EPTOn July 08 2013 06:59 dUTtrOACh wrote:
They do shred the ass out of sentries, lol.
They do shred the ass out of sentries, lol.
Ahh... back in WOL i lost a few games to hallucination Immortals, used all my EMPs on them lol
[Q] Is Mech weaker then bio in TvP? - Page 11
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
Ahh... back in WOL i lost a few games to hallucination Immortals, used all my EMPs on them lol | ||
|
Fig
United States1324 Posts
| ||
|
tsango
Australia214 Posts
at the highest levels of play you need to be able to react quickly and be flexible, and that will always be the achilles heel of mech - its slow and clumsy albeit heavy hitting. | ||
|
TheLetterQ
United States65 Posts
| ||
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
On July 08 2013 08:32 Fig wrote: One thing being overlooked here I think is the fact that Stalkers are not Dragoons. Tanks in BW made a living turning Dragoons into blue goo, but Stalkers are much worse than Dragoons as actual combat units vs Terran. They have terrible DPS and no range upgrade, and are mainly good for surgical strikes, defending drops, and protecting Colossi. You never want to make many Stalkers in PvT, and the ones you do make aren't filling the same role that Dragoons used to, so tanks have lost their purpose in the matchup. And tanks are much worse in SC2 than BW. Yeah they don't overkill, but I'd rather overkill a zealot than having it tank the shit out of my seige-tanks. Blink and overall stalker mobility with a movespeed(2.95) that overtakes a worker. Pathing issues are also gone in SC2. Blink stalkers are not bad at all~ | ||
|
1a2a3aPro
Canada227 Posts
On July 03 2013 09:19 Lyyna wrote: and if i remember correctly, that was mainly done in bw with turrets to compensate for lack of AA when needed The goliath, actually. The only Protoss air unit worth writing home about in PvT was the carrier, and a few turrets but more importantly scouting it and producing a lot of golaiths and focus firing them down was effective. In hots, there is no factory unit that can shoot air units as effectively (yeah, thors shoot up but maxed out air beats maxed out thors, definitely not the case for goliaths), you have to rely on raven viking and praying to the SC gods that his tempest control isn't good enough  | ||
|
SnowPea
United States1 Post
The reason some pros are able to pull off mech TvP is no Protoss practices against mech without knowing they are going to play someone who only goes mech. Which is why the players that do only mech never have much success in anything other then bracket based tournaments. TL;DR Protoss has far to many counters to mech for it to be viable. If you have success with mech on ladder it is probably because you are low league where Protoss players aren't quite sure how to counter it. | ||
|
dohgg
310 Posts
| ||
|
Xequecal
United States473 Posts
On July 08 2013 08:32 Fig wrote: One thing being overlooked here I think is the fact that Stalkers are not Dragoons. Tanks in BW made a living turning Dragoons into blue goo, but Stalkers are much worse than Dragoons as actual combat units vs Terran. They have terrible DPS and no range upgrade, and are mainly good for surgical strikes, defending drops, and protecting Colossi. You never want to make many Stalkers in PvT, and the ones you do make aren't filling the same role that Dragoons used to, so tanks have lost their purpose in the matchup. Stalkers have much better DPS in general in SC2 than Dragoons did in SC1. Dragoons did 10 DPS to large/armored, Stalkers do 9.7 DPS to large/armored. Dragoons did 5 DPS to small/light, Stalkers do 6.9 DPS to small/light. Stalkers get the range upgrade for free and the changes to shield mechanics in SC2 are worth a lot more than 20 HP. Also, you know, blink. | ||
|
pimsc2
France73 Posts
| ||
|
tomsKa
United States39 Posts
Also, the siege tank has no role except killing stalkers (already done by thors or widow mines) and is not needed. But tankless mech does not have the positional control that BW mech did and cannot be as effective for securing large areas needed to continue taking bases. There are less "abusive" places for tanks on modern maps which further limits the siege tank. Finally the immortal is just really good at taking thor or tank shots. There was nothing like it in brood war for such low gas cost. However, wasting money on tanks really hurts your army's durability, as 125 gas per tank gives much less health than 200 gas per Thor, and with warp gate a durable army is 100% necessary for a Terran (a further advantage of bio- you fight in their base and can lose and retreat and heal). | ||
|
mantequilla
Turkey781 Posts
| ||
|
KingAlphard
Italy1705 Posts
| ||
|
MTAC
103 Posts
Yeah, there is 4M play in TvZ. And one or two tanks can hold off all-ins. But that's all. In Wol MMMHellion worked well, especially against infestor comp, but the new mutas make it worse, and infestor comp aren't used anymore. Tanks, well... Tanks sucks. And Thors just slow your bio, and that's bad for a style that rely on mobility and constant agression. In TvP, yeah we can still add hellbats. And certain timings can use tanks, or even thor maybe. But you CAN'T use a mech-centric composition, it could be "mech+marines" why not, or pure mech. Some guys do it ye, but this isn't as easy as bio to pull it off, and maybe less and less "viable" in pro-matches,. Nearly all units in the zerg or toss arsenal can be used in all matchups. Even PvT stargate units. Collossus/phoenix is played by a lots of pros theses days, and it works. And i'm talking about composition used in a macro-game, a playstyle, not timings. Terran units, other than bio or SUPERLATEGAME sky, can't be used effectively. and that is just bad. | ||
|
YyapSsap
New Zealand1511 Posts
Yes... now ive completed the circle of mech. On a serious note, tanks need maelstorm round upgrade or something. Then again, I still dont get why Blizzard didn't halve the thor into a cheaper warhound that costs less supply/resources. Would have made mech much better in TvP. | ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
On July 08 2013 09:11 plogamer wrote: And tanks are much worse in SC2 than BW. Yeah they don't overkill, but I'd rather overkill a zealot than having it tank the shit out of my seige-tanks. Blink and overall stalker mobility with a movespeed(2.95) that overtakes a worker. Pathing issues are also gone in SC2. Blink stalkers are not bad at all~ Tank damage when sieged in BW dealt 70÷2(explosive vs small) = 35 base damage to zealots. Attack rate converted into SC2 cooldown is 1.25 (assuming the "22" frame cooldown in BW was actually 22.222¯). Tank damage when sieged in SC2 deals 35 base damage to zealots. Attack rate in SC2 cooldown is 1.2 (equivalent to 21.333 frames in BW). Sieged Tank Range + 1 compared to BW, zealot shields down by 10 compared to BW. They should kill zealots more quickly aside from charge. :D Only real thing that might make them 'weaker' is having less due to them costing 25 more gas and the general desire NOT to have tanks vs protoss in SC2. Kids always forget about the Divide by 2 for explosive versus small units part, it seems. | ||
|
YyapSsap
New Zealand1511 Posts
On July 14 2013 13:15 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: Tank damage when sieged in BW dealt 70÷2(explosive vs small) = 35 base damage to zealots. Attack rate converted into SC2 cooldown is 1.25 (assuming the "22" frame cooldown in BW was actually 22.222¯). Tank damage when sieged in SC2 deals 35 base damage to zealots. Attack rate in SC2 cooldown is 1.2 (equivalent to 21.333 frames in BW). Sieged Tank Range + 1 compared to BW, zealot shields down by 10 compared to BW. They should kill zealots more quickly aside from charge. :D Only real thing that might make them 'weaker' is having less due to them costing 25 more gas and the general desire NOT to have tanks vs protoss in SC2. Kids always forget about the Divide by 2 for explosive versus small units part, it seems. Kids always forget about shields taking FULL damage in BW. So a zealot would be hit by 70 damage on the first shot.. (85 when at wep ups 3) therefore it later gets 2~3 shotted when involving the splash damage. Same goes for archons and any protoss ground units. If the "shield" specific part was introduced back to SC2 it would be a nice tank buff without breaking the other matchups. | ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
Also just to be clear, the "kids" was just used as a phrase, not arrogance or intending to be a real arse about anything to anyone.  I typed the wrong damn cooldowns though, I have no idea why. Rather than 1.25 vs 1.2, that's the zealot attack, oops. It should have been 75 frame cooldown in BW = 4.21875 SC2 game second cooldown. versus 3.00 SC2 game second cooldown. That means the following: 4 hits to kill in BW meant 16.875 SC2 game seconds for a BW tank to kill a BW zealot (sieged tank of course, with no splash from other tanks). 5 hits to kill in BW meant 15 SC2 game seconds for a SC2 tank to kill a SC2 zealot (sieged tank of course, with no splash from other tanks). EDIT: What the hell, UK Firefox dictionary? Arse is not in there by default! On July 14 2013 13:40 YyapSsap wrote: If the "shield" specific part was introduced back to SC2 it would be a nice tank buff without breaking the other matchups. Actually, it's not really related to the topic, but personally I'd like that for indirect mild buffs to banes and corruptors vs protoss. =P Get on it, Blizzard! | ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On July 08 2013 08:32 Fig wrote: One thing being overlooked here I think is the fact that Stalkers are not Dragoons. Tanks in BW made a living turning Dragoons into blue goo, but Stalkers are much worse than Dragoons as actual combat units vs Terran. They have terrible DPS and no range upgrade, and are mainly good for surgical strikes, defending drops, and protecting Colossi. You never want to make many Stalkers in PvT, and the ones you do make aren't filling the same role that Dragoons used to, so tanks have lost their purpose in the matchup. Blink Stalkers are some of the best units in the game when vsing mech because of insane mobility, being able to trigger mines and take no damage, good damage to armored, and insane health/cost ratio — just by exploiting them you can easily take games off of top mech Terrans. Your example is completely false for these reasons. Also: On July 13 2013 19:25 Xequecal wrote: Stalkers have much better DPS in general in SC2 than Dragoons did in SC1. Dragoons did 10 DPS to large/armored, Stalkers do 9.7 DPS to large/armored. Dragoons did 5 DPS to small/light, Stalkers do 6.9 DPS to small/light. Stalkers get the range upgrade for free and the changes to shield mechanics in SC2 are worth a lot more than 20 HP. Also, you know, blink. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On July 14 2013 08:16 mantequilla wrote: I don't get the terrans' obsession with playing mech in PvT. Some unit compositions are not viable in some matchups, isn't it only natural? The issue isn't really when one composition isn't viable in a matchup, but if there is only one viable composition in a matchup. It is simply more fun it there is diversity. Thats btw also my main issue with toss: terran has mech, bio, and combinations of those two. Zerg has ling based composition, roach, swarmhost, etc. Toss simply mixes everything and puts it in one big deathball. On July 14 2013 09:35 KingAlphard wrote: Maybe they should just give up, although I've also met talented mech players who harass constantly with BFH to keep my immortal count low. I think that is the only way to win with mech because once protoss is 200/200 with the correct unit composition there's no way. BFH harass doesn't work against toss. Simple as that. If you try to harass the units at the outside of their army than colossi with range burns down your BFH. Harassing workers should be impossible since it is so trivial to make mineral lines BFH proof for toss, simply use some warpgates to block paths, since you need them anyway and it doesn't matter anyway where you put them. (In case of a base trade it is actually useful to have them spread out). | ||
| ||
