|
|
|
Everytime I use tanks in mech vs p, I outright lose. Tanks just don't do enough damage to the enemy units and do too much damage to your own.
Ghost mech should do pretty good now though considering that thors dont have energy anymore. go like Ghost, medivac, hellbat, thor.
|
Kind of sad to say, but tankless mech isn't mech. It's just slower bio with factory upgrades and Widow Mines, and if this is the only way to have your factory units be viable, then Blizzard has seriously messed up.
|
yeah technically since Hellbats are flagged as bio and ghosts are made from barracks then yeah its bio mech. We all know why straight factory units dont work its the immortal. Thats probably not going to change so i think we will have to accept that ghosts and hellbats are neccesary for factory compositions to work.
|
The hellbat flag has nothing to do with it, the tankless part is the reason it isnt mech. When people talk about mech they generally mean the positional play only inherent to tanks in SC2. So not a significant part of the army tanks, no mech.
This would then be factory play, also fine, nothing wrong with it, but it is not what is meant with mech.
|
On December 14 2012 06:29 LgNKami wrote:
Everytime I use tanks in mech vs p, I outright lose. Tanks just don't do enough damage to the enemy units and do too much damage to your own.
Ghost mech should do pretty good now though considering that thors dont have energy anymore. go like Ghost, medivac, hellbat, thor.
Yes i realized the same, for their costs and supply tanks are weak units. a Thor is far more likely to pay for itself than a tank in TVP. In WOL a Thor basically had 200 health because feedback and a useless energy bar now toss have to chew through that health the legit way. Ive thought of having upgraded medivacs instead of banshees come out of my starport. Im going to experiment with it a bit.
|
On December 14 2012 06:53 Sissors wrote:
The hellbat flag has nothing to do with it, the tankless part is the reason it isnt mech. When people talk about mech they generally mean the positional play only inherent to tanks in SC2. So not a significant part of the army tanks, no mech.
This would then be factory play, also fine, nothing wrong with it, but it is not what is meant with mech.
True but this still offers a different playstyle than MMM thats actually viable.
|
Cool, I'll give it a try.
Still, the guys above are right, tanks need some kind of change to make 'true' mech viable.
|
On December 14 2012 06:53 Sissors wrote:
The hellbat flag has nothing to do with it, the tankless part is the reason it isnt mech. When people talk about mech they generally mean the positional play only inherent to tanks in SC2. So not a significant part of the army tanks, no mech.
This would then be factory play, also fine, nothing wrong with it, but it is not what is meant with mech.
While I agree with what your saying, technically Widow Mines and Swarm Hosts are also positional due to burrow locking movement the same as Siege Mode.
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
On December 14 2012 06:53 Sissors wrote:
The hellbat flag has nothing to do with it, the tankless part is the reason it isnt mech. When people talk about mech they generally mean the positional play only inherent to tanks in SC2. So not a significant part of the army tanks, no mech.
This would then be factory play, also fine, nothing wrong with it, but it is not what is meant with mech.
Please let's just nip this whole "discussion" in the bud right now, I've seen it a million times. People call it Mech because it relies on a core army of Mechanical units. That IS what people mean when they say Mech - that much is completely clear by OP calling it "Tankless Mech". If you want to make a comment on the lack of Tanks making for a very bland style of play because of the lack of emphasis on positioning and space control, that's perfectly all right man. I don't think you will get many people who disagree with you. But please don't go around correcting everyone saying that they aren't aloud to use the Term Mech for Mechanical based army compositions that lack Tanks.
|
if anyone watches the replays particularly the Tempest one you will see that there are still space control properties to this play with the ravens PDD, widow mines are always a space control unit, and without detection are scarier than tanks.
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
On December 14 2012 09:30 Pookie Monster wrote:
if anyone watches the replays particularly the Tempest one you will see that there are still space control properties to this play with the ravens PDD, widow mines are always a space control unit, and without detection are scarier than tanks.
The media-fire link isn't working for me, can you please upload to drop.sc?
|
On December 14 2012 09:10 ZjiublingZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:53 Sissors wrote:
The hellbat flag has nothing to do with it, the tankless part is the reason it isnt mech. When people talk about mech they generally mean the positional play only inherent to tanks in SC2. So not a significant part of the army tanks, no mech.
This would then be factory play, also fine, nothing wrong with it, but it is not what is meant with mech. Please let's just nip this whole "discussion" in the bud right now, I've seen it a million times. People call it Mech because it relies on a core army of Mechanical units. That IS what people mean when they say Mech - that much is completely clear by OP calling it "Tankless Mech". If you want to make a comment on the lack of Tanks making for a very bland style of play because of the lack of emphasis on positioning and space control, that's perfectly all right man. I don't think you will get many people who disagree with you. But please don't go around correcting everyone saying that they aren't aloud to use the Term Mech for Mechanical based army compositions that lack Tanks.
this is totally copying something I saw a few days ago (can't find the post :/)
but in starcraft terms like mech have a certain meaning as far as playstyle goes. For instance, Any rts could have units with a "biological unit" label on it and call that "bio", but in starcraft 2 hearing bio has a certain meaning attached to it (MARINES!), and a playstyle attached as well. In the case of bio a mobile, fast force involving drops and multi-pronged harassment with lots of intense micromanagement. Another example is muta play, saying that zerg is going mutas has a certain implication as to how that zerg is going to play, using mutas to harass and contain their opponent and avoiding major engagements. If blizz redid the muta to be a slow tanky unit that was excellent at air-to-air engagements, it wouldn't be "muta" play anymore.
"mech" playstyle means space control with slow, powerful units that slowly push across the map, relying on good positioning and map awareness to force good engagements and protect your flanks.
The OP is correct in saying "tankless mech" because there certainly is an element of mech play in the form of widow mines and to a lesser extent battlehellion/thor, but "classic" mech uses the siege tank as THE core unit (much like marines to bio) and to the people who enjoy classic mech play, seeing that vs protoss terran's best option is to forgo siege tanks is very disheartening.
|
With the buff (energy bar removal) I'm sure thors are a viable option now. The thing is, blizzard seem to be praying that toss find a counter because the energy bar was put again for a reason. And I don't see a viable counter in HotS to make mass thors manageable : voids are better sure, but thor's anti-air kill them pretty fast (and mariners). Tempest just lost their bonus versus massive ground.
I think it's only a matter of time until someone pulls off a Thorzain.
|
On December 14 2012 09:10 ZjiublingZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:53 Sissors wrote:
The hellbat flag has nothing to do with it, the tankless part is the reason it isnt mech. When people talk about mech they generally mean the positional play only inherent to tanks in SC2. So not a significant part of the army tanks, no mech.
This would then be factory play, also fine, nothing wrong with it, but it is not what is meant with mech. Please let's just nip this whole "discussion" in the bud right now, I've seen it a million times. People call it Mech because it relies on a core army of Mechanical units. That IS what people mean when they say Mech - that much is completely clear by OP calling it "Tankless Mech". If you want to make a comment on the lack of Tanks making for a very bland style of play because of the lack of emphasis on positioning and space control, that's perfectly all right man. I don't think you will get many people who disagree with you. But please don't go around correcting everyone saying that they aren't aloud to use the Term Mech for Mechanical based army compositions that lack Tanks.
But using your definition makes the expression mech meaningless when it comes to describing gameplay.
I much prefer the tank positional play = mech definition since it actually describes a distinct style, instead of it being an aesthetic term for units that look mechanical.
|
rather than arguing whether this is mech or not, I am quite interesting to see how this works out
|
I put drop.sc replays on since people seemed to be having trouble with mediafire, i think some people dont like bio play because of how frail it feels, the other races 1 A into your army with a few spell casters and you have to frantically run your units around to stand a chance while having spell casters of your own to micro. Im a casual gamer and i dont have the APM or time to make bio work at the masters level. i prefer Tank positional play but vikings arent cutting it vs the tempests and BCS are out of the question so if you dont have a healthy Thor and raven count when tempest come out in masse your done. I have yet to beat mass tempest with anything other than Ghost Raven Thor.
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
On December 14 2012 10:18 Grend wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:10 ZjiublingZ wrote:On December 14 2012 06:53 Sissors wrote:
The hellbat flag has nothing to do with it, the tankless part is the reason it isnt mech. When people talk about mech they generally mean the positional play only inherent to tanks in SC2. So not a significant part of the army tanks, no mech.
This would then be factory play, also fine, nothing wrong with it, but it is not what is meant with mech. Please let's just nip this whole "discussion" in the bud right now, I've seen it a million times. People call it Mech because it relies on a core army of Mechanical units. That IS what people mean when they say Mech - that much is completely clear by OP calling it "Tankless Mech". If you want to make a comment on the lack of Tanks making for a very bland style of play because of the lack of emphasis on positioning and space control, that's perfectly all right man. I don't think you will get many people who disagree with you. But please don't go around correcting everyone saying that they aren't aloud to use the Term Mech for Mechanical based army compositions that lack Tanks. But using your definition makes the expression mech meaningless when it comes to describing gameplay. I much prefer the tank positional play = mech definition since it actually describes a distinct style, instead of it being an aesthetic term for units that look mechanical.
It's not an aesthetic term and it is a gameplay term, it's a term to describe the use of Factory units as your main composition. If you want to discuss how you don't like having a Mech style that has no Tanks because of how that impacts the playstyle of that composition than by all means we can discuss that in the appropriate thread. Or if you want to discuss how it would be possible to work tanks into the MechvsP composition, either through balance changes or just builds, than by all means discuss that in the appropriate thread. But it's absolute nonsense to say someone isn't playing Mech when they have a primarily Factory based composition, just because they don't have Tanks. It's like saying someone in a TvZ isn't playing Mech just because they are so ahead they can win with a 3 base Thor/Hellion timing, or someone isn't playing Bio because they are turtling and using PF's and EMP and Nukes for a positional and space controlling style of play. There is Bio, and there is Mech, and there is Bio/Mech, and there is even Sky Toss. They are all terms to describe the production structures/general composition. They are not terms to describe a play style - even if those compositions do inherently lend themselves to a specific play style. Can we please move on from this subject?
@OP, thanks for uploading the drop.sc replays. I have been playing this style for the last few days and have found it to be much more robust. Easier to deal with a variety of early pressures, easier to defend from tech switches, and (most importantly for me) easier to put more pressure on the opponent re-actively to keep them from being too greedy and just defending from Hellions. I will check out your replays and tell you what I think, contrast it with how I have been playing it, etc.
|
Yeah its like saying "OH! your not playing Skytoss because your not using Carriers!"
|
On December 14 2012 10:18 Grend wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:10 ZjiublingZ wrote:On December 14 2012 06:53 Sissors wrote:
The hellbat flag has nothing to do with it, the tankless part is the reason it isnt mech. When people talk about mech they generally mean the positional play only inherent to tanks in SC2. So not a significant part of the army tanks, no mech.
This would then be factory play, also fine, nothing wrong with it, but it is not what is meant with mech. Please let's just nip this whole "discussion" in the bud right now, I've seen it a million times. People call it Mech because it relies on a core army of Mechanical units. That IS what people mean when they say Mech - that much is completely clear by OP calling it "Tankless Mech". If you want to make a comment on the lack of Tanks making for a very bland style of play because of the lack of emphasis on positioning and space control, that's perfectly all right man. I don't think you will get many people who disagree with you. But please don't go around correcting everyone saying that they aren't aloud to use the Term Mech for Mechanical based army compositions that lack Tanks. But using your definition makes the expression mech meaningless when it comes to describing gameplay. I much prefer the tank positional play = mech definition since it actually describes a distinct style, instead of it being an aesthetic term for units that look mechanical.
Out of curiosity, do you consider ghost nuke play as mech since it's positional? Is the swarm host mech? :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
