EPTTvP Mech still not viable? - Page 21
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
MirageTaN
Singapore871 Posts
| ||
|
{ToT}ColmA
Japan3260 Posts
@randomman, please read before u make up shit, its not even worth replying to | ||
|
Aquila-
516 Posts
| ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
On December 11 2012 00:35 Penev wrote: On the energy bar thing: Mech should have some energy bars to keep HT's a somewhat viable choice. Storms don't quite effect mech like it does bio. I mean, c'mon.. Mech finally just got something.. How, why do you want HT's to counter mech? You've got whole robo tech + zealots + stargate tech against mech.. You really want all tech paths to counter mech right? | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On the energy bar thing: Mech should have some energy bars to keep HT's a somewhat viable choice. Storms don't quite effect mech like it does bio. Storm is actually really good at mech. The reason why it's good is that you'll always do full damage as tanks/thors can't/can barely move out of them. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10357 Posts
On December 10 2012 19:52 Sapphire.lux wrote: They made the warhound as a "core" unit for HOTS after all. I think they know the Tank "problem" in TvP and they just don't want mech to be BW like, for whatever reason. You know that by "mech" people are not referring to the unit description or the building it comes from, but about the play style. Marine Tank is much more mech like then Thor+Hellbat. Hell, Thor/ Hellbat plays much more like bio then mech. Though i agree we should probably use terms like: Tank based mech, to be more clear. And lets not kid ourselfs with "positioning" here, a Thor Hellbat composition is a "1a" comp, without the positioning aspects of Tank based comps and without the micro abilities of bio. Thors in general are ugly units when massed. First of all I don't think a significant majority of the people consider that to be the definition of mech. Yes, mech has been iconically defined by positional siege tank play from BW, but that doesn't have to be the same with SC2. Even in SC1, many times a player would have a very very high goliath count to deal with carriers, much more than his tanks. If we were to define what he's doing in that particular moment, or even in the overall duration of the game if they were doing carrier vs goliath for that long, would we no longer call it mech? What playstyle would we refer it to, goliaths? It's similar to how we both agree on trying to be more specific about things (like tank based mech), we could call it goliath heavy mech, but even then it means that it isn't the only kind of mech. As we can see, tanks are quite weaker in SC2 in many aspects, and thus are already used in different ways. They are still positioning units, but because of their even small differences in usage, it's already a different style. Also if we are to define it by play style, then how shall we define play style? The overall focus of the player in a game? The overall intended focus of the player from the start of the game, before anything happens? Let's take a game where a mech player is going hellion siege tank. He happens to burn all of his opponents' probes due to a mistake he made. Since the terran doesn't want to drag it out, he attacks with all his SCVs+2-3 tanks + Hellions, before siege mode is even done. He kills the protoss. Are we here to then say he played bio? The playstyle is certainly not positional -- he harassed like a bio player and attacked aggressively. If someone asks "did he go bio or mech", what will the answer be? He was intending to go mech but ended up playing more like bio. So would it not be ok to ask "did he go bio or mech" but instead he must ask "did he open with barracks tech and barracks units or did he open with factory tech and factory units"? Also, although a thor/hellion kind of composition can 1a, especially when ahead (and usually used as an all-in build or push), 1a'ing isn't the maximum you can micro your army to, and thus we shouldn't describe it as a 1a composition. For example, a mass baneling army will destroy a thor hellion composition, as seen in Nestea vs Nada in GSL, on Belshir Beach despite having so many BFH in front of his thors. You can 1a but even with protoss deathballs that is an exaggeration. If you remember thor hellion boxer vs zenio back in GSL, he noticed Zenio's composition and spread out his thors so much so that banelings and fungals would do almost nothing. He would run his hellions behind his thors, instead of tanking for his thors, just like marines running behind tanks, forcing the infestors and banelings to be ineffective, while the still alive hellions prevent the zerglings from engaging and disallowing them from surrounding the hellions. Whether or not the majority of the players just clump up and 1a doesn't matter, when there is a significant advantage to positioning them, and because of that people should strive to micro them and not just 1a, even pros. Nada got punished heavily by it, so there is no reason not to micro your army to the best you can, even if you are ahead. I agree with the marine tank being a lot like mech, but it is also a lot like bio. But again if we were to strictly define it by playstyle, then would bomber's 3 base marine tank build (used several months ago to success) be considered mech since he literally defends and does not drop or harass, and just does a 3 base push? | ||
|
RandomMan
44 Posts
On December 11 2012 00:55 Everlong wrote: I mean, c'mon.. Mech finally just got something.. How, why do you want HT's to counter mech? You've got whole robo tech + zealots + stargate tech against mech.. You really want all tech paths to counter mech right? Zealots counter mech in HOTS? Helbat got remove like warhound? Robo does not counter mech, depending whether you recognize air units, particularly raven as part of mech. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9404 Posts
On December 11 2012 00:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: First of all I don't think a significant majority of the people consider that to be the definition of mech. Yes, mech has been iconically defined by positional siege tank play from BW, but that doesn't have to be the same with SC2. As we can see, tanks are quite weaker in SC2, and thus are already used in different ways. They are still positioning units, but because of their even small differences in usage, it's already a different style. Also if we are to define it by play style, then how shall we define play style? The overall focus of the player in a game? The overall intended focus of the player from the start of the game, before anything happens? Let's take a game where a mech player is going hellion siege tank. He happens to burn all of his opponents' probes due to a mistake he made. Since the terran doesn't want to drag it out, he attacks with all his SCVs+2-3 tanks + Hellions, before siege mode is even done. He kills the protoss. Are we here to then say he played bio? The playstyle is certainly not positional -- he harassed like a bio player and attacked aggressively. If someone asks "did he go bio or mech", what will the answer be? He was intending to go mech but ended up playing more like bio. Are you really saying that it's not ok to ask "did he go bio or mech" but instead he must ask "did he open with barracks tech and barracks units or did he open with factory tech and factory units"? Also lets not kid ourselves with positioning here, a mass baneling army will destroy a thor hellion composition, as seen in Nestea vs Nada in GSL, on Belshir Beach. It is not 1a. You can 1a but even with protoss deathballs that is an exaggeration. Watch thor hellion boxer vs zenio back in GSL; notice that thor hellion positioning? Whether or not the majority of the players just clump up and 1a doesn't matter, when there is a significant advantage to positioning them, and because of that people should strive to micro them and not just 1a, even pros. Nada got punished heavily by it, so there is no reason not to micro your army to the best you can, even if you are ahead. Im sorry but you are just wrong. Mech revolves around tanks and positional play. That's what people imply when they argue that they want mech to be viable. Tankless mech is more boring than bio (because at least you can micro that). Mass thors for instance, is just boring gameplay. I assume Blizzard has the same deifnition, but they really are clueless to the fundemnetal problem. In WOL the only style of mech that was viable was the ultra heavy turtling invented by Lyyna. But it's not really an entertaining way of playing (as you need to wait like 35/40+ min of turtling and getting ravens/bc's, ghosts, ........) to be able to beat the toss in a striaght up fight. I believe the kind of mech that should be viable in tvp is the same kind of mech that is viable as in tvt (mech vs bio). You can turtle and defned well o n3 bases against drops/multipronged harass etc, which are always entertaining. BUt when you get that 200 ball of tanks/hellions (maybe 1-2 thors), you own the bio player in a straight up fight. So either the bio player needs to counterattack or tech up to air. The same thing sohuld apply to the protoss. The protoss should be abusing the immoblity while teching up to tempest/carriers etc. (or he could just commit completely to harass and thuse never allow the terran to reach 200 food of mech army). ANyway the fundemental problems could be fixed by giving terran mech options to deal with archons and immortals (without the use of EMP). I am interested in knowing how seeker missile could solve this problem, but I think ravens probably are too gas heavy to really be viable along with mech (untill you are on 4+ bases). One "easy" solution could be to change the cost of ravens to 200/150 or something like that (maybe even 200/125), and see how it works out. That change wouldn't really distrube the balance of the other matchups signifcantly. | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
VRs seem like the most obvious counter, but I've yet to see a protoss build them in bigger numbers. Having just 4-5 will evaporate in a few thor volleys. Of course rushes are a pain in the ass to hold, especially blink stalkers. If they want terrans to go mech, they need to remove mobile detection from MSC, maybe give them the ability to give detection to a building instead or something. | ||
|
RandomMan
44 Posts
On December 11 2012 00:47 Aquila- wrote: Yes blizzard buffed mech, but the wrong way. Imo they have no idea why mech tvp is not viable. Their buffs helped but the core problems still remain. The question is not "is it somehow possible to pölay mech", the question is "is it as good as bio and therefor a viable strategy". Sure I can play mech and one day win a game with it because my opponent was dumb, but why would I if I could have won all those games with bio? The protoss players can blink harass the entire game, move his mobile army around, take all bases on the map...if you play tanks you will spend the entire game sieging and unsiegeing trying to protect your expos just to finally be greeted by air toss, same as TvZ lategame where your tanks are useless against broods. You cant split your army or it will get stomped, so how do you protect more than 3 or 4 bases? For example on star station. Imo the only mech style that could work is hellbat thor but I tried that like 50 games, even made ghosts, vikings and everything needed but in the end got overrun by either 25 gateways warping in mass stalker to finish off my wounded mech army after barely killing all immortals/archons, or by carrier tempest templer... Your question reflects the earnest desire of all terrans, and the most terrify nightmare of all toss and zergs, which is, IF MECH CANNOT ROLL OVER MY OPPONENT AS STRONG AS MY GOOD OLD BIO BUILD, THEN IT IS NOT A VIABLE STRATEGY. But I do agree with you one part, why would any terrans go mech, when bio now is so much "FUN" to use since medivac are "finally a good unit in the latest patch" and my bio ball doesnt seems to fear storm and colossi. So how you feel playing a deathball now? Thats right, unable to freely split your army and struggling to deal with multi prong drops are the signatures of toss throughout the whole 2 years in WOL. And welcome to mech playstyle, because unlike bio ball, mech is all about deathballing. | ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
On December 11 2012 01:07 RandomMan wrote: Zealots counter mech in HOTS? Helbat got remove like warhound? Robo does not counter mech, depending whether you recognize air units, particularly raven as part of mech. Oh my god, I think we can now abandon this discussion.. "Robo does not counter mech" is enough for me. Guys, save your time, we might try next time.. | ||
|
Dvriel
607 Posts
On December 11 2012 00:39 MirageTaN wrote: MorroW made it happen REallly?When?Where?You can see,Morrow doesnt play HotS anymore after posting in the Blizz forums about how hard is to try mech and was never able to make it work... | ||
|
RandomMan
44 Posts
On December 11 2012 00:57 Qikz wrote: Storm is actually really good at mech. The reason why it's good is that you'll always do full damage as tanks/thors can't/can barely move out of them. The reason storm not good vs tanks are not because of damage, but how the hell a templar land a storm when your tanks significantly outrange HT storm range? | ||
|
RandomMan
44 Posts
On December 11 2012 01:25 Everlong wrote: Oh my god, I think we can now abandon this discussion.. "Robo does not counter mech" is enough for me. Guys, save your time, we might try next time.. Please enlighten me how an immortal kills off, or simply any unit in robo, kills off raven, before the seeker missile 1 shot immortal or reduce colossi to 50 hp? Or you are one of those no-brainer terran that refuse to recognize air units as mech, even after Blizzard go as far to give you 6 free upgrades for your mech+air? | ||
|
Penev
28487 Posts
On December 11 2012 00:55 Everlong wrote: I mean, c'mon.. Mech finally just got something.. How, why do you want HT's to counter mech? You've got whole robo tech + zealots + stargate tech against mech.. You really want all tech paths to counter mech right? I don't want them to counter mech but I also don't want them to be completely useless. If you make templar tech completely useless than no Protoss will ever choose that tech path making the game more predictable. You have to look at these problems in an unbiased way; How to make the game as interesting and diverse as possible while keeping it balanced and in this case make mech viable vs P. Storm is actually really good at mech. The reason why it's good is that you'll always do full damage as tanks/thors can't/can barely move out of them. Against clumped up tanks this is true, a storm can damage (not outright kill) them but because of the range the templar cannot just do this unpunished; The Protoss has to suicide them or employ some special tactics (have zealots bait and Storm drops  ). Isn't this the biggest reason for making mech viable vs P anyway? To ad options to the match up? | ||
|
RandomMan
44 Posts
On December 11 2012 00:21 Markwerf wrote: no it's the combination of both hardened shield and it's damage output that makes them so goddamn good against tank based mech. Adding in ghosts to counter immortals can work but is just really hard, first of all tanks outrange emp so even if you do manage to emp all immortals the hardened shield will likely still have absorbed the first shots and your emp was only a 90 damage aoe spell. The damage output makes them really strong too but without the hardened shield they could never close in on a tank line so easily as they can now. If you try mech now I'd really suggest to incorporate good amounts of banshees. Banshees are great against toss since they trade quite well with stalkers and phoenixes are easily countered by thors. Banshees can thus force big amounts of stalkers which really make your tanks shine. Banshees also provide great mobility and good (counter) harassment potential. Of course adding in a raven or two if gas permits is pretty good now and a great way to deal with immortals, archons and dt's too. 90 damages aoe spell is still way better than storm 80 damages, plus its instant damage so once hit you cant dodge anymore. | ||
|
Dvriel
607 Posts
| ||
|
RandomMan
44 Posts
Oh wait, ghost is not mech alright, so why dont we add one more ability to tanks using cooldown with 10 casting range and 15 leash range that deals 300 damages to a single ground target with 3 seconds charge up? That should make mech "VIABLE" now. | ||
|
ZjiublingZ
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
On December 11 2012 01:28 RandomMan wrote: Please enlighten me how an immortal kills off, or simply any unit in robo, kills off raven, before the seeker missile 1 shot immortal or reduce colossi to 50 hp? Against my better judgement I will respond to you RandomMan, even though you have been acting like a child throughout this thread (where the Mods at?). Using a 200 gas unit, that takes 2 minutes to "counter" a 100 gas unit, that takes at most 55 seconds to make, isn't generally an example of a counter. It's akin to saying Carriers "counter" Roaches. Yes, they do beat them, but it's not realistic to use them for that purpose throughout the game. Of course it could be useful to have 1 Raven now with cheaper DT's, the usefullness of PDD, auto-turrets to block chargelots, and now HSM to kill off 1 Immortal. That's enough utility to make them worth it for sure IMO. But as far as making multiple Ravens just to counter multiple Immortals - there's only one specific situation where that makes any sense at all: In a maxed out situation where the 2 supply Raven killing the 4 supply Immortal is a supply-efficient counter AND when resources aren't a limiting factor to your composition. I.E. you can't max out on Ravens in your first max out, or you are vulnerable to attacks before that, wherein you have traded 200 gas to remove a 100 gas unit from the fight, that's not cost-efficient. Not being cost-efficient in engagements (with gas at least) against Protoss - who should have more bases than you - is a recipe for failure. | ||
|
pOriishan
45 Posts
On December 11 2012 00:35 Penev wrote: On the energy bar thing: Mech should have some energy bars to keep HT's a somewhat viable choice. Storms don't quite effect mech like it does bio. I think you don't have any idea what you're saying. HTs are good against mech with both feedback and storm. Tbh, feedback is the only reason makes mech weak in WoL ( Thor with stupid engergy bar for nothing ). And storm does damage well against vikings, helions, thors, scv repairs. | ||
| ||
