Official State of the Game Podcast Thread - Page 1871

On December 09 2011 07:06 KnightwhoSaysNI wrote:


Wow just as I was getting ready to hit post I saw this ^^ props on beating me to the punch.

Those who assume that mech is viable vs protoss need to go play it, play against or go look at all the games that players like jinro grinded out. Aside from all the logistical problems it has, its simply not cost effective ENOUGH to be considered.

If you compare a engagement in TVT with mech in a position vs a well spread bio force, you will lose maybe HALF your hellions before the entire bioball is vaporized. TVZ, to fight mech you force Terran to trade Tanks for thors or get broodlord infestor to siege mech positions because your low hp units die as you run in, and your high hp armored units melt to tank fire.

The reason this is, Zerg and Terran Don’t have any NON ARMORED high hp unit that can tank massive amounts of damage as the army closes on the meching player. Zealots tank a massive amount of siege tank splash, as do archons. Marauders and roaches get splattered, Zealots and archons shrug it off. This means the meching force basically splashes itself into oblivion as the higher hp ball of protoss crushes in. Zealots simply take too long to die to hellions, which are trying to buffer the tanks.

The same mech force that loses half of its hellions against bio, barely remains standing after the engagement. Now, protoss with its ability to reinforce the fastest after an engagement mops up whatever remains with ease. Envision an engagement where your pushing across the map, if you have 25-50% of your army remaining against a competent protoss that tailors their ground force to combat mech and spreads thier units; that’s a good thing as a mech player...

You watch goody play mech TVP, and he basically MASSES PFS as he splits the map, something you don’t necessarily have to do as a meching player in TVT or TVZ. This is because mech by itself as a stand alone army isn’t efficient enough, the fact that a 1500hp building is required to buffer the army in this match up to be cost efficient enough to use logistically says something.

There are a number of pros who have made their thoughts on mech vs protoss clear, Jinro Goody and Avilo are such examples. Basically figuring out how to mech isn’t rewarding enough in engagements as compared to well microed Bio+Support. There IS a lot of data on it if you know where to look and its easy to see how there are major differences between Mech vs Protoss and the other match ups.

It will take major changes to the units that make mechs composition before we start seeing it again or used successfully vs protoss on long macro games on large maps like Tal Darim.

…And that’s before we consider the implications of giving up map control and mobility.

Bottom line, Bio in theory is much less limited because you can kite, spread and target your units to maximum effectiveness. The automaton for mech is quite a bit more limited since you cant kite back with sieged tanks...
Its very disingenous to those pros to say high level terrans never played around with it or attempted to grind these things out in practice.

On December 09 2011 06:20 Flonomenalz wrote:
I don't know why more people don't play Ghost Mech vs Zerg. I really, really don't. Because if they did I'd lose every ZvT.

edit: this was a response to MCDay, not a balance whine =p

On December 09 2011 08:45 Alexstrasas wrote:
Oh my... Protoss and zergs talking about mech like its some sort of unexplored secret "iwin" weapon that terrans forgot to use.



"Ghost Mech" sounds awesome. Now could you tell us please what exactly is the difference between "Ghost Mech" and the standard late game TvZ army ? Helions instead of marines? Because tanks and thors are already extensively used.

Now i dont want to bash or diss but im seriously astonished by the things some people are saying here.

I cant really understand at all this people that are swearing on their knees that mech is going to be the next big thing in TvP.

Look:

SC2 Tank:

Minerals: 150
Vespene: 125
Supply: 3
Damage when sieged: 35 (bonus 15 vs Armored)

SCBW Tank:

Minerals: 150
Vespene: 100
Supply: 2
Damage when sieged: 70

People either just dont know about the difference or they dont understand the implication of tanks doing HALF the damage that they used to while costing MORE supply.

Just so you understand the numbers, it takes 5 shots for 1 tank to kill a puny zealot.

If Protoss was already able to break siege lines in BW, how in the F, do you want people to hold them now? And this not factoring no spider mines, charge, blink, colossus etc.

It just doesnt make sense at all.

And i mean you arent even talking about just using tanks like in marine/tank or something but "mech", what helion/tank? You do realize that a helion has 90 hp and has to kite to win a 1on1 with a simple zealot right?

Most terrans including various pro players clearly stated that they tried and it simply doesnt work, the stats on the units clearly point to the same conclusion, why keep pushing the same button over and over again ?

On December 09 2011 08:49 Elefanto wrote:


You have no idea what you're talking about in your damage conclusion.
Research the broodwar damage system.

On December 09 2011 07:52 Kharnage wrote:


Just to address the bolded section, isn't the PF sprawl as much to deal witht he immobility of mech as it is to tank damage? (get it, tank damage *crickets chirp*)

Like, if you're worried about stalkers moving around your army, blinking into your main and doing a lot of damage to your production, isn't some well placed PF's the easy, supply free method of stopping that from happening? Infact, think of a PF as more expensive supply depot that can shoot stuff and is a hell of a lot tougher.

I haven't watched a lot of TvP where T is using mech, but is mass ghost part of their play? Looking at a lot of the objects it seems like EMP actually answers at least some of those issues (archons, HT, immortal shields) Please don't tell me "but you can't get ghosts, blah blah blah". you don't need infantry upgrades for them to work. you don't even need to research anything for them to work, emp is available off the shelf (though you will want mobius).

Zealots are definately a problem to tank splash and I don't know if the answer is mass hellions like artosis suggests, emergency bunker buffers like forGG used vs july zerg on taldarim, a good number of banshees that cleanup the zealots, focus fire the tanks on the stalkers.

I dunno, there is no reason that i would know, i'm just a diamond level scrub

I just like thinking / discussing about the problem cause it's one of the fun parts of SC2.

For the pro level I maintain that they will train the most time efficient way to win. While MMMGV works really well mech is a timesink which may or maynot pay off. Pro's need to spend their training time more efficiently than that.
You won't see mech TvP until protoss are far and away better than MMMGV OR someone is going up against a protoss player and feels that the protoss players micro is Sooooo much better that MMMGV is suicide.
The arguement that "pro's don't use it" doesn't mean that it's not possible, it means their time is better spent improving their bio play.

On December 09 2011 08:02 mazwoo wrote:
Mech isnt viable in the current state, but maybe people figure out new ways of playing it. Maybe they cant and it will take till HotS, but whos to say? I just dont understand how everyone saying it will never be viable seems to have figured out the game already. Maybe you can micro your hellions, split them, kite zealots away from tanks. Maybe you need flash-like tank positioning. There are alot of possibilities, and everybody stating its all been done/tried is ignorant to the fact that the game evolves and hopefully will continue to do so.

On December 09 2011 08:49 Elefanto wrote:


You have no idea what you're talking about in your damage conclusion.
Research the broodwar damage system.

On December 09 2011 09:24 KnightwhoSaysNI wrote:


PFS are required against protoss because of things like blink stalkers and collosus yes, your spread too thin. Terran has drops and zerg drops/nydus are alot easier to deal with because there is no bypass or cliffwalk. Your sinking more resources away from your army to stay alive instead of putting pressure back onto your opponent.


Nobody is saying ghosts aren't AMAZING at the matchup, but your trying to do too many things here, ghost mech is viable against zerg because
1) Its alot easier to get the nessecary infrastructure
2) Your units are alot more cost effective - so you get the required bases faster and more safely.

Please don't tell me "but you can't get ghosts, blah blah blah"

lol, but thats exactly the issue, where do you get the gas to make 20+ tanks + PFS + whatever else you need to deal with things like air and sensor towers and then afford mass ghosts? They arent cheap on gas, and you have to allocate such resources away from things like tanks. The emp nerf also hurt mech players especially because you dont get as much oompf as you did before and are very likely to have less of them then a bio player.
IF you can split the map and get the 10+ gases to support it, sure it could be good.

Its like saying 150 SUPPLY BCS WITH GHOSTS11!!!!1 sure, it could be unbeatable, but how on earth do I manage to get to that point?

The whole issue is that when you give up map control, turtle on three bases so you cannot be broken, and finally push out... to take a fourth or a fifth. Good luck envisioning an army that actually wins against an opponent with 8 + bases, 50 warpgates that reinforce anywhere on the map... and the massive resource bank to do it with.

Pretty much if your opponent is given THAT much room to play with, if they dont win they did a really poor job of exploiting all the issues mech has. If a meching player manages to split the map, thier opponent made a ton of mistakes.

Mech vs protoss is limited to a gimmick on certain maps where your able to turtle across the map for the course of an hour and exploit the fact that your opponent isnt playing against it properly.

Now mass hellions have issues against zealots,
Zealots dont always lead, they tank too much damage, and you cant kite them back past tanks, so things like collosus get to shred your hellions apart when you try to dart in, and you cant retreat or you expose your more important tanks. In a vacuum if you say sure mass hellion deals with zealots effectively... and then dont look at the larger picture in terms of army engagements you can make that error.
...And while your focusing what few stalkers the protoss has, the rest of the army that doesnt actually get hurt because hellions do shit damage that actually didnt kill all the zealots comes in and starts wrecking face.

As far as banshees are concerned, the longer the game goes, the less effective they are.

As far as training efficiently I'd disagree on the examples qouted, Jinro and Avilo and Goody did it for so long because it was a stylistic, and experimental way to play. Sure bio is easier - to win with, but they stubbornly tried for months on end to force it to work and figure it out.. They gave up after they concluded that it just wasnt a worthwhile way to play anymore. Pros dont just stick with what is known and the best way to win, they look for new ways to play, new styles and builds to use because those new novel ways are hard to prepare against and can give them a huge advantage.

On December 09 2011 09:57 Kharnage wrote:


It seems to me that there are 2 arguements being had right now.

arguement 1 is 200/200 mech army is just crap in TvP

arguement 2 is you can't survive long enough to get a 200/200 mech army

The ghost point is part of arguement 1. I'm actually ignoring arguement 2 initially because if arguement 1 is true then arguement 2 is a moot point. So, shelve the "but how do i get ghosts" for the moment and look at the more pressing issue of how good is the terran mech army when maxed. The first step would be, what does that 'look' like.

Assume Protoss will build the same army it does now as a starting point, that way you don't get bogged down into "but protoss will make this so i'll make this and then protoss will respond with this so i need this" never ending cycle.
Current protoss army is zealot, sentry, small stalker count, some colossus (6), HT with storm, few archons, maybe a few immortals. Stargates are pretty much not included.

So, what mech army would you 'want' to deal with that force? What are the problems? What units exploit the crap out of the current protoss composition?
you need some ghosts for the archons and HT's protoss is light on anti-air so banshees are intuitively good. ST out range colossus, HT, but are vulnerable to chargelots if chargelots can get close. Immortals will ruin your day unless you can EMP them first. some marines would also be good to help drain immortal shields quickly. You want vikings to deal with colossus, keep air control and a raven to shut down obs, which are CRITICAL for protoss to spot a weak spot in your positioning. for now lets assume missile turrets, sensor towers and vikings and keep warp prisms at bay, a few strategically placed PF's stop blink stalker harassment from being a "big" problem. How many tanks do you need for "critical" mass of damage? How much food does that leave for ghosts, vikings, banshees and ravens.

Just assuming you can get into this position, I don't care how or why right now, would you feel good about this game? Do you think from this position you could win? Do you feel that protoss has to change what they are doing to win?

If you throw this example over to protoss as an air army, no "air" army protoss can field vs a "standard" terran army would make me feel good about it. say, 8 carriers, a bunch of voidrays, mothership still leaves me 'feeling' like emp will do a lot of damage. the marines will kill the interceptors / VR, vikings will wipe out the mothership and then the carriers in no time. VS the standard MMMGV I feel that protoss AIR would be bad. Terran would ahve to change almost nothing about their current play to win this game. they might want to sack their maruaders and replace them with marines or vikings. not a big change.

On December 09 2011 10:39 KnightwhoSaysNI wrote:


Your missing something, you CAN Max out with mech on... on 3 bases, but your unit compsition is limited, sucks and you cant actually remake it.

IT LIMITS YOUR COMPOSITION.
You dont get the freedom to make whatever you want, you dont have 12 geysers to work with like protoss will, your options are limited to what your playstyle is inside the game. You give up map control and you give up aggression in any form aside from econ harrass.

You cant theory craft this imaginary dream army where you have tanks + marines + Raven + Vikings + Banshees +Ghosts. Bio you can transition into other shit... where you can possibly get the mass of bcs. With mech you dont get too. Your stuck with X number of hellions X number of Tanks X number of thors X number of Vikings. If you want anything extra, pick and chose which your going to have less of. You dont get to remax, you get ONE ARMY. Against an opponent that has the ability to INSTANTLY REMAX and change whatever unit composition he wants.

You dont get to pick and choose, "well, I have 3/3 tanks, 3/3 marines, 3/3 air upgrades with raven, viking, banshee + Ghosts." Thats not mech. Mech is whatever your sorry ass can make out of 3-5 factories before protoss kills you, or starves you out.

By the time you have 1/1 with mech, your facing 3/3 ground from protoss. The unit comp you pick will always be suboptimal against an opponent that has a 100% macro advantage over you.
As far as marine tank is concerned which is what you brought up, its still an allin because its even more fragile then what mech is, just with more dps and mobility. there is a reason 1/1/1 is a 1 or 2 base play v p and you transition out of it..

Mech is not viable because you give up control of the game, and restrict yourself into a bottleneck against an opponent who effectively has 2-3 more bases then you from a very early point with a suboptimal unit comp that is limited to what you can afford on 6 gases and is a nightmare to defend with. If mech was to be viable, it would have to be losing 30 supply against protoss in max'd engagements not 70. It would have to behave against protoss like it does against bio or zerg without certain techs.

If you want your ideal theory craft army, its alot easier to get it with bio and you dont give up control of the game while you do so, because its impracticle and pointless to do it with mech. The arguement is that MECH as a unit comp is just not effective enough, without adding all these wonderful things that you cant actually get with it.

On December 09 2011 10:47 Kharnage wrote:


I'm not 'missing' it. All these points are valid and present a massive set of problems to deal with, I'm not disputing that at all.

I'm asking 'is the goal worthwhile'. If the goal of that army composition is not worthwhile then these are a bunch of problems which simply don't need solving. It may be that these problems are insurmountable and it's idiotic to try and achieve this mech end game goal for all the reasons you have listed above. But before beginning to even attempt to solve the problem I want to know if there is even a point in trying.

This i also the point artosis is making when he says "i'm not sure what protoss does against that". He's looking at the goal before the problem of attaining it.

If the goal is worthwhile then I'll start thinking about how to not die, how to put pressure on the protoss player and so on.
if not then screw it, i don't see the point. Mech in TvP is just bad.

On December 09 2011 08:49 Elefanto wrote:


You have no idea what you're talking about in your damage conclusion.
Research the broodwar damage system.