|
is it me or pure mech is not viable anymore in tvz, lol ultralisks just crush tanks no matter how many of them u have .........
|
freaking ultras hard counter marauders so hard now its ridiculous. poor, poor rockit black guys
|
United States7166 Posts
you can still kite ultras around with stim micro..marauders are excellent vs ultras if they have some room to move. of course if they got fungaled then theyre toast. they still kill them fairly fast tho
|
On June 05 2010 04:56 zergporn wrote:
i respect TLO for creativity and random, but now he falls down in my eyes while he keep saying mech is fine whatever without any proof.
these are just words, words words words from a guy who in addition plays terran in tourneys lately.
There's no motive for him to make this up though. What's more likely? He has found a way to beat mech and maybe it's not as imba as we thought or he just likes to be a contrarian?
|
|
|
On June 05 2010 07:39 guitarizt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 04:56 zergporn wrote:
i respect TLO for creativity and random, but now he falls down in my eyes while he keep saying mech is fine whatever without any proof.
these are just words, words words words from a guy who in addition plays terran in tourneys lately. There's no motive for him to make this up though. What's more likely? He has found a way to beat mech and maybe it's not as imba as we thought or he just likes to be a contrarian?
he also issued an open challenge to any top terran who thought mech was imba to tvz him. i think it got patched before there were any takers though. and honestly i think TLO is far ahead of anyone on the list in this thread in terms of skill. though i may be wrong, i haven't followed many tournaments but TLO seems to be everywhere.
oh except idra i guess
|
United States47024 Posts
Someone needs to ask if the SC1 targeting could be reproduced simply by treating the tank as a unit that fires a very fast-moving projectile instead of an instant-firing unit.
On June 05 2010 07:16 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 06:27 TheYango wrote:On June 05 2010 05:52 huameng wrote:On June 05 2010 05:46 FabledIntegral wrote:
Are tanks theonly ones that don't overkill? Or do units like Stalkers refuse to overkill as well? I think there's no reason tanks shouldn't overkill if other units don't either.
In fact, I feel like "overkill" is one of the fundamental features all ranged units have always had in an RTS, for the sole reason of keeping melee units viable when ranged is massed.
Everyone complains about how much ranged focus exists in SC2... why not have every unit overkill? We'd see more zealots/lings at least... probably have to redo Terran a little bit but it's not like we aren't still in teh beta and shouldn't be experimenting wiht changes anyways. Every unit that damages instantly doesn't overkill. Any unit with a projectile attack will overkill as in BW. I think stalkers are in the 2nd category. I believe this is correct. IIRC, Tanks also fell in that category in SC1 (there was a 1-frame delay between the explosion animation and a unit actually dying, or something like that), but in SC2, they fire instantly. Bring this back  . It was cool seeing tanks firing on a reaver that made it into the shuttle JUST in time!
That made for some of the most awesome moments in SC1.
|
ultras lose to unsieged tanks guys. also thors do pretty damn well, strike cannons are good too
mech can beat ultras they need to adapt though.like zerg needed to learn to adapt before this whole problem got fixed by blizzard
|
On June 05 2010 07:52 TheYango wrote:
Someone needs to ask if the SC1 targeting could be reproduced simply by treating the tank as a unit that fires a very fast-moving projectile instead of an instant-firing unit.
This would allow stalkers to blink dodge tanks as well as PDDs to block them.
|
On June 05 2010 01:17 QuakerOats wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 01:08 FrozenArbiter wrote:On June 04 2010 16:20 Ballistixz wrote:
i just love how all these gold/silver or lower players that have no idea how certain match ups work are trying to argue against highly reputable and top ranking players in the world. i find that just so damn funny.
also love how some peeps are treating TLO as the chuck norris of SC2. this forums is slowly turning into the official bnet forums. slowly but surely. First you complain about people not listening to high level players, then you complain about people treating TLO (high level player) like he's... good at SC2? I don't get this post. I think he means that people treat TLO as better than every other player. Like how a bunch of people applauded TLO for that post where he said he'd play any Terran to show that mech isn't imbalanced, but when drewbie said he'd play any Zerg to show mech IS imbalanced 20 pages ago it gets overlooked :p
Overlooked like how sen said he would like to play vs his "100% win" mech?
|
On June 05 2010 07:55 PrinceXizor wrote:
ultras lose to unsieged tanks guys. also thors do pretty damn well, strike cannons are good too
mech can beat ultras they need to adapt though.like zerg needed to learn to adapt before this whole problem got fixed by blizzard
yea zerg "adapted" by making 100x whine threads basically forcing blizzard to nerf mech.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I just can't believe some mech terran can loose to ultra... Thor and tanks just own ultra really bad.
|
On June 05 2010 05:17 NATO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2010 23:47 Nakas wrote:On June 04 2010 22:02 Meff wrote:Please dont rush things, but well blizzard already did. Kinda weird to do it a few days before beta break. I dont think they will get anything out of from it in such a short time. They've said that they wanted the game to be balanced on all levels, in the past. Maybe there is a counter for professional-level gaming, but I think that the problem lies (or used to lie) in the casual gamer range. Let's say in the 60-70 APM range and without a deep knowledge of terran (of course, against a 60-70 APM opponent who doesn't have a deep knowledge of zerg, either). This is a good point. Even if the matchup is balanced at high levels as TLO says it is, I think things can be quite different at low and mid level play where most of the playerbase is. The slow, defensive, and reactionary nature of terran mech means it has a much lower APM requirement to play effectively. So at 50 APM, you can play a pretty strong mech game. In contrast, zerg requires more multibase play with lots of drops, nydus, and harass, which requires a pretty hefty APM. So for zerg, 50 APM is going to going to result in a much weaker game. I think this might be the reason for some of the disconnect between average players and high-level players such as TLO. I disagree. I think Terran requires much more apm to play effectively. Aside from marines, every terran unit is a hard damage counter to something else, meaning you have to choose who to attack appropriately. Secondly, almost every terran unit has some kind of ability, sometimes many. Spells are in all bio units, except reaper which is so fragile it has to be microed properly. Siege tanks must siege/unsiege. Vikings change mode, Thors have their assault cannons (admitedly really only used for base sieging or countering immortals). Hellions have to line up their splash effectively. banshees are fairly fragile, but do terrible damage, and cloak. Ravens have a million abilities. etc. Not to mention macroing is much more complicated, as a zerg just needs to strike two keys followed by spamming whatever they want to build. Terran has to have 9 hotkeys for each addon/building combo, or attempt to tab through when building. IMO, this makes Terran overpowered at the high level, and even at lower levels. (Because blizzard appears to have been balancing on mid-range player skill for the most part)
I'm not talking about battle micro, I'm talking more about general gameflow. It's simply not necessary for terran to try to gain the initiative in a game. Look at game 5 in the OP, qxc was totally passive the entire game. Good strategy games reward the player that is able to seize the initiative in the game and force the opponent to respond rather than implementing the strategy they would prefer instead. It's easy to be passive. It's easy to just turtle up in your base and just watch the bars as your units are made, it requires almost no mechanics and can be done with 50 APM. That's why this type of play needs to be inferior to an aggressive playstyle that seizes the initiative in a game. Seizing the initiative requires better mechanics. For this reason, good players with good mechanics and high APM should want the defensive and passive play that qxc did to be less effective than the dynamic and aggressive play of Sheth.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 05 2010 07:56 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 07:52 TheYango wrote:
Someone needs to ask if the SC1 targeting could be reproduced simply by treating the tank as a unit that fires a very fast-moving projectile instead of an instant-firing unit.
This would allow stalkers to blink dodge tanks as well as PDDs to block them.
Blink-dodging tank shots would be awesome, and PDDs absorbing tank rounds can only help the current state of TvT (at the very least, it would help non-Tank ground units be a little more viable).
|
On June 05 2010 07:56 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 07:52 TheYango wrote:
Someone needs to ask if the SC1 targeting could be reproduced simply by treating the tank as a unit that fires a very fast-moving projectile instead of an instant-firing unit.
This would allow stalkers to blink dodge tanks as well as PDDs to block them.
PDD blocking them would probably HELP the MU more than hurt it, and wouldn't that be good if stalkers could dodge it, despite it being almost impossible to time properly?
EDIT: Wow.... TheYango beat me to it by seconds apparently
|
On June 05 2010 08:04 Nakas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 05:17 NATO wrote:On June 04 2010 23:47 Nakas wrote:On June 04 2010 22:02 Meff wrote:Please dont rush things, but well blizzard already did. Kinda weird to do it a few days before beta break. I dont think they will get anything out of from it in such a short time. They've said that they wanted the game to be balanced on all levels, in the past. Maybe there is a counter for professional-level gaming, but I think that the problem lies (or used to lie) in the casual gamer range. Let's say in the 60-70 APM range and without a deep knowledge of terran (of course, against a 60-70 APM opponent who doesn't have a deep knowledge of zerg, either). This is a good point. Even if the matchup is balanced at high levels as TLO says it is, I think things can be quite different at low and mid level play where most of the playerbase is. The slow, defensive, and reactionary nature of terran mech means it has a much lower APM requirement to play effectively. So at 50 APM, you can play a pretty strong mech game. In contrast, zerg requires more multibase play with lots of drops, nydus, and harass, which requires a pretty hefty APM. So for zerg, 50 APM is going to going to result in a much weaker game. I think this might be the reason for some of the disconnect between average players and high-level players such as TLO. I disagree. I think Terran requires much more apm to play effectively. Aside from marines, every terran unit is a hard damage counter to something else, meaning you have to choose who to attack appropriately. Secondly, almost every terran unit has some kind of ability, sometimes many. Spells are in all bio units, except reaper which is so fragile it has to be microed properly. Siege tanks must siege/unsiege. Vikings change mode, Thors have their assault cannons (admitedly really only used for base sieging or countering immortals). Hellions have to line up their splash effectively. banshees are fairly fragile, but do terrible damage, and cloak. Ravens have a million abilities. etc. Not to mention macroing is much more complicated, as a zerg just needs to strike two keys followed by spamming whatever they want to build. Terran has to have 9 hotkeys for each addon/building combo, or attempt to tab through when building. IMO, this makes Terran overpowered at the high level, and even at lower levels. (Because blizzard appears to have been balancing on mid-range player skill for the most part) I'm not talking about battle micro, I'm talking more about general gameflow. It's simply not necessary for terran to try to gain the initiative in a game. Look at game 5 in the OP, qxc was totally passive the entire game. Good strategy games reward the player that is able to seize the initiative in the game and force the opponent to respond rather than implementing the strategy they would prefer instead. It's easy to be passive. It's easy to just turtle up in your base and just watch the bars as your units are made, it requires almost no mechanics and can be done with 50 APM. That's why this type of play needs to be inferior to an aggressive playstyle that seizes the initiative in a game. Seizing the initiative requires better mechanics. For this reason, good players with good mechanics and high APM should want the defensive and passive play that qxc did to be less effective than the dynamic and aggressive play of Sheth.
tell that to oov, savior, or flash
|
On June 05 2010 08:04 Nakas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 05:17 NATO wrote:On June 04 2010 23:47 Nakas wrote:On June 04 2010 22:02 Meff wrote:Please dont rush things, but well blizzard already did. Kinda weird to do it a few days before beta break. I dont think they will get anything out of from it in such a short time. They've said that they wanted the game to be balanced on all levels, in the past. Maybe there is a counter for professional-level gaming, but I think that the problem lies (or used to lie) in the casual gamer range. Let's say in the 60-70 APM range and without a deep knowledge of terran (of course, against a 60-70 APM opponent who doesn't have a deep knowledge of zerg, either). This is a good point. Even if the matchup is balanced at high levels as TLO says it is, I think things can be quite different at low and mid level play where most of the playerbase is. The slow, defensive, and reactionary nature of terran mech means it has a much lower APM requirement to play effectively. So at 50 APM, you can play a pretty strong mech game. In contrast, zerg requires more multibase play with lots of drops, nydus, and harass, which requires a pretty hefty APM. So for zerg, 50 APM is going to going to result in a much weaker game. I think this might be the reason for some of the disconnect between average players and high-level players such as TLO. I disagree. I think Terran requires much more apm to play effectively. Aside from marines, every terran unit is a hard damage counter to something else, meaning you have to choose who to attack appropriately. Secondly, almost every terran unit has some kind of ability, sometimes many. Spells are in all bio units, except reaper which is so fragile it has to be microed properly. Siege tanks must siege/unsiege. Vikings change mode, Thors have their assault cannons (admitedly really only used for base sieging or countering immortals). Hellions have to line up their splash effectively. banshees are fairly fragile, but do terrible damage, and cloak. Ravens have a million abilities. etc. Not to mention macroing is much more complicated, as a zerg just needs to strike two keys followed by spamming whatever they want to build. Terran has to have 9 hotkeys for each addon/building combo, or attempt to tab through when building. IMO, this makes Terran overpowered at the high level, and even at lower levels. (Because blizzard appears to have been balancing on mid-range player skill for the most part) I'm not talking about battle micro, I'm talking more about general gameflow. It's simply not necessary for terran to try to gain the initiative in a game. Look at game 5 in the OP, qxc was totally passive the entire game. Good strategy games reward the player that is able to seize the initiative in the game and force the opponent to respond rather than implementing the strategy they would prefer instead. It's easy to be passive. It's easy to just turtle up in your base and just watch the bars as your units are made, it requires almost no mechanics and can be done with 50 APM. That's why this type of play needs to be inferior to an aggressive playstyle that seizes the initiative in a game. Seizing the initiative requires better mechanics. For this reason, good players with good mechanics and high APM should want the defensive and passive play that qxc did to be less effective than the dynamic and aggressive play of Sheth.
Didn't Terran Mech worked that way in BW, too? Staying passive in the beginning and smashing the opponent afterwards?
|
On June 05 2010 08:09 CruelZeratul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 08:04 Nakas wrote:On June 05 2010 05:17 NATO wrote:On June 04 2010 23:47 Nakas wrote:On June 04 2010 22:02 Meff wrote:Please dont rush things, but well blizzard already did. Kinda weird to do it a few days before beta break. I dont think they will get anything out of from it in such a short time. They've said that they wanted the game to be balanced on all levels, in the past. Maybe there is a counter for professional-level gaming, but I think that the problem lies (or used to lie) in the casual gamer range. Let's say in the 60-70 APM range and without a deep knowledge of terran (of course, against a 60-70 APM opponent who doesn't have a deep knowledge of zerg, either). This is a good point. Even if the matchup is balanced at high levels as TLO says it is, I think things can be quite different at low and mid level play where most of the playerbase is. The slow, defensive, and reactionary nature of terran mech means it has a much lower APM requirement to play effectively. So at 50 APM, you can play a pretty strong mech game. In contrast, zerg requires more multibase play with lots of drops, nydus, and harass, which requires a pretty hefty APM. So for zerg, 50 APM is going to going to result in a much weaker game. I think this might be the reason for some of the disconnect between average players and high-level players such as TLO. I disagree. I think Terran requires much more apm to play effectively. Aside from marines, every terran unit is a hard damage counter to something else, meaning you have to choose who to attack appropriately. Secondly, almost every terran unit has some kind of ability, sometimes many. Spells are in all bio units, except reaper which is so fragile it has to be microed properly. Siege tanks must siege/unsiege. Vikings change mode, Thors have their assault cannons (admitedly really only used for base sieging or countering immortals). Hellions have to line up their splash effectively. banshees are fairly fragile, but do terrible damage, and cloak. Ravens have a million abilities. etc. Not to mention macroing is much more complicated, as a zerg just needs to strike two keys followed by spamming whatever they want to build. Terran has to have 9 hotkeys for each addon/building combo, or attempt to tab through when building. IMO, this makes Terran overpowered at the high level, and even at lower levels. (Because blizzard appears to have been balancing on mid-range player skill for the most part) I'm not talking about battle micro, I'm talking more about general gameflow. It's simply not necessary for terran to try to gain the initiative in a game. Look at game 5 in the OP, qxc was totally passive the entire game. Good strategy games reward the player that is able to seize the initiative in the game and force the opponent to respond rather than implementing the strategy they would prefer instead. It's easy to be passive. It's easy to just turtle up in your base and just watch the bars as your units are made, it requires almost no mechanics and can be done with 50 APM. That's why this type of play needs to be inferior to an aggressive playstyle that seizes the initiative in a game. Seizing the initiative requires better mechanics. For this reason, good players with good mechanics and high APM should want the defensive and passive play that qxc did to be less effective than the dynamic and aggressive play of Sheth. Didn't Terran Mech worked that way in BW, too? Staying passive in the beginning and smashing the opponent afterwards?
Qxc wasn't just passive in the beginning, he basically hid in his base the entire game until he finally emerged from it with 200/200. I'm pretty sure that strategy would be pretty easily beaten in BW.
|
I don't know how "dynamic and aggressive" Sheth was. He didn't really attack until about twenty minutes into the game, well after he had maxed out. For the most part, qxc had about 150 apm to Sheth's 100ish.
But, yeah, that style of qxc is viable, but really boring to watch, to play, and to play against. There were definitely opportunities where Sheth could have won all of the games he lost that series--or at least made them less one-sided--but still. If games like that become the norm, Starcraft II is not going to do well as an e-sport.
|
I wouldn't describe the current Zerg play as agressive either, FE into mass drone pumping into 3 roaches and 6 speedlings into more expansions till max food. As I said before, when Zerg acts passive Terran will happily do the same since their 200/200 food mech army will have critical damage output and dominate. It seems up to Zerg to do some economic damage before it gets to that point, I still think burrowed Roaches and muta's would be great for these purposes 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
