|
There appears to be an overwhelming desire to see Terran Mech (factory play) independently define at least 1 match-up, and typically it's TvP. Many posters on these forums are upset that going solely mech is not a viable option currently. These sentiments keep coming up in discussions of Marauders for what it's worth.
My question is : why is it so desirable for Terran to be completely mech in at least one matchup? It's such a limited troop selection and possible gameplay experience. Would people be happy with Protoss being strongest off only Stargates or Robo Facilities, or Zerg to be forced to just build Hydras and Infestors in some matchup?
I think the main reason is that people recall TvP from BroodWar and want to relive it in SC2, rather then seeing any real design reason why this must be the case - it just happened to work and be interesting in BW. There's no reason a new balance and gameplay couldn't be worked towards now in SC2.
Ironically it seems like Mech is strongest against Zerg right now anyway, to the lament of people who want it to be the correct unit composition for TvP.
Is there a good reason why Factory units shouldn't play a complimentary role to Barracks and Star Port units? Why should they stand alone and provide better gameplay then a mix of many options?
|
Mass of any teir should be viable, with support from any other teir, depending on circumstances.
Plus, in the future, do you really think the most effective way to win a war is a bunch of guys running around on the ground with guns?
Infantry is more support than it is the primary way to win a war. Air power and things like tanks and ships are where it's at.
|
I'd rather have both good mech and bio in all matchups than letting one of the branches be the standard for every matchup.
|
Part of it is how terran upgrades work. They have attack and armor upgrades for Infantry, mech and air.
So being able to focus on one of them makes sense.
|
I applaud you good sir. People just don't want to chage.
|
On April 06 2010 04:42 Zaqwert wrote:
Mass of any teir should be viable, with support from any other teir, depending on circumstances.
Plus, in the future, do you really think the most effective way to win a war is a bunch of guys running around on the ground with guns?
Infantry is more support than it is the primary way to win a war. Air power and things like tanks and ships are where it's at.
Dude, no one cares how "real" the game is as long as it's entertaining. 
|
Playing a complimentary role is not very efficient in a long game. Zerg and Protoss can have more complimentary ground units because their upgrades effect all ground attacks or all ground armor (granted zerg do have melee vs range). Terran can only upgrade infantry or vehicles, which means that both factory armies and infantry armies SHOULD be viable on their own.
|
I think they just don't like winning. If you can win with barracks only units wtf are you complaining at? Now if the complainers are playing for fun it stills doenst make sense, MM are so fun, and even if they are not to some people, they win games and thats all it should matter anyway.
|
On April 06 2010 04:42 Zaqwert wrote:
Mass of any teir should be viable, with support from any other teir, depending on circumstances.
Plus, in the future, do you really think the most effective way to win a war is a bunch of guys running around on the ground with guns?
Infantry is more support than it is the primary way to win a war. Air power and things like tanks and ships are where it's at.
Lol! I'm gonna say it. SC2 is a game. Not suppose to be realistic. And as the above poster said, it's all about the entertainment and exciting as an E-Sport.
|
On April 06 2010 04:46 chocoed wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:42 Zaqwert wrote:
Mass of any teir should be viable, with support from any other teir, depending on circumstances.
Plus, in the future, do you really think the most effective way to win a war is a bunch of guys running around on the ground with guns?
Infantry is more support than it is the primary way to win a war. Air power and things like tanks and ships are where it's at. Lol! I'm gonna say it. SC2 is a game. Not suppose to be realistic. And as the above poster said, it's all about the entertainment and exciting as an E-Sport.
Right, and watching every terran player mass marauders in every matchup isn't exactly the pinnacle of entertaining and exciting to play or watch. That is why terran players want more viable options, i.e. mech.
|
Its rather simple
Mech is allot of fun to play/watch.
|
On April 06 2010 04:42 Zaqwert wrote:
Mass of any teir should be viable, with support from any other teir, depending on circumstances.
Yes.
Plus, in the future, do you really think the most effective way to win a war is a bunch of guys running around on the ground with guns?
Infantry is more support than it is the primary way to win a war. Air power and things like tanks and ships are where it's at.
Nay. StarCraft doesn't have tanks. They have these artillery pieces which are called tanks, but they're not tanks. If it has anything like tanks, they're things that don't look like tanks: marauders, immortals, ultralisks, etc.
|
Which sounds more entertaining:
You can mass infantry, with mech and air for support.
vs.
You cas mass infantry, with mech and air for support OR
You can mass mech, with infantry and air for support OR
You can mass air, with infantry and mech for support
The more things that are viable the more entertaining the game is.
|
On April 06 2010 04:45 Holden Caulfield wrote:
I think they just don't like winning. If you can win with barracks only units wtf are you complaining at? Now if the complainers are playing for fun it stills doenst make sense, MM are so fun, and even if they are not to some people, they win games and thats all it should matter anyway.
Players care for the SC2's welfare as an esport. They foresee that going MM every game isn't very fun to watch nor to play.
|
It is mostly that it increases variety. Instead of there being TvZ, theres T infantry or T Air or T Mech v several different Z combinations. That extends the life of the game a whole lot. I think both air and infantry are fairly viable at this point, if mech just had a tiny boost, it could be too. It seems a shame for it not to be.
|
On April 06 2010 04:39 RPGabe wrote:
My question is : why is it so desirable for Terran to be completely mech in at least one matchup? It's such a limited troop selection and possible gameplay experience. Would people be happy with Protoss being strongest off only Stargates or Robo Facilities, or Zerg to be forced to just build Hydras and Infestors in some matchup?
you just answered your own question >.>
My question is : why is it so desirable for Terran to be completely Bio in ALL MATCHUPS? It's such a limited troop selection and possible gameplay experience. Would people be happy with Protoss being strongest off only Stargates or Robo Facilities, or Zerg to be forced to just build Hydras and Infestors in some matchup?
We want terran mech to be viable so that we dont see mass marauders every single fucking game that a terran plays.
|
I don't necessarily see it as an obsession with "MUST GO MECH OR THIS GAME SUCKS," but moreso as a "there is no more option to mech now and that's one less dimension"
Fewer dimensions = bad.
|
I hate to be nostalgic but with the current units we have in T Factory, even buffing them wouldn't make mech play something fun. The good old days of intelligent siege positioning + minefield with turrents, supplies and goliaths are dead and gone.
But even so, I'd like to see mech play with the new units just becuase mass marauders with stim + medivac every game isn't fun at all to watch or play against.
Right now, Bio *IS* the only option, with the occasional Banshee play because Z has no T1 anti-air other than queen.
|
On April 06 2010 04:45 Holden Caulfield wrote:
I think they just don't like winning. If you can win with barracks only units wtf are you complaining at? Now if the complainers are playing for fun it stills doenst make sense, MM are so fun, and even if they are not to some people, they win games and thats all it should matter anyway.
Winning is all that should matter? Seriously? So you're happy if you just do the same thing over and over as long as you win? That's really boring, for the players and for the spectators. Also, having fun should always come first, otherwise winning feels pointless.
Anyway, just some more variety would be nice. The top players are experimenting a lot with mech right now and I hope they come up with something nice. And maybe Blizz will help making mech more viable soon.
|
Mech is the glass cannon identity.
Mech catalyzes dynamic unit positioning and tactics.
Mech is big boom booms.
Mech is closest to traditional human warfare.
Mech is the antithesis of 'walk and shoot' infantry balls of all the races.
Mech makes for strong positional and map tension.
People want mech because it's inherently awesome. They want it to be not just barely viable in at least one or two matchups, but to be STRONG and a FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH.
MECH! MECH! MECH!
|
Well, I find bionic vs. Zerg and metal vs. Protoss in BW VERY FUN to both watch and play. Mech vs. Zerg doesn't seem that fun to me unless on rare occasions, same for bionic TvP. It's just my subjective opinion.
|
On April 06 2010 04:42 Zaqwert wrote:
Mass of any teir should be viable, with support from any other teir, depending on circumstances.
Plus, in the future, do you really think the most effective way to win a war is a bunch of guys running around on the ground with guns?
Infantry is more support than it is the primary way to win a war. Air power and things like tanks and ships are where it's at.
Your wrong.
In terms of realism, study our history of conflict on this planet.
|
On April 06 2010 05:04 0neder wrote:
Mech is the antithesis of 'walk and shoot' infantry balls of all the races.
Mech makes for strong positional and map tension.
In SC1. In SC2, it's just A-move with robots instead of troops. Units have no identity or fun abilities.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
I personally feel that Bio and Mech should BOTH be viable in all matchups. Being stuck in mech in TvP and TvT on Brood War really limited your options.
|
Many people still want this game to be SC1:reactivation. Examples that i remember:
- Banshees are stupid, wraith in sc1 couldn't do this! (wooow comparing "bomber" to "fighter", way to go!)
- Marauders are stupid, infantry should die to 1 storm!
- Roaches are stupid, zerg units should die fast!!! (tell this to ultralisk)
- Mech is stupid, they should be core of an army, not support! (Now try to tell this to any "modern" real life army that they should deploy only tanks and no troops at all because using infantry is stupid. You'll get a cookie if you add that the reason behind this is that infantry dies to psi storms obviously)
Ideally i would like to see all 3 of: infantry, mech and air being equally viable, but noone is gonna hope for that so i'd settle with tanks being awesome support to mass infantry just like the way they are ATM
|
The problem terran has in Brood War and in SC2 is that it's pretty much impossible to go "air", even though air has separate upgrades.
Battlecruisers are such shitty units compared to other tier 3 units that you can't go BC's and support them with say a few vikings, and ravens, whereas P can go nearly pure carriers with a few ground units (immortal/templar) and Z can go half and half broodlords/ground.
I'd rather that T air becomes more viable as a main force and not only as harrass with 1-2 banshees and support with 2-3 vikings vs colossus.
|
A good mix of all units being viable is ideal, but the fact is that you have to build units that counter what your opponent is getting (reactively) or be the one playing proactively making your opponent getting units that counter yours. The problem is that mech takes longer to roll out and thus you are stuck in the reactive play-style. This leads to the getting bio "mindset". Mech is also very gas dependent which counter-acts the current one base pressure trends we see right now. I think when people feel comfortable expanding and the meta-game switches to a more macro orientated type of play-style (Asia servers) mech will be seen more and more. This really all just comes down to time which the beta hasnt really had at the moment. I say give the game a little more room to breath and a more balanced mix of units will come into play.
|
Extremely hard counters in each match-up will automatically lead to (almost) identical games.
Of course there will always be 1 counter that is more popular or better suited in most situations, but if u look at BW the mapmakers made the game flourish because a counter could get an edge by a specific map instead of the usual gameplay. (I'm not referring to island or semi-island maps...)
|
On April 06 2010 05:00 zazen wrote:
I hate to be nostalgic but with the current units we have in T Factory, even buffing them wouldn't make mech play something fun.
But even so, I'd like to see mech play with the new units just becuase mass marauders with stim + medivac every game isn't fun at all to watch or play against.
Right now, Bio *IS* the only option.
You need to watch Gretorp's stream.
Jinro also just said on the SC2B podcast with Day9 he's been going straight up Mech vs Z for like the last month.
|
Siege Tanks rape Zealots and Stalkers while your cliche MnMnM army rips Immortals and Colossi apart; that's something that should be seen more often. We've got it so stuck in our head that we should have 1 building, produce 2 types of units, and be able to win the game. I'm pretty sure a build utilizing an MnMnM strategy will be crushed by a mixture of units available (Tank + Banshee + Viking + Marine, for example)
Of course, to make the game more of a true RTS (in my eyes), we need to balance it correctly to remove the black-and-white aspects. As of now, MnMnM is the "only" (quote-unquote. srsly) option. Likewise, it's Immortals + Colossi or bust. If the balance can be changed in such away that a healthy mix is viable, rather than a single production building, I think we would have a much better game.
In other words? Don't cry when your Marauders and Marines lose to Siege Tanks, Marauders and Marines, even if they have less Marauders and Marines than you do. It should be that way. A combination of units should beat less diverse armies (barring stupid combinations like Medivacs and Vikings)
Sure, an army with a "core" of X unit(s) is fine, but when it comes to the point that entire buildings are unused unless the enemy does Y...lolwut.
|
On April 06 2010 04:42 Zoler wrote:
I'd rather have both good mech and bio in all matchups than letting one of the branches be the standard for every matchup.
Yeah. This should be obvious.
|
I don't want SC2 TvP to look just like it did in BW. That is, I don't want Terran players to *totally* forgo barracks units.... I just want more variety. Ideally you should need a big mix of units. Infantry shouldn't be all that great at just a-moving over someone's well defended base. Siege tanks just feel pretty useless these days.
I wanna see Terran get a diverse army in all matchups! I'm sick of mass marauders t.t;
|
How is pure mech not being viable all that different from SC1? TvZ sure mech existed but almost every game was played with bio, TvP save all-ins only mech was ever used, TvT again pretty much only mech. Each matchup does not need to play like it did in sc1. This is SC2 not SC1 HD.
Now all terran does is mass marauders every game, is this really true? I can't think of a game vs zerg where I can simply mass marauders unless he is incredibly terrible. Speedling will destroy you early game and mutas prove to be a major threat. vs muta armies we usually see MMM + viking, I could see ravens being added also in the future. vs ground army MMM + tank and again possibly ravens. How is this more boring than MnM + vessel and then tanks later on. Theres also banshee tech play.
TvT while marauders again are part of the core, tanks/vikings/banshees can all be used very effectively in combination with eachother and marauders.
TvP we don't see tanks because they are countered so incredibly well by immortals. Does this mean we should buff tanks? No, probably not, or if they are not largely. A bigger problem is maybe immortals counter tanks too well. The way their hardened shield mechanic works pertty much specifically counters tanks + thors, I can't think of any other unit that has this kind of damage output (besids another immortal).
If we view an army like, Marauder + Tank + viking in tvt. This IS the mech army of sc2. Vikings taking the role of goliath, and marauders are where your extra minerals go. The reason we see marauders so much is simple, they have very high hp/cost and cost almost entirely minerals. Hellions do not come close to marauders in this role. It's no different how toss dumps excess minerals into lot/goon in sc1 or zerg spends it on ling. A reason besides, it'd be fun, would be nice. I don't know that every army should be viable ever, thats like saying toss should be able to get pure immortal/colossus so robo is viable, they DO go immortal/collosus but they get gateway units with their extra minerals. The concept is no different for terran.
|
Day 9 Daily - Watch the TvZ where louder masses hellions/thors against hydra roach, then delete this thread.
Thanks.
|
I like mech cause, tank fire pwning shit is sooooooooooooo awesome
|
What was interesting about it in BW was how Terran played each MU almost COMPLETELY differently from the other (SK terran vs mass tank/vults with a push vs siege tank lines and mass dropship play). TvP was so fundamentally different (yet skillfully equal) from TvZ or ZvP that it made the entire game as a spectator sport so much more fun. There's just something to be said about the slow push of siege tanks and reaver harass that is missing right now from all MUs in the game.
While Bio TvZ and PvZ are still pretty reminiscent of their BW counterparts, PvT is very different but so far proves to be a lot more boring.
|
+1 I completely agree. Nothing wrong with Mech playing a little more of a support role in most games
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On April 06 2010 04:43 DeathSpank wrote:
I applaud you good sir. People just don't want to chage.
No, people want variety lol
|
Hellions ftw against hydras and lings is all i can say.
|
People want mech because that way there's more OPTIONS for Terran gameplay
I'd rather lob my nuts off than have EVERY single one of my games revolve around a single unit (Marauder)
I was thinking of maining Terran before I started playing beta, because I thought they'd have a lot of different options that would make them fun to play, and keep my opponent on their toes.
But now all anyone has to do to win with Terran is mass Marauders with Medivacs. How exciting.
Sometimes Banshee play is viable too, and that makes me happy. But what's the point of having 3 completely useless units?
|
first of all.. u obviously didn't play Terran in sc1.. and mech play to terrans was as deeply rooted in their identity as muta play was to zerg.. or carriers to toss... it was the "2nd option".. and before u say.. THIS ISN'T SC1.. that's true.. but it is it's sequel.. and should have similar dynamics..
second of all.. it's not that mech play isn't viable.. it hasn't been figured out yet.. it's a lot more practical than toss going for just robotics facility
|
i tell you why
because it's fcking boring to go the same units, have the same army composition (besides like ghosts and ravens) in every matchup
|
Please note that my post isn't supporting the dominance of Just-Make-Marauders instead of mech-only play. I'm saying both are ultimately crappy.
Isn't it better gameplay to have all races require MANY units to answer and counter specific compositions from the opponent? I shouldn't be able to go all factory units completely irregardless of what my opponent is up to. I should always have to respond, and that goes for him as well.
What then decides games is how well I understand the match-ups, my positioning, my mechanics, etc. If there are shortcomings in my unit composition, it's because I'm leveraging my resources elsewhere (and trying to hide shortcomings accordingly).
I cannot fathom why anyone would support gameplay that's something like "I make these 2 units in this matchup. I make this decision during the loading screen, irregardless of what my opponent is doing."
On April 06 2010 06:06 Iris7 wrote:
first of all.. u obviously didn't play Terran in sc1.. and mech play to terrans was as deeply rooted in their identity as muta play was to zerg.. or carriers to toss... it was the "2nd option".. and before u say.. THIS ISN'T SC1.. that's true.. but it is it's sequel.. and should have similar dynamics..
second of all.. it's not that mech play isn't viable.. it hasn't been figured out yet.. it's a lot more practical than toss going for just robotics facility
I did actually, followed it very closely too. Obviously mech-only play was necessary in SC1 because infantry was near useless against Terran and Toss. I'm saying that's probably a bad thing in the long run for a new game.
Even though the marauder is a pain in the ass, it's at least keeping bio relevant as an option in all 3 match-ups.
|
If I have to upgrade bio and mech independently of each other, I should be able to use entirely one tech tree for one match up.
|
I'm not entirely sure people are suggesting (at least I'm not) that we buff mech to the point where its viable by itself. I simply want Hellions and Thors to be useful. I've seen them used in some pretty creative ways, but nothing that the average player could pull off.
Frankly i just think a cost reduction would help mech. Siege tanks/thors are very expensive for what you get. That said, I have noticed that siege tanks have been turning the tides for me in TVP lately, because it seems like as soon as toss get those colossi, the games over.
|
On April 06 2010 06:12 RPGabe wrote:
Please note that my post isn't supporting the dominance of Just-Make-Marauders instead of mech-only play. I'm saying both are ultimately crappy.
Isn't it better gameplay to have all races require MANY units to answer and counter specific compositions from the opponent? I shouldn't be able to go all factory units completely irregardless of what my opponent is up to. I should always have to respond, and that goes for him as well.
What then decides games is how well I understand the match-ups, my positioning, my mechanics, etc. If there are shortcomings in my unit composition, it's because I'm leveraging my resources elsewhere (and trying to hide shortcomings accordingly).
I cannot fathom why anyone would support gameplay that's something like "I make these 2 units in this matchup. I make this decision during the loading screen, irregardless of what my opponent is doing."
If there are no bread and butter units that are reliable enough to be opened with, games will be decided based on luck of the build order. It decreases the significance of positioning and mechanics since the game will devolve to who is lucky enough to open the build that counters the other.
Having standard play involve mixes of every unit is impossible simply because most attacking units overlap in role. Also, the way SC2 is structured, building some of every type of unit requires a huge investment on infrastructure that could be better off increasing your army size. Suggest to me a non-complicated way to encourage use of many units?
|
Im not so sure about Mech not being viable, but mass Marauder seems stronger, cheaper and way easier to control.
|
Playing mech was (is!) a different experience than bio, one that I enjoy very much. I just love how it was extremely strong while stationary, but weak on the move. I love the slow push, it creates great tension. The positional play simply makes the game sooo much more interesting!
The dmg potential of mech was terrible, terrible. It was all very strategic (or tactical? I often mix these up). I love how a good flank could completely destroy a huge mech army, but if the terran reacted accordingly he could absolutely devastate the toss forces. Mech is pure entertainment! I hope it comes back in some form in SC2
|
On April 06 2010 05:26 FleuR wrote:
TvP we don't see tanks because they are countered so incredibly well by immortals. Does this mean we should buff tanks? No, probably not, or if they are not largely. A bigger problem is maybe immortals counter tanks too well. The way their hardened shield mechanic works pertty much specifically counters tanks + thors, I can't think of any other unit that has this kind of damage output (besids another immortal).
This.
If Immortals didn't have Hardened Shields the way it works rite...mech would be ALOT more viable and a lot of people would using more tanks TvP.
|
On April 06 2010 05:07 zazen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:04 0neder wrote:
Mech is the antithesis of 'walk and shoot' infantry balls of all the races.
Mech makes for strong positional and map tension.
In SC1. In SC2, it's just A-move with robots instead of troops. Units have no identity or fun abilities.
Watch Gretorp's stream. He has the same good tank positioning from sc1.
|
the wish for "stronger mech" is imho more about gameplay than it is about balance.
an quite frankly calling for more diversity in the terran army sounds very weird especially regarding broodwar.
right now the diversity is way better than it ever was in broodwar. you have the barack units which are useful in every matchup till the end.
you have starport units which are heavily used in almost every matchup.
and even the often discussed mech units find a lot of use (hellion harass, siege tanks both for turtle and contain & players find more and more uses for thor (and will even more with AE anti-air))
i think people don't really want more diversity they want less. they want to be able to win games with mech only, using no bio (after early game) and starport units only for drops/anti-air.
but honestly this style of play was the reason for some of the most annoying matchups in broodwar. TvT in sc2 is way better than it was in broodwar. and as a player playing against turtling terrans with huge siege-lines and gazillion spider-mines was just work. clearing out mines was tiresome and boring for spectators.
marauders might need some balancing. and the reactor change might have been a little to harsh making bio armys even heavier on marauders. but ultimately i sincerely hope that blizzard will keep bio an important part of terran armys in all matchups throughout the game!
|
On April 06 2010 05:07 zazen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:04 0neder wrote:
Mech is the antithesis of 'walk and shoot' infantry balls of all the races.
Mech makes for strong positional and map tension.
In SC1. In SC2, it's just A-move with robots instead of troops. Units have no identity or fun abilities.
Haha this sums it up for me.
In BW the mech identity is a slow cost effective group of units that are hard to attack head on but have weakness in their lack of speed and ability to only harass early on with vultures or drops.
It's a really unique thing, every RTS ive ever played plays sorta like SC2 does except for BW and to a lesser extent Frozen Throne(Just because of the hero system). Its actually kind of sad cuz I really feel like SC2 is only maybe slightly ahead of Dawn of War in terms of quality and playability.
|
On April 06 2010 04:51 Archerofaiur wrote:
Its rather simple
Mech is allot of fun to play/watch.
Q.E.D.
Maybe they could stop deballing toss and give us back a decent Storm. That would make templar worthwhile and encourage mech in TvP.
|
Personally I feel like the way it's going now, zvt mech is pretty good. zvp mech is no goods. Thor make a really good niche in there vs hydra and muta, add in some hellions and you're protected against most everything that zerg can throw at you.
zvp... I'm not sure if it's just that marauders are too good, or the terran mech isn't good enough. Kind of a tossup.
Thor and tank definitely have a big role in tvt. So I'd say it's a good option there.
|
More suitable title of thread would be "The obsession with diversity"
Kind of self explanatory..
|
We want mech because it's completely unviable right now. In SC:BW over all matchups, terran had the option to go Mech, Biomech or Bio. Now Terran has Biomech and Bio. Its just more interesting to have more options at your disposal/to not see infantry in every matchup
|
On April 06 2010 04:42 Zaqwert wrote:
Infantry is more support than it is the primary way to win a war. Air power and things like tanks and ships are where it's at.
This is actually the exact opposite of what happens in reality. You don't win a total victory until you occupy, and you don't occupy with air superiority--you occupy with masses of infantry.
On April 06 2010 08:05 See.Blue wrote:
We want mech because it's completely unviable right now.
lol.
On April 06 2010 08:05 See.Blue wrote:
In SC:BW over all matchups, terran had the option to go Mech, Biomech or Bio.
Strange that I never saw Terrans going bio vs Protoss, or how extraordinarily rare mech vs Zerg was.
|
On April 06 2010 08:09 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:42 Zaqwert wrote:
Infantry is more support than it is the primary way to win a war. Air power and things like tanks and ships are where it's at. This is actually the exact opposite of what happens in reality. You don't win a total victory until you occupy, and you don't occupy with air superiority--you occupy with masses of infantry. Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 08:05 See.Blue wrote:
We want mech because it's completely unviable right now. lol. Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 08:05 See.Blue wrote:
In SC:BW over all matchups, terran had the option to go Mech, Biomech or Bio. Strange that I never saw Terrans going bio vs Protoss, or how extraordinarily rare mech vs Zerg was.
instead of being a smart-ass maybe u should bring something to the table
i want buffed mech because im getting pretty sick of how lame terran is and how u only can make marauders
|
I play terran. I like terran. I go mech sometimes. Sometimes I go air. Sometimes I go bio. All the time I mix them. Terran, out of all the races, is more focused on unit composition, so mix it up peoples. I don't go marauder balls. Most of what I have read is bluu bluu. <---- All Facts
For cereals though, mech was lacking, that is why the last patch OBVIOUSLY boosted terrans ability to go mech. Like ... less minerals for factory so you can get faster gas, cheaper vikings, and tech labs. Not huge changes, but I like vikings more and it forces me to build reactors on buildings I'm not using so I don't have to wait 40 seconds. My advice to non-FrozenArbitor terrans out there, try stuff, you might like it.
P.S. I don't know if the OP is referring to the nostalgic people, but I don't think terran players only want TvP to be mech and only TvZ to be bio. It's the opposite in sc2 and that's groovy with me. The game is still fun.
P.P.S Oh yeah, terran in sc:bw. LOL! There wasn't really diversity in standard play, terran had 1-2 options in each MU. TvT wraith +siege made me cream my jeans when I saw it, and warped my little mind ever since. TvT sc2 strat of viking/seige, it's like 9-2 on ranked plat league. How's that for nostalgia?
|
On April 06 2010 08:15 MorroW wrote:
instead of being a smart-ass maybe u should bring something to the table
Bring what to the table? There's nothing to bring because there is no problem. This is just the next in a long line of "SC2 needs to be more like SC1" threads.
On April 06 2010 08:15 MorroW wrote:
i want buffed mech because im getting pretty sick of how lame terran is and how u only can make marauders
I'd like to see you play Terran and get to #1 Pro League while only building marauders, then.
There are plenty of examples of factory units being used to great effect, and there have even been examples of successful mech play posted in this thread. It's really a wonder this thread is still open, considering the turn it's taken over the past few pages.
|
This is simple, and it's not about people wanting to play pure mech. Look:
Marauders are one of the few units Terran has that can do anything reasonable to a protoss ground army. Terran players use a lot of them.
Protoss players complain 'Marauders are overpowered, all Terran has to do is make mass Marauders and they win!'
Terran players counter with 'Maybe if building most of our units - especially mech ones - in the matchup wasn't an autoloss, we'd build more than marauders (and ghosts/medivacs/vikings/a few marines)'
And now you've completely missed the point and think that the problem is just that we like mech for some weird aesthetic reason.
|
I'd love it if protoss would be strong with a mass stargate and a few ground support, That would make my day to see a solid strategy built around that!
|
On April 06 2010 04:46 chocoed wrote:
Lol! I'm gonna say it. SC2 is a game. Not suppose to be realistic. And as the above poster said, it's all about the entertainment and exciting as an E-Sport.
Obviously it is a game, but saying "it is just a game" is the usual lazy excuse to not having to bother with reality. There are "Terrans" (humans) involved and why do we have to have them if they are totally different from us? Why have them if their "reality" is totally different from us? That doesnt make sense. Using a similar physics and biology (green grass and grey lava and buildings instead of bright pink for example) makes it easy to understand for "us real life dudes". Saying "it is just a game" is ignoring these points and having things that "contradict our reality" (like an infantry dude which is almost as tough as a big tank when you shoot him with a Machine Gun) make a game harder to understand for many people. Tanks are A LOT tougher than infantry and this is an expectation of players. Obviously this works only for Terrans, because Protoss and Zerg are totally alien races of which we have no expectations (except those we formed in SC1), so the logic of them can work totally different.
One of the main reasons why tanks are MUCH less effective in SC2 is that they have the same stats as SC1 (Minerals, Gas, hp), but cost 3 food instead of 2. Thus they got "nerfed" by 50%. If their toughness had increased by the same amount I would understand it, but it didnt. So people will stick to the vastly cheaper Marauder all the time, because it is absolutely easier to mass.
|
On April 06 2010 04:43 DeathSpank wrote:
I applaud you good sir. People just don't want to change.
seconded. Pretty good OP. We all just kind of assumed it should be so (mech in tvp) and the reason we thought that is that we remember BW. But no underlying reason for it.
|
Don't you go mech in TvT?
Granted, some people still go Bio, but there are a couple people that have found a way where mech (Viking/Banshee, Viking/Tank) has been viable?
Am I barking up a dead tree or is this actually viable?
|
On April 06 2010 10:49 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Don't you go mech in TvT?
Granted, some people still go Bio, but there are a couple people that have found a way where mech (Viking/Banshee, Viking/Tank) has been viable?
Am I barking up a dead tree or is this actually viable?
It's all viable still. Almost everything within reason is because the game hasn't been figured out yet. Keep in mind everybody sucks at the game still. If a week into beta someone had made a thread predicting SCVs combat abilities would have to be nerfed they would've been laughed out of TL.net and probably banned for trolling.
|
TvT bio is strong early on, and on maps that have open terrain and not too much high ground. Late game and on certain maps I find the action ends up being mostly tank/viking with various switches back to bio when applicable.
I actually had a 2 hour 15 minute TvT on Kulas yesterday where the entire map was mined out. My opponent moved to the high yield to start, then was playing very defensive with tanks and turrets all over. We split the map with siege positioning and turrets, had some viking/tank fights (with tanks in medivacs at times), and it felt quite similar to a BW TvT. Eventually I decided to switch to BCs/vikings after clearing his air out. BCs are just so slow they give up a lot of your map control, but there wasn't much other way I was going to get past the tanks and turrets. After killing off most of the tanks, he switched to marines, but I was eventually able to pull it off (BC/tank has no problem taking out marines) after a long stall war at the last expansion on the map, which I was holding.
|
I'm a big fan of Marines + Tanks + Vikings in TvT. Of course you need a few Marauders at the beginning in Bunkers to hold off their Marauders until you have Tanks, but after that it's a matter of massing, threatening and expanding slowly/surely.
You really need to have air control to use Tanks, or else they're too vulnerable to harassment and you wind up getting crushed by drops/harassment in your backfield and at your expansions. If you want your tanks to hold against Marauders, you have to have them all in one place and well positioned. They can't be unsieging and running around constantly.
Using Thors as anti-air kinda fails in this match-up too because they get hosed by Marauders and they aren't going to help you much against harassment/drops elsewhere.
The Marines are there purely because you wind up with a ton of extra minerals and why not. They get in the way of Marauders for a few seconds before exploding. Good job guys. They also occasionally pop Vikings that beat yours in the air fight and give you a chance to recover there before banshees begin to show up again. Very helpful.
Note that this composition uses units from all 3 structures based on what the opponent is up to. Huzzah.
|
On April 06 2010 08:09 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:42 Zaqwert wrote:
Infantry is more support than it is the primary way to win a war. Air power and things like tanks and ships are where it's at. This is actually the exact opposite of what happens in reality. You don't win a total victory until you occupy, and you don't occupy with air superiority--you occupy with masses of infantry. Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 08:05 See.Blue wrote:
We want mech because it's completely unviable right now. lol. Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 08:05 See.Blue wrote:
In SC:BW over all matchups, terran had the option to go Mech, Biomech or Bio. Strange that I never saw Terrans going bio vs Protoss, or how extraordinarily rare mech vs Zerg was.
Just because it wasn't standard didn't mean it wasn't good to go mech vs zerg or bio vs toss, just look at upmagic. He consistently goes bio vs toss.
|
On April 06 2010 12:33 DoomBacon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 08:09 ComradeDover wrote:On April 06 2010 04:42 Zaqwert wrote:
Infantry is more support than it is the primary way to win a war. Air power and things like tanks and ships are where it's at. This is actually the exact opposite of what happens in reality. You don't win a total victory until you occupy, and you don't occupy with air superiority--you occupy with masses of infantry. On April 06 2010 08:05 See.Blue wrote:
We want mech because it's completely unviable right now. lol. On April 06 2010 08:05 See.Blue wrote:
In SC:BW over all matchups, terran had the option to go Mech, Biomech or Bio. Strange that I never saw Terrans going bio vs Protoss, or how extraordinarily rare mech vs Zerg was. Just because it wasn't standard didn't mean it wasn't good to go mech vs zerg or bio vs toss, just look at upmagic. He consistently goes bio vs toss.
If we assume standard = the best possible play, refined over time, then that's exactly what it means.
|
Sometimes I think marauders are too strong and tanks are too expensive. Regarding their strength, they are already very very strong (especially when on high ground) and if you have something to keep off the immortal, they just demolish every other Protoss unit. Same for Thor who is very strong as an supporter.
The main issue is that mass marauder kick off buildings and light units way faster than a tank does and I think that is where something is wrong. A slight nerf to marauder and a cost / build time buff to mech may change the "perspective" of some players.
Tough, I agree, the game is far from being figured out, but if a standard works too well (in all MU) and T1 units can only be countered by T2 or T3 units - that makes most higher units less useful for Terran - I see a true issue behind that.
|
On April 06 2010 05:04 Fumi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:45 Holden Caulfield wrote:
I think they just don't like winning. If you can win with barracks only units wtf are you complaining at? Now if the complainers are playing for fun it stills doenst make sense, MM are so fun, and even if they are not to some people, they win games and thats all it should matter anyway. Winning is all that should matter? Seriously? So you're happy if you just do the same thing over and over as long as you win? That's really boring, for the players and for the spectators. Also, having fun should always come first, otherwise winning feels pointless. Anyway, just some more variety would be nice. The top players are experimenting a lot with mech right now and I hope they come up with something nice. And maybe Blizz will help making mech more viable soon.
This is not true. You have to decide if you are playing for fun or to win. If for fun, then I agree with you, go there and build mech, shoot things with cannons, and yada da, If you still win, great, if not, well, you were just having fun anyway, you had your fun and the result was just a consequence, not what you wanted from the beggning. If you are playing to win, doesnt matter how boring it is, you won and accomplished what you wanted. Fun was a consequence. See the difference?
On the spectator issue, its the same thing, there's the casual spectator, who want to see things blow up, fights all over, comebacks and etc, and those who just want to see a high level play.High level play, be it SC or any other game, in general, may seem boring to people who really can't understand the things that are going on beyond the obvious.
|
I think its more that people want to try and find the nitch or place that mech falls in the game, they are not saying it has to be used but that they would like to see it used to change things up every now and then, so that people can find exactly what matchup mech is good for
|
I personally absolutely love how different TvZ (Bio) and TvP are in BW. It's like playing 2 separate races.
|
yeah its because tanks used to be so awesome!
now they are so bad and easily countered
plus going mass marauder is way better and easier
|
Mech was just soooo good in the TvP matchup in SC that terran can't help but want that kind of power again. I personally love mech (im a zerg player though) and I find mech builds can actually work very well, they just need to be fine tuned for whats going on.
Although, I do feel that hellion needs to feel more like a vulture, bring back mines!!
|
On April 06 2010 04:42 Zaqwert wrote:
...
Infantry is more support than it is the primary way to win a war. Air power and things like tanks and ships are where it's at.
even rl does nothing to compare with sc ... ur wrong ^^
all what u have tank air etc is always support the infanterie is the "true force" so ... ur just wrong in anything !
see vietnam ^^ tanks air power ships all useless ownt by infanterie ^^ usa lost to a bunch of "marines" with very good micro xDDDDD
|
couldnt help myself thinking of charly - the macro zer.. oh my god that is mad
|
making pure mech viable is like adding a 4th race, terran mech and terran mm played so differently in bw that it was like playing two different races, so it really adds to the variability of the game to have good mech
|
On April 06 2010 05:14 Sadistx wrote:
The problem terran has in Brood War and in SC2 is that it's pretty much impossible to go "air", even though air has separate upgrades.
Battlecruisers are such shitty units compared to other tier 3 units that you can't go BC's and support them with say a few vikings, and ravens, whereas P can go nearly pure carriers with a few ground units (immortal/templar) and Z can go half and half broodlords/ground.
I'd rather that T air becomes more viable as a main force and not only as harrass with 1-2 banshees and support with 2-3 vikings vs colossus.
i really disagree there , terran air rapes :D
|
On April 06 2010 04:43 Lordpen wrote:
Part of it is how terran upgrades work. They have attack and armor upgrades for Infantry, mech and air.
So being able to focus on one of them makes sense.
This.
Its much more efficient to focus on either infantry, mech or air, meaning that your army will be focused on one of these things, even when you used tanks in a "bio" TvZ army in SC1, you never upgraded tank dmg because it was too insignificant (had to get armory and then pay for the upgrade, plus tanks were usually outphased if you were headed towards SK terran to begin with).
|
The Upgrade system is THE SAME as in SC:BW
Terran has seperate upgrades for bio, mech and air
Protoss has seperate upgrades for ground, air and shields
Zerg has seperate upgrades for ranged, melee and air
So I see definately no point in the argument that Terran bio only is source of the upgrade system, because nothing changed at all regarding this.
|
Korea (South)922 Posts
The reason why mech is so undervalued in SC2 compared to SC1 is the tank. In BW, tank was the answer to all fat units, ultras, dragoon, other tanks, being THE anti-artillery unit, armored units cry in the sight of a tank line, to add the fact that vultures were amazing for anti-light, making the factory what it's worth. In Sc2, ALL the factory units are ant-light ONLY or thor being too expensive, leaving terran with nothing but marauders to deal with shit like roaches and stalkers. Tanks are imo really bad vs roach and even worse vs marauder. They even made it so tanks are effective vs mass light being great vs shit like marines only with mass splash light-slaying damage, but doesn't hellion have that already? It sickens me that vikings are the counter to the colossus, when there's a good ol siege tank that COULD be buildable to smash it with it's great dominant range, but no, this isn't the case, due to the immortal. I'm sick of marauders being answers to all 3 matchups. Revive the tank to do its original job, demolish armored scum.
|
Maybe because mech in BW TvP is horribly imba! People can argue against this all day but the fact (haha) that they removed vultures added immortals and increased tank cost in SC2 says it all. I mean the facts are that in BW TvP there are several things I find absurd.
1. Terran can be down a base and be equal, allowing them to camp and not over extend themselves, then move one the Toss's expos and put him behind.
2. The vulture is like a zealot, if the zealot cost less, built twice as fast, had ranged attack and started with 3 scarab shots and speed.
3. Detection and scouting- the Terran can scan 8 times off two bases while he camps. Meanwhile the obs requires gate,cyber,robo,obs to make the scan is rax, acad, scan ( 50 gas for 1st scan almost 400 gas for 1st obs!)
4. One of the few hard counters to vulture tank is carriers and it's so easily shut down by goliaths, that build in no time, have huge range, are cheap, and get double damage increase for each upgrade. Compared to carriers which build slow and cost a ton just to get the 1st one out and full
5. In battle the Terran can sit on his ass and kill an army twice the size, the protoss has to outnumber, outmaneuver, outmicro and out tech to kill the terran ball. ( Can toss hope to compete vs terran in a tier 2 vs tier 2 fight?)
6. The Terran has turrets, scans, and science vessels for detection compared to cannons and obs.
7. EMP- losing all shields and energy..... ridiculous (and the thing that shoots it detects)
8. Upgrades- Mech needs a factory, add on, and armory for upgrades but to fight this army count how many buildings a toss has to make.... gateway,cyber, forge, robo, obs, adun, (and probably support bay, temp archive as well!)
9. One of the most effective counters to mech is the zeolot (or DT) bomb. This really says it all, the damage on mines and tanks is so high your best way to fight them is to cause friendly fire!
(nony and idra met in the tsl twice, how many times did nony beat him late game? How often does flash loose late game tvp?)
Add all this up and you have the reason why mech is gone, and I'm so happy to hear all you mech heads whine for your imba back. Sucks to have to fight toss in a fair fight huh! Have fun with reaper cheese dirtbags. lol
|
|
|
Mech no longer has any anti-air (Goliath) For me, unless I'm on the defense and expecting to be rushed, I won't really build any mech, except a factory to get my starport out.
|
hiho
i play mech vs toss a lot with reaper oppening (at least one and maybe two if he defends poorly) and expand of that pretty safely.
i think if i wouldnt be such a bad player (macro eek) it would be kinda good but the problem for me is that i need a lot of gas for my tank/thor/ghost combo which i mostly cant afford with 2 bases and securing a third base is really tough for me (mostly because i am not good i think) and therefore my unit combo has too many hellions in it without stuff that does the real dmg.
Besides that i ve no real issue with mech... just the vespin cost seems a bit too high and the follow up problems that you get your army way too slow and toss gets the whole map is ...beh 
|
Playing a complimentary role is not very efficient in a long game. Zerg and Protoss can have more complimentary ground units because their upgrades effect all ground attacks or all ground armor (granted zerg do have melee vs range). Terran can only upgrade infantry or vehicles, which means that both factory armies and infantry armies SHOULD be viable on their own.
you just answered your own question >.>
My question is : why is it so desirable for Terran to be completely Bio in ALL MATCHUPS? It's such a limited troop selection and possible gameplay experience. Would people be happy with Protoss being strongest off only Stargates or Robo Facilities, or Zerg to be forced to just build Hydras and Infestors in some matchup?
We want terran mech to be viable so that we dont see mass marauders every single fucking game that a terran plays.
Mech is the glass cannon identity.
Mech catalyzes dynamic unit positioning and tactics.
Mech is big boom booms.
Mech is closest to traditional human warfare.
Mech is the antithesis of 'walk and shoot' infantry balls of all the races.
Mech makes for strong positional and map tension.
People want mech because it's inherently awesome. They want it to be not just barely viable in at least one or two matchups, but to be STRONG and a FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH.
MECH! MECH! MECH!
This... >thread
|
On April 06 2010 23:33 GoDannY wrote:
The Upgrade system is THE SAME as in SC:BW
Terran has seperate upgrades for bio, mech and air
Protoss has seperate upgrades for ground, air and shields
Zerg has seperate upgrades for ranged, melee and air
So I see definately no point in the argument that Terran bio only is source of the upgrade system, because nothing changed at all regarding this.
Terran was indeed bio or Mech just on vs Z was some kinda of combination used and yet tanks were almost never upgraded, this because of the separeted cost of the upgrades... if ppl want more mixed armys this separation has to go... mech alread isn't that good on his own now having to pay extra money for upgrades others than your bio.... now that sucks
|
I'm curious how many people find that it would be acceptable if Terran units are specific to certain match-ups.
For instance, bio is used against Protoss, Mech is used against Zerg, and some funky mix is used in the mirror match depending.
Is that sufficient and interesting/dynamic enough, or should the majority of the units have a place in all 3 match-ups?
There are basically three criteria for if it's good gameplay or not:
1. Is it engaging, strategic and challenging? Basically, is it a great game to play?
2. Is it entertaining for an audience?
3. Is it fun?
That's what I'm judging this stuff by.
|
There should be at least 2 viable army composition for each race. Terran should be able to use 3m or mech, toss should be able to use gateway or robo units, and zerg....well zerg can use whatever they want really.
|
mech are fun?
i played terran, a style based in marauder its boring.
i missed micro action: vultures, tanks and vessel was the more entertaining and intensive mass arrmy in sc1.
|
RPGabe people will want something familiar until they learn how to rape pure Marauder and learn to scout to adjust their unit mix
We just need to see good games of someone using more than 2-3 types of units... most of people just copy what somone really good does anyways.
|
On April 06 2010 05:04 0neder wrote:
Mech is the glass cannon identity.
Mech catalyzes dynamic unit positioning and tactics.
Mech is big boom booms.
Mech is closest to traditional human warfare.
Mech is the antithesis of 'walk and shoot' infantry balls of all the races.
Mech makes for strong positional and map tension.
People want mech because it's inherently awesome. They want it to be not just barely viable in at least one or two matchups, but to be STRONG and a FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH.
MECH! MECH! MECH!
This.
And the more viable options the better. Diverse game-play yields more enjoyment for the player and the spectator.
|
Mech is a sad state of affairs right now. At a high level, bio is being use almost exclusivly for main mary composition along with air support. Hellion is being used for harass, Thor is seen very seldom in more games, and Tanks just don't cut it in SC2.
I expect in the next patches that tanks will see a buff which will make mech a more viable alternative.
Alot of these problems come from the whole immortal hard counter issue.
|
I don't think it's an obsession with wanting to go PURE mech. It more the concept that current unit design pretty much sandbags you into going bio in many match ups.
Protoss have "Stargate" issues, where their air is pretty much pointless.
Terrans have "Factory" issues, where their factory units are not realy being produce in sufficient numbers.
What I would like to see is for each unit to have it's defined role and place. Zerg masses hydras?!? you mass tanks. He masses Lings you go for Hellions or Marines. He goes muta? You go for thors, marines or possibly vikings. He goes roaches, you go Marauders.
What this would do is create a metagame environment, where say I think you'll go mass marines so I tech up to Colossi, but you instead go Banshees, or Thor/Siege tanks. Sure you'll build other units, but you're emphasis at this time would be on getting those certain units and other thing to support them. So in essence your unorthodox but still viable strategy catches me off guard and give you the advantage until I can compensate.
What this type of environment needs is multiple viable builds for each match up.
Personally the idea of going ONLY mech is stupid, Protoss don't build only Immortals, Observers, Warp-prisms and colossi. They'd lose versus pretty much anything.
I do however feel that 2 Bio + 2 Mech + 2 Air upgrades makes terrans feel they shouldn't mix those unit types.
Protoss going Robo+Gateway essentially upgrade Ground Weapons and Armor. The armor upgrade is realy only half as effective since toss units have shield, but the weapons upgrade applys to all units. So net effect: 1.5 upgrades for all units.
Zerg going Roaches --> Hydras with some zerglings as needed, can just upgrade Ranged Weapons + Armor. Their lings wouldn't get the ranged weapon bonus, but the armor buff applys to all 3 unit types. So net effect: 2 upgrades for Roach/Hydras and 1 for Zerglings == 1.5 overall
Terrans going MM+Tank/Hellion who upgrade Bio Weapons + Armor find 2 of their units with NO upgrades at all. 2 upgrades for Bio and 0 for Mech = 1 upgrade overall. (Granted there will be more MM than Mech).
|
Terran has seperate upgrades for bio, mech and air
Protoss has seperate upgrades for ground, air and shields
Zerg has seperate upgrades for ranged, melee and air
Terran has 2 of each for a total of 6.
Protoss has 2 of Ground + 2 Air + Shields (at 2x cost) for a total of 5 (6 based on cost)
Zerg has 2 Melee, 2 Ranged and 1 Ground Armor (1.5 cost) for a total of 5. (5.5 based on cost).
|
On April 07 2010 03:55 Daerthalus wrote:Show nested quote +
Terran has seperate upgrades for bio, mech and air
Protoss has seperate upgrades for ground, air and shields
Zerg has seperate upgrades for ranged, melee and air
Terran has 2 of each for a total of 6. Protoss has 2 of Ground + 2 Air + Shields (at 2x cost) for a total of 5 (6 based on cost) Zerg has 2 Melee, 2 Ranged and 1 Ground Armor (1.5 cost) for a total of 5. (5.5 based on cost).
yeah but making an all-air army isn't viable at all, so you shouldn't be counting the air upgrades; and attack/armor are the most critical of upgrades, so you should be looking at it like this:
Terran has 4 sets of upgrades for ground attack/armor: 2 for infantry, 2 for vehicles
Protoss has 2 sets of upgrades for ground attack/armor.
Zerg has 2 sets of upgrades for ground attack, and 1 set of upgrades for ground armor.
Terran is clearly the worst in terms of ground unit upgrades. Due to gas scarcity, it is nearly impossible for terran to do a mix of bio/mech and keep up with upgrades against toss/zerg. Therefore, people want mech to be strong enough to stand on its own, so that you can choose to go mech or bio and be able to stay even on upgrades.
Now I personally don't see this as a problem; I think you can get the right mix of units as terran and that will make up for lack of weapon/armor upgrades, therefore you don't always "need" to keep up in weapon/armor upgrades, meaning that a mix of bio/mech is just as strong as pure bio or pure mech, even in late-game.
|
On April 06 2010 23:55 Reborn8u wrote:
Maybe because mech in BW TvP is horribly imba! People can argue against this all day but the fact (haha) that they removed vultures added immortals and increased tank cost in SC2 says it all. I mean the facts are that in BW TvP there are several things I find absurd.
1. Terran can be down a base and be equal, allowing them to camp and not over extend themselves, then move one the Toss's expos and put him behind.
2. The vulture is like a zealot, if the zealot cost less, built twice as fast, had ranged attack and started with 3 scarab shots and speed.
3. Detection and scouting- the Terran can scan 8 times off two bases while he camps. Meanwhile the obs requires gate,cyber,robo,obs to make the scan is rax, acad, scan ( 50 gas for 1st scan almost 400 gas for 1st obs!)
4. One of the few hard counters to vulture tank is carriers and it's so easily shut down by goliaths, that build in no time, have huge range, are cheap, and get double damage increase for each upgrade. Compared to carriers which build slow and cost a ton just to get the 1st one out and full
5. In battle the Terran can sit on his ass and kill an army twice the size, the protoss has to outnumber, outmaneuver, outmicro and out tech to kill the terran ball. ( Can toss hope to compete vs terran in a tier 2 vs tier 2 fight?)
6. The Terran has turrets, scans, and science vessels for detection compared to cannons and obs.
7. EMP- losing all shields and energy..... ridiculous (and the thing that shoots it detects)
8. Upgrades- Mech needs a factory, add on, and armory for upgrades but to fight this army count how many buildings a toss has to make.... gateway,cyber, forge, robo, obs, adun, (and probably support bay, temp archive as well!)
9. One of the most effective counters to mech is the zeolot (or DT) bomb. This really says it all, the damage on mines and tanks is so high your best way to fight them is to cause friendly fire!
(nony and idra met in the tsl twice, how many times did nony beat him late game? How often does flash loose late game tvp?)
Add all this up and you have the reason why mech is gone, and I'm so happy to hear all you mech heads whine for your imba back. Sucks to have to fight toss in a fair fight huh! Have fun with reaper cheese dirtbags. lol
I really dislike your tone. In any case, most examples you gave are just specific SC1 Terran strengths without taking into account the intricacies, or framework of a full game of SC1. You ignore that a critical mass of carriers with an attack upgrade are ridiculously strong, especially when exploiting building placement, terrain and mobility. Terran's are more cost efficient and can thrive on having less expo's, because in most matchups their mobility is severely limited. Scans can be wasted, or baited by lone DT's, and stretched out in general - an observer provides cheap, constant scouting and detection (You list the gateway, cyber core as if you weren't going to get them in the first place). EMP comes from a very expensive, non-cloaked detector, and the EMP itself is ridiculously slow, with a small AoE, which is usually reserved for temps or arbiters. Also, you list every Protoss building under the sun in a typical TvP matchup - I'm glad you go dragoons with reavers, shuttles and templars, but that's a choice you make to stretch yourself out like that. For the most part as protoss, in order to get a huge army you just need a bunch of gateways, which cost no gas - but they have more tech buildings and some units are more gas intensive, it balances out. You also ignore all the protoss strengths (Arbiters for Christ's sake). Again, you need to consider the big picture instead of sniping various perceived imbalances
|
I just want my tanks to be usefull in any matchup and not require constant babying for them to be usefull (have to target with them every shot or they choose a probe/drone/scv cuz its the least threatening unit)................... hellions r fine thors r fine, I just wish I had sc1 tanks :-o)
also mech is AWSOME BIG BOOM MANY FUN
|
Even just playing tanks is so much more funs than those gimpy marauders/marines
I think "traditional" BW Mech play was slowing down the game alot. The existence of mines (apart from the fact that they surely were a huge and cool micro factor for both players!) and strong Siege Tanks gave Terrans the possibility to rely on a good defense and delaying/harassing the enemy with vultures so they didn't need to mass up their army like they need in SC2 now.
Imagine that Hellions could plant mines and Siegetanks were stronger.
Terran would not need to mass up alot of marauders because he can gain more map controll with hellions and mines and delay the opponent when he tries to attack and does not need 41894914 units to defend his base when good positioned tanks are a huge factor. Terran could play other tactics than lots and lots and more of marauders, such as composing an army with higher tech units early on (Ravens!) or trying to expand further while gaining map control. Also, Mines & Tanks would make both players requiring so much more micro than MMM.
I think that units such as Lurkers, Siegetanks and Spider Mines are so iconic nowadays because they defined the way broodwar was played by a great part, which was much more complex than SC2 without its lack of defensive bonus which induces the constant fear of beeing overrun, what leads to every player massing up his army instead of playing innovative or complex strategies as it became hard to delay or defend with an even slightly weaker army.
My guess is that former BW players connect this style of gameplay with terran mech and wish both of them back.
Actually, I do so, too
Sorry if I made mistakes when referring to Broodwar, I'm not an experienced player but these are the experiences I made with playing and watching it. Actually I rather know a bit more about WC3 where you also couldn't just walk over your opponent just because you had a small advantage for a moment like you can in SC2.
Also sorry if I repeated some things that might have been posted before but it took me quite some time to put my finger on this specific "lack of defense" thingy that makes the big flaw that SC2 has in my opinion (after reading among other things the "where is the high ground advantage?" article on TL).
|
In SC2 it seems like massing infantry for every race is basically the only viable option. Mech should be the primary army for all races, and infantry the support, not the other way around. Bio-ball past the 12 minute mark should get dominated, not continue to be viable.
|
On April 06 2010 23:55 Reborn8u wrote:
Maybe because mech in BW TvP is horribly imba! People can argue against this all day but the fact (haha) that they removed vultures added immortals and increased tank cost in SC2 says it all. I mean the facts are that in BW TvP there are several things I find absurd.
1. Terran can be down a base and be equal, allowing them to camp and not over extend themselves, then move one the Toss's expos and put him behind.
2. The vulture is like a zealot, if the zealot cost less, built twice as fast, had ranged attack and started with 3 scarab shots and speed.
3. Detection and scouting- the Terran can scan 8 times off two bases while he camps. Meanwhile the obs requires gate,cyber,robo,obs to make the scan is rax, acad, scan ( 50 gas for 1st scan almost 400 gas for 1st obs!)
4. One of the few hard counters to vulture tank is carriers and it's so easily shut down by goliaths, that build in no time, have huge range, are cheap, and get double damage increase for each upgrade. Compared to carriers which build slow and cost a ton just to get the 1st one out and full
5. In battle the Terran can sit on his ass and kill an army twice the size, the protoss has to outnumber, outmaneuver, outmicro and out tech to kill the terran ball. ( Can toss hope to compete vs terran in a tier 2 vs tier 2 fight?)
6. The Terran has turrets, scans, and science vessels for detection compared to cannons and obs.
7. EMP- losing all shields and energy..... ridiculous (and the thing that shoots it detects)
8. Upgrades- Mech needs a factory, add on, and armory for upgrades but to fight this army count how many buildings a toss has to make.... gateway,cyber, forge, robo, obs, adun, (and probably support bay, temp archive as well!)
9. One of the most effective counters to mech is the zeolot (or DT) bomb. This really says it all, the damage on mines and tanks is so high your best way to fight them is to cause friendly fire!
(nony and idra met in the tsl twice, how many times did nony beat him late game? How often does flash loose late game tvp?)
Add all this up and you have the reason why mech is gone, and I'm so happy to hear all you mech heads whine for your imba back. Sucks to have to fight toss in a fair fight huh! Have fun with reaper cheese dirtbags. lol
In other words, what SC2 is missing is what BW had, Protoss had expensive powerful units, Terran had mech, Zerg had massive numbers. In SC2 Protoss has expensive, not so powerful units, Terran has Marauder/Banshee/Viking/Medevac/Marine, and Zerg has massive numbers. Clearly something is missing.
|
in my terran player opinion, it's all about identity... the siege tank was probably the unit that made terran identity on bw, and because of this unit some of us (terran players) have chosen to play terran.
on the other hand, we have sc2 and the pretty "useless" siege tank, or mech in general, when i say useless i mean in army core way, i still think siege tanks are a great support unit.
I think that the main problem involving this is that the TvP matchup is totelly different in sc2, and that us a problem because most bw terran players want to play terran as well in sc2, and if 1 out of 2 matchups is totally diferent, they feel like they'd lost their identity ...
|
because going maruaders in all 3 matchups is retarded and boring? mech is the #1 reason y tvp (in btw) was such an epic matchup to watch. all the tactical positioning, flanking, zealot dropping, mine dragging was just o so epic. now it's just all, LUL marudader kiting
|
On April 06 2010 04:42 Zaqwert wrote:
Mass of any tier should be viable, with support from any other tier, depending on circumstances...
What do you mean by this? Are you identifying tiers with tech level (Barracks - Factory - Starport) or with types of units (Bio - Mech - Air)?
And when you say "mass of a tier" what kind of army are you imagining? How many kinds of units are forming the base, and with what support?
In SC:BW by mid-game most armies have mainly of 2 types of units (tank/vult, zeal/goon, muta/ling are all classic examples) with any other unit around being built for support, scouting, or drop. This "model" makes for solid gameplay as we've seen, but it's that way not because Blizzard said, "We need diverse armies". The game got that way because with lots of kinds of units possible to build, armies need to be able to deal with multiple threats. A base composition of two units is the easiest to balance while meeting threats sufficiently, so that's why those compositions dominate. It's not set it stone: for example TvP can expand to a composition of vult/tank/goliath vs zeal/goon/carrier, which are both 3-unit bases, and ZvZ mostly uses a 1-unit mutalisk base composition.
You can talk about how diversity is valuable - and a game like SC:BW where unusual compositions can still be a change-of-pace option is great - but in the end, there is simply going to be no way to balance the game and not reduce options for matchups. If you have, say, 3 army composition possibilities for each race, too many builds will hard-counter too many other builds, and eventually safe compromise builds will be found and come into general use, and these will tend to use a limited "safe" composition of units.
This is not to say that it wouldn't be neat to see "mech builds" be viable again in TvP, just that it's not necessary.
|
Mech was, and still kinda is, one of the defining racial identities of Terran.
As well, if you look at Brood War TvZ, while bio is the standard play, mech is still an option. How viable is largely map dependent, although I think if you ask SkyHigh he'd say it's always viable  It's always entertaining to try and figure out what a Terran is doing (and how the Zerg is responding)- and to just consider that alone you've got so many mind games that pop up because of where T can go that all add depth and suspense from a spectator PoV as well. And then beyond that, you just have so many variations on how the game goes, because you pretty much at a bare minimum have two different metagame sets for just "one" match-up.
Anyway, imo if at least TvP and TvZ for SC2 could have that kinda depth and variability, that would be awesome and the ideal. TvT I don't mind if it's just mech and/or air (although I really don't want to see it be all bio since there is no melee component of the Terran army at all atm in SC2, not even the token Firebats, so bio TvT I find to be... not very interesting; also, I actually like SC1 TvT a lot xD).
Also, TvZ bio was imo way more fun than M&M&M balls in SC2 so there's that.
|
People just are nostalgic about SC1 mech (some) but most people seem to want variety and not just mass marauder -> win.
but um, mech is viable in tvz, well, it really is the best thing you can do right now tbh. And mech tvp is viable once you are into mid-game, but now you have to mass marauder to attempt it otherwise 2-4 gate robo immortals/stalker/sentry/zealot will kill you if you went no bio with expo into mech.
and one thing prohibitive about mech is blizzard purposely making siege tanks incredibly expensive. What is it, 175 minerals, 125 gas, and 3 supply? too expensive compared to the ease of winning with marauders.
ghostmech takes a bit of knowledge of how to work into the build to play, where as simply massing 5000 marauders all you need to know is how to FE, do the build and click the marauder icon or D key.
|
I just like watching and playing mech. Mech terran in sc1 was almost a completely different race, and i think it should stay similar in sc2
|
It's not just the fanbase, blizz wants it too.
|
Mech is awesome for 1 reason above all:
SIEGE TANKS BLOW SHIT UP!
That's why mech is awesome. Watching shit blow up.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On April 06 2010 05:04 0neder wrote:
Mech is the glass cannon identity.
Mech catalyzes dynamic unit positioning and tactics.
Mech is big boom booms.
Mech is closest to traditional human warfare.
Mech is the antithesis of 'walk and shoot' infantry balls of all the races.
Mech makes for strong positional and map tension.
People want mech because it's inherently awesome. They want it to be not just barely viable in at least one or two matchups, but to be STRONG and a FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH.
MECH! MECH! MECH!
This. Mech TvP represents the best fucking thing about StarCraft and walking blobs of Marauders as a replacement is simply stupid.
|
easy answer to the wrong question
i thought it was about the investment that goes into the types of units...
helions upgrade, siege upgrade, marine shield, stim pack, weapons upgrade, tech labs, reactors,
production buildings...
i thought it was more of a complaint that you get stuck going in one direction... unlike zerg where you just build 1 new building to open a whole new avenue. or toss who speed builds units in the cost of energy.
|
On April 07 2010 14:44 avilo wrote:but um, mech is viable in tvz, well, it really is the best thing you can do right now tbh..
Not quite. Currently, to my knowledge (and I've been working on mech builds outside of TvT for quite a bit- I figure my sig indicates that well enough xD), there really is nothing that mech can do against Roach-spam without resorting to Marauders. Even with T and Z both on even bases, Z can produce plenty enough Roaches to overwhelm your pure mech or to at least win a war of attrition- just a matter of macro on the Zerg's part really. Add in that if Roaches are the primary composition of the Z's army then mech's go-to map control and harass unit (the Hellion) is significantly less effective in its task so maintaining equal bases is a tough affair (personally, I really only feel this is doable at all at the moment because most Z players don't see as much of a need to totally sim city because of Queens and the relative cheapness of Roaches) or requires investment in a decent amount of Banshees or Vikings to accomplish (meaning you'd sure as hell better get a lot out of your harass/contain efforts).
Basically, in TvZ mech, I've found it necessary to have at least two Tech 'raxes pumping Marauders to support my Siege Tanks to try and help deal with Roaches as there is just no mech solution to the issue that I've found. But I mean, imo, that just shouldn't be necessary. It's kinda like in mech TvZ in Brood War, none of your mech support are going to do a better job at keeping Zerglings off Siege Tanks than Firebats would, but good Tank positioning, good mine positioning, and sufficient Goliath and/or Vulture support to mop-up whatever Zerglings survive the Siege Tank shelling is usually sufficient. Similar to Zealots in ZvP where Vultures are great against Zealots but when your Vultures need to keep Zealots off Siege Tanks (aka Vultures can't really leverage their speed to kite), Firebats would arguably be a much more effective counter but sufficient Vultures and well-placed Spider Mines is usually sufficient. So far, I don't see any such solution for Roaches- a lot of Ravens with really well-placed Auto-Turrets along with Bunkers, Depots, Turrets, etc... on the frontlines are the closest I've come.
|
Pure mech wouldn't be possible against Zerg because of Roaches. You will need Marauders.
Pure mech wouldn't be possible against Protoss because of Immortals. You will need Ghosts.
|
whats the difference playing zerg and terran without mechs? both zerg and terran now put 50 units in a group and chase each other on map.
scII is a good game but playing style of 3 races are very similar. at least not different as bw.
|
I love the idea of Pure mech being viable. But I don't want to see Mines return. They take away from the pace of the game. We need some kind of damage damage soaking unit between our tanks and the enemy. Preferably something with very low damage (so the tanks etc are still the primary damage unit in the mix) and enough maneuverability to make up for the lack of Tank maneuverability a little. Maybe something melee just for kicks.
Maybe some kind of upgrade for the SCV lol. Mineral and Gas cost and it rebuilds over 30 seconds or so. It is maybe double the size, with no build/repair facilities (maybe it can't even be repaired), higher health or armor but still the same or less damage.
Like the roach was in concept before they decided to make it a beasty killing machine.
|
On April 07 2010 20:08 DeCoup wrote:
I love the idea of Pure mech being viable. But I don't want to see Mines return. They take away from the pace of the game. We need some kind of damage damage soaking unit between our tanks and the enemy. Preferably something with very low damage (so the tanks etc are still the primary damage unit in the mix) and enough maneuverability to make up for the lack of Tank maneuverability a little. Maybe something melee just for kicks.
Maybe some kind of upgrade for the SCV lol. Mineral and Gas cost and it rebuilds over 30 seconds or so. It is maybe double the size, with no build/repair facilities (maybe it can't even be repaired), higher health or armor but still the same or less damage.
Like the roach was in concept before they decided to make it a beasty killing machine.
I guess that would be some job for Marauders if they will ever find a suitable place within SC2 - A simple meatshield unit, just like now but without beeing the main source of damage.
Also (as I stated a few posts above), I think the pace of the game is what makes many players wishing back mech - apart from the really cool feeling of playing an army of tanks - because BW mech was perfect to delay the game and switch to tactics such as dropships, fast expand, fast tech, which you can't play so extremely right now because you have to build up marauders and/or antiair so you don't get overrun.
|
Patch 8
Balance Changes
TERRAN
Thor
Build time decreased from 75 seconds to 60 seconds.
Siege Tank
Build time decreased from 50 seconds to 45 seconds.
Marauder
Concussive Shells now require an upgrade.
Barracks Tech Lab
Concussive Shells upgrade added.
Concussive Shells upgrade costs 100/100 and takes 80 seconds to complete.
Terran Mech begins.
|
I don't see how just a build time decrease means that suddenly Terran mech builds are viable. Care to explain how they suddenly are?
Thors are still clunky and highly immobile and siege tanks are still incredibly costly and immortals counter them like nothing else.
|
since roaches and hydras have been nerfed, tank/marine seems like a viable composition against z now. let's see what happens
|
I always felt mech was overused in BW, and now SCII has the opposite problem. IMO, every unit should have some sort of viable role in every match-up.
|
On April 08 2010 07:20 da_head wrote:
since roaches and hydras have been nerfed, tank/marine seems like a viable composition against z now. let's see what happens
I'm not so sure about that as it takes a roach ridiculous 3 hits to kill a marine (4 with upgrade) and hydras only need one attack more. Guess this makes marauder remaining as blocking units since they already have 1 armor, more HP and can deal with those annoying roaches much better while tanks target hydras. Though some marines might get mixed in to relief gas count.
|
It makes no sense that Marauders + medevacs counter mech.
Marauders pretty much hard counter Tanks, Thors, Hellions and Vikings all by themselves. I've tried many variations, even attempting a slow tank-push style, keeping my wealth of tanks spread nicely. But all a Terran needs to do is stim and A-move and his mass marauder/medevac army will steam roll me.
Pure mech only really works in TvZ, which is nice because it gives you an option other than MMM. But this option should exist in all matchups.
I feel any Terran player in any match up should have the option of choosing pure mech or biomech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
