EPTMass mines vs. Protoss - Page 2
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Hider
Denmark9405 Posts
| ||
|
SheaR619
United States2399 Posts
On November 21 2013 04:06 Nightsz wrote: theres a reason why hellion marauder didnt work in WoL in TvP. In theory, hellions would wreck zealots while the marauders would demolish just about everything else. But ingame, it just got destroyed so hard because of upgrade issues and varying speeds between the hellion and marauder when kiting. As for this, widow mines don't work in TvP because they get outranged stalkers and colossus to the point where if the terran player masses them in deathball engagements. They become a huge waste of resource Hmmm this is false. The reason why hellion marauder did not work against protoss was not because of the upgrade issue. The main issue was that in straight up fight, hellion can not beat zealot cost effectively. The only way they are cost effective is if they kite their target because this allow them to clump up. In straight up engagement, there is not much clump and zealot will form a wall and kitting isnt an option because it leaves marauder expose. So basically it wasnt viable because there wasnt anything that did well against the zealot. | ||
|
Whatson
United States5357 Posts
On November 21 2013 05:32 fried_rice wrote: No it doesn't because avilo is a safe macro player that hates gimmicks or any kind of risk (which is basically what the strategy suggested by the OP is). Well, I was more saying that because of the OP saying something like "make planetaries all over the map, build a thor viking raven banshee army, etc. etc.", not gonna waste the time to quote exactly, but that just seems like a very avilo like playstyle | ||
|
Kalfos
Dominican Republic34 Posts
On November 21 2013 11:57 Whatson wrote: Well, I was more saying that because of the OP saying something like "make planetaries all over the map, build a thor viking raven banshee army, etc. etc.", not gonna waste the time to quote exactly, but that just seems like a very avilo like playstyle Avilo's Mech playstyle revolves around using Tanks. Not Thors since they have horrible AA. He does use Ravens to sort of counter Immortals with Seekers since it's a spell and bypasses there shields and also offer PDDs and a safer route for deeper in the game to be prepared for the protoss transition to air units. He goes Banshee if he doesn't scout any transtion into air units and only pure gateway units. Hes also been trying out Blue Flame Hellions to snipe High Templars. | ||
|
ggofthejungle
Romania392 Posts
you can make it work against a player 2 leagues below yo i like how you list all good things but you don't lost any disadvantages | ||
|
althaz
Australia1001 Posts
On November 21 2013 09:34 Hider wrote: Blink stalkers actually completely rape mines...in terms of...cost efficiency. This is absolutely and completely wrong. Like every other ground unit in the game stalkers are not cost efficient against mines (or in fact against any mech units at all). One mine (cheaper than a stalker) kills a stalker. As you get higher unit numbers the battle swings even further in favor of mines. Of course with their mobility, range and blink they should never get shot or be in a fight against mines and despite losing horribly in straight-up fights, they are the reason there's no high-level mech vs P in SC2. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
if you are mass mine like 30 mines, then they will inevitably stack up and then get roasted by the lasers. Vikings are supposed to help but the positioning of the protoss army should be similar to that when fighting bio/vikings. Also mine drops can't kill tech structures so I don't see how it would be better. | ||
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
On November 21 2013 13:47 althaz wrote: This is absolutely and completely wrong. Like every other ground unit in the game stalkers are not cost efficient against mines (or in fact against any mech units at all). One mine (cheaper than a stalker) kills a stalker. As you get higher unit numbers the battle swings even further in favor of mines. Of course with their mobility, range and blink they should never get shot or be in a fight against mines and despite losing horribly in straight-up fights, they are the reason there's no high-level mech vs P in SC2. They're probably talking about blinking onto clumped up mines one stalker at a time. | ||
|
geokilla
Canada8244 Posts
On November 21 2013 04:44 iaguz wrote: and if we were the microbot 2000 we could beat infinity banelings with 0 marine loss. Innovation can. Almost. | ||
|
TAMinator
Australia2706 Posts
| ||
|
weikor
Austria580 Posts
on serious note, yes they are cost efficient, but so are carriers / battlecruiser vs anything except voidray tempest. its highly impractical - blink stalkers can dodge the mine shots- in medium and small numbers blink stalkers straight out win. You also open yourself up a lot since they need to reposition themselves constantly, and unburrowed mines just die. - and 3 mines wont win against 10 stalkers. I can see more mines beeing used. yet going for just mines will end you getting eaten by storms (they have the same problem marauders do, while needing to burrow before doing any damage - very hit and miss. | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
If you are dealing with airtoss and he falls asleep at the wheel, you can walk a huge ball of mines underneath his army and wipe him out. If he has stalkers, collossus, an observer, a brain, 2 thumbs, or a photon cannon, you are out of luck | ||
|
architecture
United States643 Posts
What instead of core MM, you did Mine+bat. Gas goes into "support" units that give your army range (tank/viking/thor). So instead of having 10 medivac, you would have 10 tank that deal with the range issue. You position with the 13 range until P engages. The bats tank the zeals, and you wait until the P tech units (archon/immortal/void) are exposed, and run in and drilling claw burrow on top of them like melee units. If stalkers blink onto your tanks, then u just burrow your mines on to your tanks and blast the stalkers away. Edit: I've done a bit of testing with this, and the biggest issue I've run into is storm. If you are forced to ghost to deal with storm, or accumulate tank (like mech does right now), then this idea sucks. | ||
|
GreYMisT
United States6736 Posts
| ||
|
golledaman
Sweden27 Posts
On November 21 2013 04:06 SC2Toastie wrote: If we're going to troll anyways; Interceptor, 25 mineral, rebuild rate of 8s (less with chrono) vs 40 of mine. 1 carrier beats like 10 mines. ez I'm pretty sure you can't chronoboost units. | ||
|
chairmobile
United States111 Posts
There was a pretty entertaining GM game (fuzer vs Kane) where mass mine won, despite 10,000 overseers getting made xD. | ||
|
00higgo
Australia119 Posts
| ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
| ||
|
DusTerr
2520 Posts
On November 21 2013 09:22 Doc Brawler wrote: Cannons. /thread | ||
|
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On November 21 2013 18:06 golledaman wrote: I'm pretty sure you can't chronoboost units. I'm pretty sure you can chronoboost Carriers. | ||
| ||
