
They do shred the ass out of sentries, lol.
Meching vs Protoss still sucks. I can't sit there and make 15 tanks hoping that my opponent doesn't make the right units. At virtually any time while you're trying to hit crit. mass of tanks your Protoss opponent can come over and kill you. I'd rather not beat the dead horse that is trying to make mech wok in TvP. Yes, it works for some players... in Europe... but that's about the extent of its usefulness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
