|
|
|
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
|
the Swarm host is defintetly mech play .lol after all its described as a "siege unit" on the description.
|
I never liked going bio in tvp because of how effective aoe was in the matchup. I love being able to do a thor heavy composition and having to manage incoming sources of single target dps instead of reacting to spell casts. Immortals are much more susceptible to positioning problems than colossus or templar, and it opens up some scenarios with widow mine or hellbat zoning. Thors also negate forcefields, which I hate equally if not more than colossus. Thanks for the uploads, I have been looking for some higher level player to really explore this style.
|
The Thor is very slow and the WM is a stationary threat...
This is still positional play.
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
Hey PookieMonster I watched the replays I would just like to throw out 2 ideas and see what you think. We play the style pretty much the same, but these are somethings I like to do. When I get my third I like to add 2 reactored facts (for a total of 4). As you saw you end up floating Minerals, and hellion runby's become a lot stronger as the Protoss is usually going up to 4 bases. Not to mention Hellbat's are generally just pretty good units now.
The other thing I'd like to throw out there ties in with the extra reactored factories: reinforcing with Widow Mines during an attack. Usually you will get one wave of them out if you start them as you move out, they really help allowing you to retreat safely from a fight, and preserve that Thor count. Even if you win the fight and kill the expansion, often times the Protoss can snipe some Thors as you retreat with their warp-ins. On top of that, they are just good against everything and can help buffer for you if you get into an engagement and the Protoss surprises you with a bit more anti-air than you thought he had.
Let me know what you think.
|
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 a fallacy. Mech also happens to be an abbreviation for mechanical, but the term mech play isn't using it as an abbreviation, but rather as a label for a specific kind of playstyle that arose in bw around the positional characteristics of tanks (just as another poster mentioned muta play, the use of muta's fast speed to harass and pin the opponent back while expanding and teching. You can get mutas without using them in muta playstyle, just as you can get tanks and not use them in a mech playstyle i.e. biomech). I'm not saying that you can't play a mech playstyle without tanks, but rather that using any mechanical factory units in a composition doesn't automatically make it mech play because mech play is not about the secondary definition of mech as an abreviation of mechanical.
On topic, I'm looking forward to going through these replays and seeing how op uses and deals with the issues of thors in mid-to-late game, reminds of Thorzain's breakout games in tsl. Widow mines seem like they would help a lot, along with the recent thor changes. Do you emphasize armor upgrades or weapon upgrades in this style Pookie Monster?
|
So I'm a primarily a protoss player, but I'm considering playing terran a lot more in HotS. Widow mines look like so much fun, and I like the new Thor.
What I'm wondering about this Thor/Hellbat/WM style of mech, is if a later transition into Ghost/Tank would be good? Even with only 8 tanks and a few ghosts, I think it would be stronger than just pure Thor/HB when pushing into enemy bases.
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
On December 14 2012 12:38 SolidZeal wrote:
So I'm a primarily a protoss player, but I'm considering playing terran a lot more in HotS. Widow mines look like so much fun, and I like the new Thor.
What I'm wondering about this Thor/Hellbat/WM style of mech, is if a later transition into Ghost/Tank would be good? Even with only 8 tanks and a few ghosts, I think it would be stronger than just pure Thor/HB when pushing into enemy bases.
This is something I want to try to experiment with, I've been playing the Thor/Hellbat/Ghost/Widowmine/Raven, but I do feel as though Tanks are indeed stronger in the maxed out big engagement situations (which are what really decide games at that point), so I've been thinking trying out going tanks once you get up 4 tech Facts and can quickly get to a high count. The problem I've had is there is rarely a good opportunity to do it. Most Protoss transition to air in the late game at which point of course Tanks aren't great to start spending gas on. And even when they don't and it's ground vs ground, it's hard to get a good opportunity for a Mech player to control the pace of the game which allows you to trade your army, and the Protoss is usually out on the map threatening expansions and the such, at which point slowing down your army is a scary thing to do. Tomorrow I will probably just make a rule for myself: once I get 4 bases and 4 tech facts, just start making Tanks (basically) no-matter what. Hopefully this will allow me to see when I truly can do this and when I can't. And of course if it's even a good thing to do ever.
Ill post again after trying this out for a while tomorrow (I am Masters MechvsP player in WoL if that matters to you).
|
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.
The core of "mech" is the SIEGE TANK and this immobile unit defines the playstyle. Not using this unit just gives you another slow version of the same "move around a lot" stuff you get from everything else. The core is being IMMOBILE and slowly/methodically attacking.
Even using Siege Tanks in WoL isnt really mech, because its a lot of sieging and unsieging with your whole force and you get kicked in the butt when the Zerg swarms you the second you have made your own units useless for a few seconds by clicking that unsiege button.
The playstyle is the important part and not which building makes them and thus Hellions and Widow Mines and even Thors are only the supporting cast in this ...
On December 14 2012 06:38 Acritter wrote:
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.
So in accordance with Acritters description I would suggest finding a new and easy term to describe "tankless mech" ... my suggestion is "SlowMech".
On December 14 2012 11:51 Crawdad wrote:
The Thor is very slow and the WM is a stationary threat...
This is still positional play.
The Widow Mine is positional, but it cant really hold a position due to its slow rate of fire ... only scare away/kill smaller forces and it is easily killed if you leave it alone. "Holding a position" doesnt mean anything if you arent clearly visible and scare your enemy away. The Widow Mine is a poor "replacement" for the SIege Tank, because Blizzard doesnt want to buff it (as can be seen by their ZERO changes to the Siege Tank during the last two major HotS patches, which buffed a lot of units). They KNOW that buffing the Siege Tank will show why their stupid movement system with super tight formations is terribly bad for the game, so they added in a replacement unit which has a somewhat similar job but looks and works differently. And I thought that adding units which perform "somewhat similar jobs" was bad for game design - at least I think something of this sort was mentioned by "them" in an interview somewhere - by adding too many units to the game.
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
On December 14 2012 14:49 Rabiator 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. The core of "mech" is the SIEGE TANK and this immobile unit defines the playstyle. Not using this unit just gives you another slow version of the same "move around a lot" stuff you get from everything else. The core is being IMMOBILE and slowly/methodically attacking. Even using Siege Tanks in WoL isnt really mech, because its a lot of sieging and unsieging with your whole force and you get kicked in the butt when the Zerg swarms you the second you have made your own units useless for a few seconds by clicking that unsiege button. The playstyle is the important part and not which building makes them and thus Hellions and Widow Mines and even Thors are only the supporting cast in this ... Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:38 Acritter wrote:
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. So in accordance with Acritters description I would suggest finding a new and easy term to describe "tankless mech" ... my suggestion is "SlowMech". Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 11:51 Crawdad wrote:
The Thor is very slow and the WM is a stationary threat...
This is still positional play. The Widow Mine is positional, but it cant really hold a position due to its slow rate of fire ... only scare away/kill smaller forces and it is easily killed if you leave it alone. "Holding a position" doesnt mean anything if you arent clearly visible and scare your enemy away. The Widow Mine is a poor "replacement" for the SIege Tank, because Blizzard doesnt want to buff it (as can be seen by their ZERO changes to the Siege Tank during the last two major HotS patches, which buffed a lot of units). They KNOW that buffing the Siege Tank will show why their stupid movement system with super tight formations is terribly bad for the game, so they added in a replacement unit which has a somewhat similar job but looks and works differently. And I thought that adding units which perform "somewhat similar jobs" was bad for game design - at least I think something of this sort was mentioned by "them" in an interview somewhere - by adding too many units to the game.
Please go away, this isn't relevant to this thread. You don't get to decide what people are referring to when they say Mech and you don't get to invade any thread with the word Mech in it and start "telling everyone how it is" with your bullshit. You are only distracting from what this thread's trying to discuss.
|
Wow, lol. This says a lot about tank firepower if you lose when you build them against Protoss. Ofc this has been common knowledge for a long time, but that's just fucking despicable.
They would rip ultras apart if you increased their damage to armored...I wonder if Blizzard will ever consider buffing the tank to help in TvP?
|
Thors are Mech but not really Mech play style :/ Nice builds from OP thought, but thor hellbats is boring 
|
Stop derailing the thread with your 'mech' terminology. It is not relevant to the discussion put forth by the OP. Discuss the viability of tankless play compared to tank based play or leave pls.
|
Immortal has to change. It makes mech useless and it makes boring pvz which will not change in hots. Just make its HP from 100/100 to 80/100 or 80/120
|
I just like to mention that in some non open maps (like Cloud K), tank mech look viable now. Master level too tho.
|
I think definitely ghostmech (even with tanks) is viable now..
The question is when and how many tanks to get. I feel like I can get 2-3 tanks with siege mode (+few widow mines) at the start to hold of all the gateway allins and to secure natural. Then I switch to Hellbats/Thors and dual upgrades. Once my 3rd is secured, I add Ghost Academy and add few more Tanks. I'm going to experiment with Ravens instead of Ghosts today. Seeker Missile seems promising vs Immortal/Collosus and it's also very good vs Tempests, wich a lot of Protosses are switching to.. Also, once I kill a good number of Immortals with Seeker Missile (say 4-5), i think there is no reason to get Ghosts, but I might be wrong here. Both Ghosts and Ravens are good against most Protoss units.
|
On December 14 2012 12:20 ZjiublingZ wrote:
Hey PookieMonster I watched the replays I would just like to throw out 2 ideas and see what you think. We play the style pretty much the same, but these are somethings I like to do. When I get my third I like to add 2 reactored facts (for a total of 4). As you saw you end up floating Minerals, and hellion runby's become a lot stronger as the Protoss is usually going up to 4 bases. Not to mention Hellbat's are generally just pretty good units now.
The other thing I'd like to throw out there ties in with the extra reactored factories: reinforcing with Widow Mines during an attack. Usually you will get one wave of them out if you start them as you move out, they really help allowing you to retreat safely from a fight, and preserve that Thor count. Even if you win the fight and kill the expansion, often times the Protoss can snipe some Thors as you retreat with their warp-ins. On top of that, they are just good against everything and can help buffer for you if you get into an engagement and the Protoss surprises you with a bit more anti-air than you thought he had.
Let me know what you think.
Yes i still need to get in the habit of making more widow mines, they really are great units. raven/thor has a great habit of sniping observers too even if by accident and they always need thier robo to get out immortals. i think its better to build them as hellions and transform them to hellbats for combat so runbys are always on the table immediately.
|
On December 14 2012 12:21 Fyrewolf 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. This is a fallacy. Mech also happens to be an abbreviation for mechanical, but the term mech play isn't using it as an abbreviation, but rather as a label for a specific kind of playstyle that arose in bw around the positional characteristics of tanks (just as another poster mentioned muta play, the use of muta's fast speed to harass and pin the opponent back while expanding and teching. You can get mutas without using them in muta playstyle, just as you can get tanks and not use them in a mech playstyle i.e. biomech). I'm not saying that you can't play a mech playstyle without tanks, but rather that using any mechanical factory units in a composition doesn't automatically make it mech play because mech play is not about the secondary definition of mech as an abreviation of mechanical. On topic, I'm looking forward to going through these replays and seeing how op uses and deals with the issues of thors in mid-to-late game, reminds of Thorzain's breakout games in tsl. Widow mines seem like they would help a lot, along with the recent thor changes. Do you emphasize armor upgrades or weapon upgrades in this style Pookie Monster?
I tend to emphasize weapon because your main damage dealers ive seen are immortals and tempests these are high damage single hit units so the armor upgrades dont factor the way they do for zerg.
|
On December 14 2012 12:38 SolidZeal wrote:
So I'm a primarily a protoss player, but I'm considering playing terran a lot more in HotS. Widow mines look like so much fun, and I like the new Thor.
What I'm wondering about this Thor/Hellbat/WM style of mech, is if a later transition into Ghost/Tank would be good? Even with only 8 tanks and a few ghosts, I think it would be stronger than just pure Thor/HB when pushing into enemy bases.
problem is once you start getting past 3 bases the toss starts making tempests or void rays, thats been my expereince. i only uploaded one tempest game because i didnt want to be redundant but they are many more and ive only won with high Thor counts the tanks just get destroyed once your anti air is killed.
|
On December 14 2012 15:15 pOriishan wrote:Thors are Mech but not really Mech play style :/ Nice builds from OP thought, but thor hellbats is boring
I disagree its never just thor hellbat, i always have starports for ravens, banshees, dropships, i make ghosts. You can do hellion runbys, widow mine drops, banshee harrass, expo nuking. Its only as boring as you want it to be, if you just make hellbat Thor and 1 A, not only is that boring but you will likely lose vs a good toss.
|
I've had some success with thorzains old tank-raven opener into mass thor from the glorydays of no energy-thors.
roughly: in main exp at 4 marines, factory techlab, double gas, tank, switch tech lab to starport, raven + armory, take natural. Thor. 2 factories, thor nr 2. armory nr 2.
now at two bases, 3 fac(2 tech 1 reactor), 1 techport not doing anything, 2 thors, a couple of hellions and a raven. He cannot kill you at this time. Go hellion harass until 4 thors, blueflame, 1/1. get and fortify third. You cannot hold a third with your immobile metal chunks before this point.
(you want ONE raven early for energy build up and planting the occasional pdd. If he shuts down hellion harass completely, get 1-3 banshees to divert attention and hellion harass anyway)
Now you're set. against colossus play you scrap mech attack for air attack and get a reactorport. Keep active with hellions for scouting so you can position your retards(thors) in time. Don't let your heroraven die, it's awesome. if it dies, get ONE new. you never need more than one, it's like a mothership but good.
Against tempest/ht play you ragequit.
also build ~16 reactorports.
If he forces a fight, all is good. keep 50% of hellions in speedmode for chasing, plant pdd. zealots fry from the hellbats, hellions chase sentries and HT, colossus melts to vikings since he doesn't have stalkers to defend them. If he has stalkers to defend them, he's dead cuz stalkers suck dick.
Immortals lose their shields in one hellion/hellbat splash volley. Seriously, hellions kick ass against immortals. then the retards gomf the immortal HP.
defend 4gate and similar timings with bunker + a tank with mass repair. one base immortal all-ins fuck you up, luckily noone does these and also they are easily countered once identified with more marines and bunkers.
/Shitty diamond guide that probably doesn't work jack shit. Also too tired to write properly
|
Pookie Monster
Do you have any replays against mass immortals? I do not mean some immortals supported by gateway units. I mean mass immortals produced 3 at a time supported by gateway units. So far no mech composition I have tried has worked vs mass immortals.
Immortals only cost 100 gas each so it is not possible to have enough gas for enough Ghosts and Thors to beat them until very late game.
As a mech player I find that:
1. Mass Tempest are hard but possible to beat
2. Mass Carriers with Tempest support is even harder to beat.
3. Mass immortal mid-game push can not be defeated if you go mech, given equal skill.
|
Every P I play is now going for mass Tempest+Carriers.I stay 20 mins on tanks+hellbat+banshee and than should run and go for Thors+Vikings+Ravens,suiciding tanks,mines and hellions to free supply because P just doesnt attack and I cant harass because of cannons and Tempest defending 3 base at one time without expose them...
|
So I just watched one replay vs the "mass tempest" guy. It looked like the Protoss had no clue what he was doing -_-
And your build is was very bad because you opened 1/1/1 but had zero units except for 1 tech labbed factory building 1 thor...then the Protoss just sorta randomly builds units, doesn't build any walls vs hellion harrass, and builds like 2 immortals total -_- This build basically dies to any 1 base Protoss aggression, or even tiny pokes @_@
I'm not saying this unit composition or using thors doesn't have potential, it's definitely more viable in general...but some of these games the protosses you played just had no clue what they were doing.
Also, tempests do shut down mech pretty hardcore if you have no vikings. The ravens are really good vs tempest though if you can manage to get enough energy for PDDS like you had.
Like i said, the protoss you played on that large map where he started to make a lot of tempests but had like 2 immortals...he had no idea what he was doing lol.
I don't think you can go mech reliably without siege tanks (you need the splash) because a Protoss that actually knows what they're doing is going to build zero zealots and go pure blink stalker or chargelot/archon/immortal into tech switches.
Imo you should try this same strategy/unit comp but do it with a more solid opening, like even a 1 rax expand or a 1/1/1 with a lot more marines involved otherwise you're gonna die to a lot of stuff imo. 1 tech labbed factory as your only production is just really bad =/ i mean it's perfectly fine if the Protoss is playing completely and utterly passive but that's just complete blind luck and if you're playing ladder you won't know 100% if your opponent is going to do that or not.
Oh, one other thing, i think if you're going to do this style you should get the +armor mech upgrades instead of the attack
|
On December 14 2012 10:08 ant-1 wrote:
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.
The counter is immortals. The enetgy bar was returned because 250mm guns on cooldown only completely shut down immortals. Now that that's gone immortals work vs thors.
|
You should check Naama's mech vs P in WoL. He goes hellion/tank/banshee and later to tank/banshee/BC and I can say that that its very powerfull. Why so many dont build banshees or/and bc with their tanks? It just makes army much better. (and yeah, ofc he had ghosts, you should always have ghost with mech)
It was so funny to see like 40 stalker and 20 immortal get owned by tank/bc/banshee :D
|
Give the tank a shield piercing passive so it does 50 damage to shields like BW tank. Make it do like 35 to hardened shields so immortals can still deal with mass tanks
|
I think it's telling that in this "Discussion of Tankless Mech in HotS", people are discussing tanks almost exclusively.
Let's pretend for a moment that you like tank-based play. If "tankless mech" is viable, couldn't you use this to open a window to make tanks. For an analogy, some protosses prefer HT in WoL PvT. Those protosses still go for Colossus (most of the time) if they believe it likely that an early push will occur before HT are ready. In this same way, couldn't a person open with "tankless mech" as a means of getting up the infrastructure to create tanks, and the upgrades for tanks - but in a way that doesn't have the fragility of mid-game tanks in low(-ish) numbers?
Now, let's pretend for a moment that you were really only looking for a factory-based army, and whether it's Tanks or Thors, you'll be happy just to have the alternative to bio. This thread is full of absolutely nothing for you. The most insightful bit so far is avilo's suggestion above that the testing provided may not have been against sufficiently high-level players to be conclusive.
Whether you believe mech must absolutely be tank-based or not, can we all agree that when Terran units such as the Thor, Widow Mine or Raven are improved, there is the potential for us to use this to get to whatever kind of army we want more easily? How about we discuss that instead of semantics.
On topic, as a protoss player, I think Thor-hellion could be scary. You need Immortals or air to deal with them in any kind of cost effectivfe way.
1. With air, you must either build a fleet beacon (which leaves you exposed for a bit) or you must use smaller scale units (like phoenixes or Voids) to deflect pushes. In large armies, in order to do this effectively, you must split your air units very well or splash damage will rip them apart (even just 20 damage splashed amongst just 3 or 4 units is a ton of splash damage). Once fleet beacon is finished, both Carriers and Tempests make decent responses to thors, but neither does particularly high dps.
2. With Immortals, you need to worry about EMP. An EMP-ed Immortal is a thor which deals 74% of the damage of the Thor, and has half its health. By contrast, in theory a unit which does 100% of a Thor's damage and has half health should be half the cost and supply (150/100/3) - and even then is slightly worse than the Thor. In other words, a few ghosts can make large numbers of Thors effective against large numbers of Immortals. The shield does matter.
I'm not saying there's nothing a protoss player can do to counteract this, but I think many people are underestimating the Thor in TvP right now because of just how bad feedback/charge zealot was against them. Now that feedback isn't useful and hellbats deal so well with zealots....
|
On December 15 2012 03:22 Treehead wrote:
I think it's telling that in this "Discussion of Tankless Mech in HotS", people are discussing tanks almost exclusively.
Let's pretend for a moment that you like tank-based play. If "tankless mech" is viable, couldn't you use this to open a window to make tanks. For an analogy, some protosses prefer HT in WoL PvT. Those protosses still go for Colossus (most of the time) if they believe it likely that an early push will occur before HT are ready. In this same way, couldn't a person open with "tankless mech" as a means of getting up the infrastructure to create tanks, and the upgrades for tanks - but in a way that doesn't have the fragility of mid-game tanks in low(-ish) numbers?
Now, let's pretend for a moment that you were really only looking for a factory-based army, and whether it's Tanks or Thors, you'll be happy just to have the alternative to bio. This thread is full of absolutely nothing for you. The most insightful bit so far is avilo's suggestion above that the testing provided may not have been against sufficiently high-level players to be conclusive.
Whether you believe mech must absolutely be tank-based or not, can we all agree that when Terran units such as the Thor, Widow Mine or Raven are improved, there is the potential for us to use this to get to whatever kind of army we want more easily? How about we discuss that instead of semantics.
On topic, as a protoss player, I think Thor-hellion could be scary. You need Immortals or air to deal with them in any kind of cost effectivfe way.
1. With air, you must either build a fleet beacon (which leaves you exposed for a bit) or you must use smaller scale units (like phoenixes or Voids) to deflect pushes. In large armies, in order to do this effectively, you must split your air units very well or splash damage will rip them apart (even just 20 damage splashed amongst just 3 or 4 units is a ton of splash damage). Once fleet beacon is finished, both Carriers and Tempests make decent responses to thors, but neither does particularly high dps.
2. With Immortals, you need to worry about EMP. An EMP-ed Immortal is a thor which deals 74% of the damage of the Thor, and has half its health. By contrast, in theory a unit which does 100% of a Thor's damage and has half health should be half the cost and supply (150/100/3) - and even then is slightly worse than the Thor. In other words, a few ghosts can make large numbers of Thors effective against large numbers of Immortals. The shield does matter.
I'm not saying there's nothing a protoss player can do to counteract this, but I think many people are underestimating the Thor in TvP right now because of just how bad feedback/charge zealot was against them. Now that feedback isn't useful and hellbats deal so well with zealots....
The bolded part of what you said already existed in wings of liberty. There is specifically a build i was using and similar ones others may have known about involving 2 factory thors with +2 armor before weapons that were tankless factory openers that eventually added on tanks later.
They might be OK now in HOTS since the addition of the mine/battlehellion adds quite a bit to mech. Before they were good but depended on the map being a turtle map like shakuras/metropolis or depended on protoss playing entirely passive for their openings.
It's tough to say, there is a point in TvP right now in HOTS where you end up tankless hilariously enough because if Protoss makes a pure air army of carrier/tempest + templar obviously tanks are dead supply in that instance and you only benefit from building thors/vikings/ravens/mines at that point.
|
On December 15 2012 02:03 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
You should check Naama's mech vs P in WoL. He goes hellion/tank/banshee and later to tank/banshee/BC and I can say that that its very powerfull. Why so many dont build banshees or/and bc with their tanks? It just makes army much better. (and yeah, ofc he had ghosts, you should always have ghost with mech)
It was so funny to see like 40 stalker and 20 immortal get owned by tank/bc/banshee :D
that sounds really cool, but what does he do vs skytoss?
the main issue i see is that there are really good anti ground options (tank/hellion/banshee or ghost/tank) and some good air options (raven/viking), but the trouble is being able to react accordingly to what protoss does.
|
I just tried basic Hellbat/Tank/Thor + Ravens as a support unit, because it basically hard counters both Immortals and Tempests.. Those 2 Units I fear most when playing mech. I have to say it works surprisingly well.. I'd love some high level player to test this composition at high master/grandmaster level.. Avilo, I'm looking at you lol.. :D
I also tried the same composition TvZ and well, against Hydra/Roach/Viper, PDD buyes you good 3-4 seconds. Then the Blinding Cloud wears off and your Tanks/Thors have free reign to obliterate Hydra/Roach.. You can also snipe Vipers with the new seeker missile, but you really need to save energy for PDD. If nothing, you trade Raven's energy for Vipers, because Vipers will die to Thors/Mines/Ravens.. The point is, you will keep most of your army alive.
I'm going to experiment more with this composition, but it seems that yamato so early in the game is not actually that bad..
edit: Ok, here is replay, just for demonstration purposes, I know Protoss played realtively bad.. http://drop.sc/284346
|
On December 15 2012 02:47 MattBarry wrote:
Give the tank a shield piercing passive so it does 50 damage to shields like BW tank. Make it do like 35 to hardened shields so immortals can still deal with mass tanks
HAHAHAHAHHAHAH ok. breakdown:
make tanks ultra-rape immortals, so immortals can still deal with mass tanks
NO
|
i dont like your opening at all..some reasons are
fast armory = yet it takes ages to start an upgrade, why not use it while its there?
early game = u ve like no units, any 1 base play will kill u if properly executed, any 2 base timing will be hard to stop. get like reactor on rax to produce marines so u can actually deal with early stuff.
besides that i think avilo said enough about your opponents, not really worth debating if its worthwhile to do that style. vs your kind of opponents, hell yea its doable, but u can also play real mech (tank etc) on that level of skill.
i think the higher u get into the rankings (very high master or gm) its just not rentable to go mech, any knowledgable protoss will destroy it, at least i ve not seen it done properly, yea sure u can have a pro game where its done (even in wol) but thats really rare.
i was only high master in wol when i was active but i never played bio so i feel like me + most people here who are not gm level can play mech, it doesnt really matter, u can win either way, even if bio is easier. but on pro level, no freakin way with how the immortal wrecks.
to leave with a positive thing to say, your pdd usage in the tempest game was okay. probably the only way to deal with tempest if u dont go mass viking. but well, he could ve feedbacked O.o
|
Well, just played some mech TvP games...some similar to what you're trying pookie, but i get demolished by people that actually build armies lol. Immortal/archon/zealot.
Played a guy that failed a 4 gate, and I tried to punish him with 2 base mech and somehow he holds it off...lol. The funny thing is I made tanks with siege off 2 facts, I think if i'd just made pure hellions off 3-4 factories i may have actually won LOL. The reason that's sad when you think about it is because it shows just how bad tanks are that someone can fail a 4 gate, and you're actually punished for building tanks and can't punish them back.
But if you just mass herrion it might actually be better than making any tanks at all...so counter intuitive that tanks suck this badly.
Played another game, and thors even without energy bar get demolished hardcore once there's enough immortals + other stuff.
I've just about given up on playing mech TvP. If even 1 warp prism gets thru to your base you lose the game because you can't send back half your army to deal with an infinite sized army being warped into your base. And if you move out of position even once, tanks are so bad against immortals that you can't even hold a position with 10 tanks already in siege mode - protoss just 1A's into you and laughs and you are left wondering "what the fuck did i do wrong?"
The buff then nerf to the armory split upgrades made it even worse because any time you build vikings just as before...you have 0/3 vikings vs 3/3/3 protoss ground. Which is just inherently punishing you for even attempting mech.
|
On December 15 2012 06:35 avilo wrote:
Well, just played some mech TvP games...some similar to what you're trying pookie, but i get demolished by people that actually build armies lol. Immortal/archon/zealot.
Played a guy that failed a 4 gate, and I tried to punish him with 2 base mech and somehow he holds it off...lol. The funny thing is I made tanks with siege off 2 facts, I think if i'd just made pure hellions off 3-4 factories i may have actually won LOL. The reason that's sad when you think about it is because it shows just how bad tanks are that someone can fail a 4 gate, and you're actually punished for building tanks and can't punish them back.
But if you just mass herrion it might actually be better than making any tanks at all...so counter intuitive that tanks suck this badly.
Played another game, and thors even without energy bar get demolished hardcore once there's enough immortals + other stuff.
I've just about given up on playing mech TvP. If even 1 warp prism gets thru to your base you lose the game because you can't send back half your army to deal with an infinite sized army being warped into your base. And if you move out of position even once, tanks are so bad against immortals that you can't even hold a position with 10 tanks already in siege mode - protoss just 1A's into you and laughs and you are left wondering "what the fuck did i do wrong?"
The buff then nerf to the armory split upgrades made it even worse because any time you build vikings just as before...you have 0/3 vikings vs 3/3/3 protoss ground. Which is just inherently punishing you for even attempting mech.
I like this part very much. As i see it, the biggest problem in Mech TvP right now is that it is very unforgiving if Terran is making even the slightest mistake. Protoss on the other hand can make more mistakes and still manage to stabilize.
|
On December 15 2012 06:35 avilo wrote:
Well, just played some mech TvP games...some similar to what you're trying pookie, but i get demolished by people that actually build armies lol. Immortal/archon/zealot.
Played a guy that failed a 4 gate, and I tried to punish him with 2 base mech and somehow he holds it off...lol. The funny thing is I made tanks with siege off 2 facts, I think if i'd just made pure hellions off 3-4 factories i may have actually won LOL. The reason that's sad when you think about it is because it shows just how bad tanks are that someone can fail a 4 gate, and you're actually punished for building tanks and can't punish them back.
But if you just mass herrion it might actually be better than making any tanks at all...so counter intuitive that tanks suck this badly.
Played another game, and thors even without energy bar get demolished hardcore once there's enough immortals + other stuff.
I've just about given up on playing mech TvP. If even 1 warp prism gets thru to your base you lose the game because you can't send back half your army to deal with an infinite sized army being warped into your base. And if you move out of position even once, tanks are so bad against immortals that you can't even hold a position with 10 tanks already in siege mode - protoss just 1A's into you and laughs and you are left wondering "what the fuck did i do wrong?"
The buff then nerf to the armory split upgrades made it even worse because any time you build vikings just as before...you have 0/3 vikings vs 3/3/3 protoss ground. Which is just inherently punishing you for even attempting mech.
this is also in response to your earlier post about the quality of my opponents and my opening. Your a grandmaster Avilo, im mid masters, you cant say "LOL the guys i play against would roll you!" yes Avilo but most people on TL aren't playing grandmasters protosses. It doesn't mean i cant have a thread or post my replays to give people some strats direction and have a discussion. You say my opening is bad, i have died once before the 12 minute mark, it was to a proxy chrono boosted oracle before patch #9 i just left he didnt actually kill me just like 10 of my scvs -_-. If i started actually dying from early toss aggression then yes i would tweak my build. But at my play level that is hardly a problem. Blink stalker all ins are the only early aggression i see and stalkers are just terrible vs thors in one base numbers. Couldn't you just leave a few widow mines around your base for warp prism? I actually have underused widow mines badly in my games and i keep forgetting about the upgrade. have you tried using upgraded widow mines in your mech compositions at all? id love to see some replays of that. Can yuo show me some replays of the games where you got "demolished" like you stated above?
|
On December 15 2012 06:35 avilo wrote:
Well, just played some mech TvP games...some similar to what you're trying pookie, but i get demolished by people that actually build armies lol. Immortal/archon/zealot.
Played a guy that failed a 4 gate, and I tried to punish him with 2 base mech and somehow he holds it off...lol. The funny thing is I made tanks with siege off 2 facts, I think if i'd just made pure hellions off 3-4 factories i may have actually won LOL. The reason that's sad when you think about it is because it shows just how bad tanks are that someone can fail a 4 gate, and you're actually punished for building tanks and can't punish them back.
But if you just mass herrion it might actually be better than making any tanks at all...so counter intuitive that tanks suck this badly.
Played another game, and thors even without energy bar get demolished hardcore once there's enough immortals + other stuff.
I've just about given up on playing mech TvP. If even 1 warp prism gets thru to your base you lose the game because you can't send back half your army to deal with an infinite sized army being warped into your base. And if you move out of position even once, tanks are so bad against immortals that you can't even hold a position with 10 tanks already in siege mode - protoss just 1A's into you and laughs and you are left wondering "what the fuck did i do wrong?"
The buff then nerf to the armory split upgrades made it even worse because any time you build vikings just as before...you have 0/3 vikings vs 3/3/3 protoss ground. Which is just inherently punishing you for even attempting mech.
This reads like the mindset someone who just recently lost a game would have before thinking things through. I don't mean to criticize, because I think exactly the same way when it feels like I did everything right and still lost.
1. Immortal/Archon/Zealot actually sounds like it'd be really bad against a number of things - air or ghosts, some Thors (which kill archons really fast) and of course you'd need a base of hellions to deal with the zealots. Most notably, I'd imagine hellion runbys would be amazing against such an army (with no stalkers/air to defend - unless he made a ton of cannons).
2. If your Thors are "getting demolished" by a ground army, you must be doing something wrong. Thors are cost effective against everything on the ground except charge zealots (see above section for them) - Immortals included if you can get an EMP.
3. Warp prism play isn't any stronger against mech than it is against bio - and in some ways it's weaker because your hellions can get back to defend faster than MMM can.
4. Your comment about tanks seems irrelevant given the flavor of this thread (being "tankless").
5. Air/Mech sharing armor upgrades isn't a punishment for going mech - it just isn't as much of a reward as you might like. And also, why on earth would you ever build vikings against a protoss ground force? Finally, how is it that your protoss can pursue three areas of upgrades (attack/armor/shields), yet you cannot (mech attack, air attack, mech/air armor)?
|
On December 15 2012 07:34 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:35 avilo wrote:
Well, just played some mech TvP games...some similar to what you're trying pookie, but i get demolished by people that actually build armies lol. Immortal/archon/zealot.
Played a guy that failed a 4 gate, and I tried to punish him with 2 base mech and somehow he holds it off...lol. The funny thing is I made tanks with siege off 2 facts, I think if i'd just made pure hellions off 3-4 factories i may have actually won LOL. The reason that's sad when you think about it is because it shows just how bad tanks are that someone can fail a 4 gate, and you're actually punished for building tanks and can't punish them back.
But if you just mass herrion it might actually be better than making any tanks at all...so counter intuitive that tanks suck this badly.
Played another game, and thors even without energy bar get demolished hardcore once there's enough immortals + other stuff.
I've just about given up on playing mech TvP. If even 1 warp prism gets thru to your base you lose the game because you can't send back half your army to deal with an infinite sized army being warped into your base. And if you move out of position even once, tanks are so bad against immortals that you can't even hold a position with 10 tanks already in siege mode - protoss just 1A's into you and laughs and you are left wondering "what the fuck did i do wrong?"
The buff then nerf to the armory split upgrades made it even worse because any time you build vikings just as before...you have 0/3 vikings vs 3/3/3 protoss ground. Which is just inherently punishing you for even attempting mech. This reads like the mindset someone who just recently lost a game would have before thinking things through. I don't mean to criticize, because I think exactly the same way when it feels like I did everything right and still lost. 1. Immortal/Archon/Zealot actually sounds like it'd be really bad against a number of things - air or ghosts, some Thors (which kill archons really fast) and of course you'd need a base of hellions to deal with the zealots. Most notably, I'd imagine hellion runbys would be amazing against such an army (with no stalkers/air to defend - unless he made a ton of cannons). 2. If your Thors are "getting demolished" by a ground army, you must be doing something wrong. Thors are cost effective against everything on the ground except charge zealots (see above section for them) - Immortals included if you can get an EMP. 3. Warp prism play isn't any stronger against mech than it is against bio - and in some ways it's weaker because your hellions can get back to defend faster than MMM can. 4. Your comment about tanks seems irrelevant given the flavor of this thread (being "tankless"). 5. Air/Mech sharing armor upgrades isn't a punishment for going mech - it just isn't as much of a reward as you might like. And also, why on earth would you ever build vikings against a protoss ground force? Finally, how is it that your protoss can pursue three areas of upgrades (attack/armor/shields), yet you cannot (mech attack, air attack, mech/air armor)?
Immortal/archon/chargelot is the standard Pvmech...
And warp prisms are a lot stronger vs mech because if it gets through your turret ring you don't have easy access to mobile AA (marine) to shoot it down and end the harrassment.
|
I see Protosses losing to Hellbat/Thor + any support all the time.. You build tank = gg for you.. Sad.. :/
edit: but i guess this is what Blizzard wants or what Blizzard means with "buffing mech"..
|
On December 15 2012 07:39 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:34 Treehead wrote:On December 15 2012 06:35 avilo wrote:
Well, just played some mech TvP games...some similar to what you're trying pookie, but i get demolished by people that actually build armies lol. Immortal/archon/zealot.
Played a guy that failed a 4 gate, and I tried to punish him with 2 base mech and somehow he holds it off...lol. The funny thing is I made tanks with siege off 2 facts, I think if i'd just made pure hellions off 3-4 factories i may have actually won LOL. The reason that's sad when you think about it is because it shows just how bad tanks are that someone can fail a 4 gate, and you're actually punished for building tanks and can't punish them back.
But if you just mass herrion it might actually be better than making any tanks at all...so counter intuitive that tanks suck this badly.
Played another game, and thors even without energy bar get demolished hardcore once there's enough immortals + other stuff.
I've just about given up on playing mech TvP. If even 1 warp prism gets thru to your base you lose the game because you can't send back half your army to deal with an infinite sized army being warped into your base. And if you move out of position even once, tanks are so bad against immortals that you can't even hold a position with 10 tanks already in siege mode - protoss just 1A's into you and laughs and you are left wondering "what the fuck did i do wrong?"
The buff then nerf to the armory split upgrades made it even worse because any time you build vikings just as before...you have 0/3 vikings vs 3/3/3 protoss ground. Which is just inherently punishing you for even attempting mech. This reads like the mindset someone who just recently lost a game would have before thinking things through. I don't mean to criticize, because I think exactly the same way when it feels like I did everything right and still lost. 1. Immortal/Archon/Zealot actually sounds like it'd be really bad against a number of things - air or ghosts, some Thors (which kill archons really fast) and of course you'd need a base of hellions to deal with the zealots. Most notably, I'd imagine hellion runbys would be amazing against such an army (with no stalkers/air to defend - unless he made a ton of cannons). 2. If your Thors are "getting demolished" by a ground army, you must be doing something wrong. Thors are cost effective against everything on the ground except charge zealots (see above section for them) - Immortals included if you can get an EMP. 3. Warp prism play isn't any stronger against mech than it is against bio - and in some ways it's weaker because your hellions can get back to defend faster than MMM can. 4. Your comment about tanks seems irrelevant given the flavor of this thread (being "tankless"). 5. Air/Mech sharing armor upgrades isn't a punishment for going mech - it just isn't as much of a reward as you might like. And also, why on earth would you ever build vikings against a protoss ground force? Finally, how is it that your protoss can pursue three areas of upgrades (attack/armor/shields), yet you cannot (mech attack, air attack, mech/air armor)? Immortal/archon/chargelot is the standard Pvmech... And warp prisms are a lot stronger vs mech because if it gets through your turret ring you don't have easy access to mobile AA (marine) to shoot it down and end the harrassment.
Hence widow mines...
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
On December 15 2012 08:00 Pookie Monster wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:39 avilo wrote:On December 15 2012 07:34 Treehead wrote:On December 15 2012 06:35 avilo wrote:
Well, just played some mech TvP games...some similar to what you're trying pookie, but i get demolished by people that actually build armies lol. Immortal/archon/zealot.
Played a guy that failed a 4 gate, and I tried to punish him with 2 base mech and somehow he holds it off...lol. The funny thing is I made tanks with siege off 2 facts, I think if i'd just made pure hellions off 3-4 factories i may have actually won LOL. The reason that's sad when you think about it is because it shows just how bad tanks are that someone can fail a 4 gate, and you're actually punished for building tanks and can't punish them back.
But if you just mass herrion it might actually be better than making any tanks at all...so counter intuitive that tanks suck this badly.
Played another game, and thors even without energy bar get demolished hardcore once there's enough immortals + other stuff.
I've just about given up on playing mech TvP. If even 1 warp prism gets thru to your base you lose the game because you can't send back half your army to deal with an infinite sized army being warped into your base. And if you move out of position even once, tanks are so bad against immortals that you can't even hold a position with 10 tanks already in siege mode - protoss just 1A's into you and laughs and you are left wondering "what the fuck did i do wrong?"
The buff then nerf to the armory split upgrades made it even worse because any time you build vikings just as before...you have 0/3 vikings vs 3/3/3 protoss ground. Which is just inherently punishing you for even attempting mech. This reads like the mindset someone who just recently lost a game would have before thinking things through. I don't mean to criticize, because I think exactly the same way when it feels like I did everything right and still lost. 1. Immortal/Archon/Zealot actually sounds like it'd be really bad against a number of things - air or ghosts, some Thors (which kill archons really fast) and of course you'd need a base of hellions to deal with the zealots. Most notably, I'd imagine hellion runbys would be amazing against such an army (with no stalkers/air to defend - unless he made a ton of cannons). 2. If your Thors are "getting demolished" by a ground army, you must be doing something wrong. Thors are cost effective against everything on the ground except charge zealots (see above section for them) - Immortals included if you can get an EMP. 3. Warp prism play isn't any stronger against mech than it is against bio - and in some ways it's weaker because your hellions can get back to defend faster than MMM can. 4. Your comment about tanks seems irrelevant given the flavor of this thread (being "tankless"). 5. Air/Mech sharing armor upgrades isn't a punishment for going mech - it just isn't as much of a reward as you might like. And also, why on earth would you ever build vikings against a protoss ground force? Finally, how is it that your protoss can pursue three areas of upgrades (attack/armor/shields), yet you cannot (mech attack, air attack, mech/air armor)? Immortal/archon/chargelot is the standard Pvmech... And warp prisms are a lot stronger vs mech because if it gets through your turret ring you don't have easy access to mobile AA (marine) to shoot it down and end the harrassment. Hence widow mines...
Do Widow Mines actually work in this situation? I can't imagine them getting past any moderate number of units to burrow in 5 range of the Warp Prism.
|
United States4883 Posts
On December 15 2012 01:39 avilo wrote:
I don't think you can go mech reliably without siege tanks (you need the splash) because a Protoss that actually knows what they're doing is going to build zero zealots and go pure blink stalker or chargelot/archon/immortal into tech switches.
Just thought I'd point out this little bit of consistency error in your post. But yes, you're right lol.
|
On December 15 2012 08:31 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 01:39 avilo wrote:
I don't think you can go mech reliably without siege tanks (you need the splash) because a Protoss that actually knows what they're doing is going to build zero zealots and go pure blink stalker or chargelot/archon/immortal into tech switches.
Just thought I'd point out this little bit of consistency error in your post. But yes, you're right lol.
zero zealot and pure blink stalker OR chargelot/archon/immortal.
|
On December 15 2012 06:57 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:35 avilo wrote:
Well, just played some mech TvP games...some similar to what you're trying pookie, but i get demolished by people that actually build armies lol. Immortal/archon/zealot.
Played a guy that failed a 4 gate, and I tried to punish him with 2 base mech and somehow he holds it off...lol. The funny thing is I made tanks with siege off 2 facts, I think if i'd just made pure hellions off 3-4 factories i may have actually won LOL. The reason that's sad when you think about it is because it shows just how bad tanks are that someone can fail a 4 gate, and you're actually punished for building tanks and can't punish them back.
But if you just mass herrion it might actually be better than making any tanks at all...so counter intuitive that tanks suck this badly.
Played another game, and thors even without energy bar get demolished hardcore once there's enough immortals + other stuff.
I've just about given up on playing mech TvP. If even 1 warp prism gets thru to your base you lose the game because you can't send back half your army to deal with an infinite sized army being warped into your base. And if you move out of position even once, tanks are so bad against immortals that you can't even hold a position with 10 tanks already in siege mode - protoss just 1A's into you and laughs and you are left wondering "what the fuck did i do wrong?"
The buff then nerf to the armory split upgrades made it even worse because any time you build vikings just as before...you have 0/3 vikings vs 3/3/3 protoss ground. Which is just inherently punishing you for even attempting mech. I like this part very much. As i see it, the biggest problem in Mech TvP right now is that it is very unforgiving if Terran is making even the slightest mistake. Protoss on the other hand can make more mistakes and still manage to stabilize.
Arbiters weren't forgiving either, but at least we had spider mines and cheaper turrets. Turrets, everywhere 
|
On December 14 2012 06:38 Acritter wrote:
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.
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.
it's still mech. you have to invest in mech upgrades at an armory. it's tankless mech, if it was just called mech then tanks would presumably be included.
going to watch the replays.
|
On December 15 2012 10:38 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:38 Acritter wrote:
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. 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. it's still mech. you have to invest in mech upgrades at an armory. it's tankless mech, if it was just called mech then tanks would presumably be included. going to watch the replays.
Yes it seems those guys have given up, they tried to turn this into a "why tanks suck in SC2" QQ thread and the rest of us weren't having it. There are already threads for that stuff open right now.
|
How can it be mech without 1) using tanks 2) happening in BW?
|
On December 15 2012 02:47 MattBarry wrote:
Give the tank a shield piercing passive so it does 50 damage to shields like BW tank. Make it do like 35 to hardened shields so immortals can still deal with mass tanks
I must agree here. Make tanks deal 3.5x more vs immortals so immortals can still handle tanks. lol.
|
On December 15 2012 12:48 NeMeSiS24 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 02:47 MattBarry wrote:
Give the tank a shield piercing passive so it does 50 damage to shields like BW tank. Make it do like 35 to hardened shields so immortals can still deal with mass tanks I must agree here. Make tanks deal 3.5x more vs immortals so immortals can still handle tanks. lol.
just nerf the immortal's hardened shield then... it's only really doing much against tanks and occasionally ultralisks anyway.
For example hardened shield could just be removed but immortals be given around 30 more hitpoints, they would be roughly the same against roaches, stalkers, marine/marauder, ling/ultra etc. but would be weaker against tanks especially.
As for this tankless style, I think it works pretty well now. Banshee/thor/hellbat is quite a potent combination. I still think you need a few tanks because tanks are the safest way to open if you want to go mech and without them blink play can screw you up.
|
On December 15 2012 08:31 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 01:39 avilo wrote:
I don't think you can go mech reliably without siege tanks (you need the splash) because a Protoss that actually knows what they're doing is going to build zero zealots and go pure blink stalker or chargelot/archon/immortal into tech switches.
Just thought I'd point out this little bit of consistency error in your post. But yes, you're right lol.
There's points of time in games where you build pure stalker vs mech. Later on you get chargelots etc.
On December 15 2012 08:40 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:31 SC2John wrote:On December 15 2012 01:39 avilo wrote:
I don't think you can go mech reliably without siege tanks (you need the splash) because a Protoss that actually knows what they're doing is going to build zero zealots and go pure blink stalker or chargelot/archon/immortal into tech switches.
Just thought I'd point out this little bit of consistency error in your post. But yes, you're right lol. zero zealot and pure blink stalker OR chargelot/archon/immortal.
Yes, that.
|
On December 15 2012 13:21 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 12:48 NeMeSiS24 wrote:On December 15 2012 02:47 MattBarry wrote:
Give the tank a shield piercing passive so it does 50 damage to shields like BW tank. Make it do like 35 to hardened shields so immortals can still deal with mass tanks I must agree here. Make tanks deal 3.5x more vs immortals so immortals can still handle tanks. lol. just nerf the immortal's hardened shield then... it's only really doing much against tanks and occasionally ultralisks anyway. For example hardened shield could just be removed but immortals be given around 30 more hitpoints, they would be roughly the same against roaches, stalkers, marine/marauder, ling/ultra etc. but would be weaker against tanks especially. As for this tankless style, I think it works pretty well now. Banshee/thor/hellbat is quite a potent combination. I still think you need a few tanks because tanks are the safest way to open if you want to go mech and without them blink play can screw you up.
I have a replay against blink stalkers Thors deal with them well enough, i actually have tried opening tanks and a blink MSC opening just rolls over it really bad because tanks take the same amount of time to build as thors but are far less deadly in small numbers. As i told Avilo the thor opening is why i dont die before the 12 minute mark, ever.
|
|
|
On December 15 2012 19:32 Pookie Monster wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 13:21 Markwerf wrote:On December 15 2012 12:48 NeMeSiS24 wrote:On December 15 2012 02:47 MattBarry wrote:
Give the tank a shield piercing passive so it does 50 damage to shields like BW tank. Make it do like 35 to hardened shields so immortals can still deal with mass tanks I must agree here. Make tanks deal 3.5x more vs immortals so immortals can still handle tanks. lol. just nerf the immortal's hardened shield then... it's only really doing much against tanks and occasionally ultralisks anyway. For example hardened shield could just be removed but immortals be given around 30 more hitpoints, they would be roughly the same against roaches, stalkers, marine/marauder, ling/ultra etc. but would be weaker against tanks especially. As for this tankless style, I think it works pretty well now. Banshee/thor/hellbat is quite a potent combination. I still think you need a few tanks because tanks are the safest way to open if you want to go mech and without them blink play can screw you up. I have a replay against blink stalkers Thors deal with them well enough, i actually have tried opening tanks and a blink MSC opening just rolls over it really bad because tanks take the same amount of time to build as thors but are far less deadly in small numbers. As i told Avilo the thor opening is why i dont die before the 12 minute mark, ever.
As a protoss player, I am way more scared of Thors than tanks. Tanks are the thing that makes me back off or rethink my attack. Thors just scare the crap out of me because a bad engagement will ruin me. The mass repair, high DPS vs all units and the fact that they outrange most protoss units makes them really scare.
I don't know where tanks fit in against protoss right now. I think they can be scary as shit, but not in an open field and not massed. But it feels like there is a very specific number of tanks that will improve any mech build. Much like colossi are great in vs Bio, but the protoss is best only getting 3-4. There has to be a number that makes the AOE damage worth it in the back of a factory based army.
|
some of the replays arent working anymore.
the last 5 of the OP post
|
On December 16 2012 03:02 Tppz! wrote:
some of the replays arent working anymore.
the last 5 of the OP post
The top 5 are the same relays as the bottom five just put them on different sites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
