|
On March 22 2012 17:45 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 17:34 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg" Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo. And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army. Well, regarding the mobility issue, the HOTS goliaths might be quite mobile. So I'm hoping that might be a solution. Don't know how many T are going to remain in the game if we need to wait that long, though. As for mech against Z, what seems to happen is that it comes down to scouting. If the Z scouts in time and gets tons of upgrades and nothing but roach, mech isn't actually viable. There are generally too many throw-away roach drops into the main and then the Z will just crush the T once the T moves out. Games to see: Puma v a Z on daybreak, Nada v Nestea on Bel'shir beach, even Mvp v Symbol yesterday (The latter might have had Mvp too far behind from failed cheese, though). But mech play is definitely available for exploration in the TvZ MU, it's just that it seems weaker than marine tank so it doesn't get played/explored much at all.
Indeed, it might be viable. But the problem I have with Mech in TvZ (I use it in TvT all the time and it's really good, I tried it in TvP for a while and it's garbage in that MU lol) is that TvZ is a very reactionary matchup for both sides. As terran you always need to make sure that you "hard counter" the zerg army. And like I said, if the Zerg is really smart and tech switches alot there is absolutely no way for you to keep up, I used to play Mech in TvZ alot, until Zergs started doing this "Roach into Muta into Roach into Broodlord back into roach, etc.. pp. " style and I found it impossible to win, if your unit composition is just slightly off you either get rolled by mass ground or mass air and you simply lack the production capability to react to what your opponent is building, you have to sort of assume that he's not tech switching/is tech switching. And then there is, like you said, the problem with roach drops, muta harrass, just the lack of mobility in general, Terran mech lacks a unit that you can just send back and that can deal with drops, hellions don't do anything against roaches, tanks and thors are way too slow. I don't know, maybe mech is viable but I personally am not convinced at all.
edit: And another problem I have with mech in tvz is that, once you fall behind it's basically impossible to come back, with bio/mech you can drop with marines and really harrass the zerg to no end, but with mech.. what can you do? harrass with bfh? Well if the zerg puts up mass spine crawlers at his expos that is pretty much completely useless...
I don't know, maybe if you mix in some banshees so that you have starport tech early on and can harrass with cloak banshees (and have vikings available to you no matter what), it might be something to explore, but other than that I am very sceptical of mech in TvZ.
|
On March 22 2012 17:34 ChaosTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg" Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo. And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army.
Mech is being played against Zerg from the lowest to the highest level. At the highest level I think I have seen less mass mutaplay vs Mech, than Mech vs Protoss in the last months. That's all I'm gonna say about viability of Mechplay vs Zerg and mutaliskplay vs Mech in WoL.
To TvP: There are a ton of threads on TL about Mech vP (from players up to high masters), Mech gets thrown in as kind of cheese by progamers sometimes... I don't think the game needs a lot of changes for it to become playable, but that's all just speculations (just like your counterposition is just a speculation). Pretty much everything you have mentioned has already been figuered, how you can deal with it seperatly, it rather seems like the amount of possibilities combined with toplevel multitasking makes Mech such a tough choice.
Terran is designed with 2seperate groundtechpaths; production, upgrades, costdistribution among units, techlevels inside of the paths, roledistribution inside the paths, broodwar gamplay background... everything screams that.
|
On March 22 2012 15:02 dignitas.merz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 14:58 mcleod wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:On March 22 2012 05:43 Bojas wrote:On March 22 2012 05:37 biology]major wrote:On March 22 2012 05:26 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 05:18 biology]major wrote:On March 22 2012 05:13 jabberjaw wrote:I'll also point out that while you micro you don't have to look at a pylon to keep your production going. not really an issue because you can always not have warpgates and instead regular gateways if this that big of an issue. problem solved. even with that drawback of warp gates, it's benefits far outweigh having to move scroll to a pylon and warp in units. and this is the level of players arguing in this thread Pro level? beastyqt? A bunch of diamond terrans and beastyqt, who is already notoriously known for being whiny and bm since beta. About his argument about how he didn't "deserve" to lose for not dodging 1 storm is not unique to tvp. That is how sc2 is, one fungal, banelings vs marines, vortex, storm, force field all are game changing and you can lose in an instant in any matchup. There are plenty of terrans who are not whiny and have success vs protoss. Naruto has openly stated in this thread that marine ghost will help alot of terrans who rely on marauders the entire game, Lastshadow has made 3 30 min vlogs on tvp explaining in detail how to play with ghost marine/ engagements. Same goes for kawaiirice who used to think tvp was utterly unwinnable and changed his mindset and has improved drastically. Point is every diamond player in this thread is rallying around 1 whiny progamer, when in reality there are those who have success and don't want to argue with said diamond players because they will be ignored and it is not worth the time. Also don't give me the argument that terran takes more apm so its imbalanced, this is not grade school. Not one whining progamer. Beatyqt, Demuslim, Jinro, Merz, Sjow, Avilo, Cloud out of the top of my head. I follow most of these guys on twitter and I regularly hear their opinions on protoss. If you would add the progamers who agree with this but aren't vocal about it I think you have quite a few. I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient. People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs. Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else. Take TvP for example, lets break down 3 scenarios that are all very likely, we're going to assume P scouts gas here A) P scouts gas, knows theres a possibility of one base play such as 2 rax or the infamous 1/1/1. Plays REALLY safe because the protoss is expecting a one base B) P scouts gas, goes for the 1 gate nexus anyways and is determined to hold even if it is a 1/1/1 or 2 rax. C) P scouts gas and goes for a direct blind counter to specific BO, lets say phoenix play because they are expecting a banshee and then the 1/1/1 build as a follow up (which directly counters any 1/1/1 opening). Scenario A) P is playing safe, expecting a one base. Several things can happen here. Either Terran mindgames, pulls scvs off gas and goes for a 1 rax FE with reactor, as soon as the probe leaves or is dead. P is now automtically behind in economy because he played overly safe expecting a 1 base play. Terran can also decide to go for a 1 base play, Protoss holds, proceeds to win game. Here it's already quite random because P can't really know if its a fake or not. B) Again randomness, if The terran is faking 1 base aggression and actually went for 1 rax CC, the mindgame didn't really do anything and at best the Terran and Protoss is at equal grounds. This, being problematic seeing how Terran wants that early edge and to finish off protoss quick Or.. Terran went for 1 base play and just so happened to pick the right 1 base strategy to hard counter your 1 gate nexus, Protoss loses the game. C) Protoss goes for a blind counter, lets use phoenix opening as an example. If terran opens up banshee hes basically dead, if he opened up 2 rax, protoss is all of a sudden pretty dead. If Terran faked P out and went for a 1 rax FE, he's massively ahead in economy, because Phoenix openings aren't very good vs Bio FEs (lots of marines, early ebay etc). A + B + C and all the different scenarios = RANDOMNESS Now a Terran always playing it straight up, going for the macro game, is the only time P can ever know exactly what's going on. So here it's already like you're giving up some of your strenght. Worse is, once you reach the lategame where you both have 200/200 armies, Protoss reinforcement capabilites are so much better than Terrans (proxy pylons everywhere, can practically warp in 15-20 chargelots in the MIDDLE of a fight) while Terran can't macro and fight at the same time. Fighting in a 200/200 vs 200/200 in TvP requires 100% focus on the screen where the battle is happening which benefits a protoss with proxy pylons just behind his army. Terrans also has to utilize EMP, stim, kiting, and their vikings. All of these "lock up" important hotkeys during a fight which makes it extremely hard, if not close to impossible, to get a macro round in while you're actually fighting. I think a perfect example of this is IMMvp. IMMvp is known for his incredible straight up play. He cheeses from time to time, sure, but the majority of his games are straight up solid play. Yet, which one of MVPs matchups is his worst? TvP. Also, if you hadn't noticed by now, IMMvp is posting worse and worse results for every tournament. Which Terran actually excells in Korea right now? MarineKing. Now if you compare the two, MarineKing always has a new one base strategy to pull out of his sleeve, while IMMvp relies more on solid play. MKP does however lack in consistency which I believe is because he sometimes just botches games completlty due to "picking the wrong build". Whenever I felt playing for the lategame and playing the macrogame didn't work, I'd look at IMMvp and be convinced that it does work, but these past two or three months, I look at IMMvps games and im not convinced anymore. I feel it's a flaw in the design because each race should have equal capabilites in the long game, but that's just not the case. Terran is too strong in the early game and rewards mindgames, using a different strategy each time, and cheap all-ins more than solid straight up play. Obviously each race should be of equal capability in the early game too. I could go on about this forever but I guess that's it for now. Also to be honest, you look at how Blizzard patch this game and you realize if people cry hard enough about something, it's eventually getting patched. I figured I'd give it a try too. ug u do realize marineking is #1 on the korean ladder there isnt much about his play thats random and you have to be pretty consistent to be #1 he just has a wide variety of builds and heres the key, hes SUPER AGRRESSIVE sometimes we see it be his downfall, but most of the time it works out for him thats the biggest key to playing terran non stop poking and dropping, until u give yourself a clear advantage is this bad for gameplay? idk, but atm thats just how it is ??? I said he excells as in hes probably the best terran in Korea right now. I pointed out he has a variety of builds and new tricks up his sleeve every time, and much like you, sometimes its his downfall. I've already pointed out the key to playing Terran is getting a clear advantage early on. I don't really understand why you'd quote me and post this.
I have a korean ladder access and I can tell you, merz is right. MKP's strength on the ladder is that:
1) He's downright a formidable player, that you can't face with your safest non corner cutting builds.
2) He's just fucking unpredictable. I look at his match history. One game it's a 14CC, the other a 2 rax, one other time some 1 gas 1-1-1 with marine-hellion-medivacs, and all this regardless of the opponent's race.
MKP is one of the best to exploit Terran early game unpredictability.
|
On March 22 2012 18:03 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 17:34 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg" Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo. And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army. Mech is being played against Zerg from the lowest to the highest level. At the highest level I think I have seen less mass mutaplay vs Mech, than Mech vs Protoss in the last months. That's all I'm gonna say about viability of Mechplay vs Zerg and mutaliskplay vs Mech in WoL. To TvP: There are a ton of threads on TL about Mech vP (from players up to high masters), Mech gets thrown in as kind of cheese by progamers sometimes... I don't think the game needs a lot of changes for it to become playable, but that's all just speculations (just like your counterposition is just a speculation). Pretty much everything you have mentioned has already been figuered, how you can deal with it seperatly, it rather seems like the amount of possibilities combined with toplevel multitasking makes Mech such a tough choice. Terran is designed with 2seperate groundtechpaths; production, upgrades, costdistribution among units, techlevels inside of the paths, roledistribution inside the paths, broodwar gamplay background... everything screams that.
But that's a bad thing more than anything.
And no, blink stalkers, speed prism drops, chargelots, immortals, nexus recall hasn't been figured out yet. You can't counter that with mech at all. There is no unit that you can simply send back to deal with any of this. There are threads about Mech, but it doesn't mean it's viable, because it simply isn't. I'm sure we can get Jinro to comment on this. But in all honesty I'm getting tired of you specifically. You certainly haven't even tried Mech in TvP, so for the love of god, stop posting here.
And mutas are extremely viable against Mech, as a tech switch. You cannot mass pure muta obviously, but you tech switch long enough to out produce the terran on every end and then kill move him with broodlords, that is arguably the best way to beat mech in zvt.
And no, mech isn't viable in tvp, the only way it is viable is if you open up cloak banshee and hellion drop and kill 20 probes and are infinitely far ahead (every single game in the day9 daily about mech was like that) in which case it doesn't matter what you follow it up with ur gonna win either way. Show me a game where both players are evenly matched in the midgame, the protoss does blink stalkers backstabs, nexus recalls, speed prism harrass and the terran actually wins. because so far, every replay of mech I have seen the terran win was either when the terran was 30 workers ahead after the early game, or the protoss didn't do anything and made the wrong units.
edit: And before you say anything else, the most experienced mech player in TvP on this planet, goody himself, said that Mech isn't viable in TvP and he isn't meching in tvp for quite a while now. so what are we even having this discussion for? You are absolutely deluded, every single one of your posts is mind-boggling, really.
|
Anyone remembers Squirtle vs MVP on Terminus when MVP opened FE into 3 rax medi into like 5+ factories...I remember that game thinking "my god he is changing how the game is played" and then protoss rolled him :D
I would love to be able to play mech, its fun to play it 
|
I think ive played the game for almost a year now (being masters first season and GM for the rest til now) and basically when I look at the T race as a whole, it has too much gimmicks and lacks substance. Unlike the previous game, you can feel that Blizzard gave T so many harassing tools and no real "core" units other than the marine/marauder.
Early in the game's life, T was winning left and right due to its early game advantage being unbelievably strong.
1) reapers - can jump cliffs hence ignoring wall offs, come at crazy times (before they nerfed the supply before rax), might even have speed etc
2) hellions - BFH drops/runbys = mineral line dead
3) Cloaked banshees - Not many people knew the timings well nor had a good understanding of banshsis management and simply just died to it.
4) 2rax, 4rax, marauder rush w/e.
..
..
Yeah you get the idea. Most of the all in builds were eventually figured out, or nerfed to hell with some of those tools becoming useless or becoming a shell of its former self (reapers!). I dont really disagree with this changes because having too many harassing tools that are available in early game = RANDOMESS x 1000000. You might have a safe build that deals with everything but what if the T just mind tricked you and built a CC in base? Sure people do like early actions/engagements w/e but Id rather we have more epic back and forth mid/late game battles where it really tests your macro/micro and decision making (or in korean: 운영 how one dictates the flow of the game) skills.
However what I dont get is why they did not buff the "core" units that are used for straight up engagement (the substance that I am talking about) and none of this harassing/poking/w.e crap. I mean, sure there are times we need it, but why is it a necessity rather than a choice? Let me explain this further for those who do not race as T.
We are all accustomed to the "bio" army of T which utilises barracks units as its key composition. Next we have "Mech" (factory based core compositions) and maybe even "Sky terran" (Starport based core composition). The army based on three distinct core composition are then usually supported by units provided by the other tech tree.
Because of how the T tech tree is setup, accessing to all the tech tree is easy but devoting to all three is nearly impossible due to having different upgrades. This is why transitioning anything out of a Bio army for example simply does not work. Yet it gets better. The other "core" units from the other tech trees other than bio simply do not hold a candle to the bio army's core units in terms of DPS, mobility and cost. For instance, one would expect that a Mech based army with tanks at its core should literally obliterate anything on the ground to compensate for its immobility. It simply doesn't, or just doesn't do a very good job at it.
Looking back at the bio core, it stands up very well in vT, vZ and vP til it goes late game. It has the firepower and mobility but its effectiveness is reduced as the game gets longer (adding support units from other tech trees delays the effectiveness and/or how good you are micro management/multi tasking). So this gives a T an idea of what to expect if he decides to invest in bio tech. However what about mech? One would expect mech would be all balls out firepower but lacking mobility where its effectiveness increases as it goes late game.
The current T has no such option especially in TvP. Both TvT and TvZ function fine (albiet with problems in late game with either tech tree) with both bio and mech but in TvP the T is constricted to using bio compositions only. The other two races benefit from unlocking powerful units where as the T has literally none. Ghosts were kind of playing the "Science Vessel" role in TvZ late game, forming that much needed backbone of the weak T army to fight against ultras and BLs but that too is nerfed.
For one, I would not mind having some of those harassing tools to be taken away and replaced with buffs to core units for different tech trees that make T able to have straight up games with the other races even til late game (maybe compensate by nerfing bio a little to make mech and skyterran viable as standard). Without having the ability to do that especially in TvP, I can imagine most T becoming tired of being aggressive/playing against the clock or having to always resort into some sort of shenanigans as too most P players who are probably just as tired dealing with all sorts of BS from T.
@Beastyqt - I remember that game. That was pretty exciting but resulted in a very anti-climatic ending.. Think it pretty much ended MVPs mech experiment.
|
On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 18:03 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 17:34 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg" Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo. And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army. Mech is being played against Zerg from the lowest to the highest level. At the highest level I think I have seen less mass mutaplay vs Mech, than Mech vs Protoss in the last months. That's all I'm gonna say about viability of Mechplay vs Zerg and mutaliskplay vs Mech in WoL. To TvP: There are a ton of threads on TL about Mech vP (from players up to high masters), Mech gets thrown in as kind of cheese by progamers sometimes... I don't think the game needs a lot of changes for it to become playable, but that's all just speculations (just like your counterposition is just a speculation). Pretty much everything you have mentioned has already been figuered, how you can deal with it seperatly, it rather seems like the amount of possibilities combined with toplevel multitasking makes Mech such a tough choice. Terran is designed with 2seperate groundtechpaths; production, upgrades, costdistribution among units, techlevels inside of the paths, roledistribution inside the paths, broodwar gamplay background... everything screams that. But that's a bad thing more than anything. And no, blink stalkers, speed prism drops, chargelots, immortals, nexus recall hasn't been figured out yet. You can't counter that with mech at all. There is no unit that you can simply send back to deal with any of this. There are threads about Mech, but it doesn't mean it's viable, because it simply isn't. I'm sure we can get Jinro to comment on this. But in all honesty I'm getting tired of you specifically. You certainly haven't even tried Mech in TvP, so for the love of god, stop posting here.
All the mobility and drop issues are pretty much dealt with the same way they are dealt with in TvT: Turretrings, small amounts of sieged tanks in the main, vikings, sensor towers.
Immortals are dealt with by adding ghosts or banshees.
Chargelots mealt against kiting hellions.
--> go to any Mechthread and they can tell you how it becomes dealable if you know about it.
And yes, I have played a lot of Mech vs Protoss in the past week. It's great fun, but (imo) it needs some buffs, because it's extremly volatile in the early and midgame and maybe not "crushing" enough in lategame engagements to justify this stlye.
On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And mutas are extremely viable against Mech, as a tech switch. You cannot mass pure muta obviously, but you tech switch long enough to out produce the terran on every end and then kill move him with broodlords, that is arguably the best way to beat mech in zvt.
Yeah, it's a strong way to play vs Mech, but nothing that can't be beaten, just like dropping all over the place/mixing in banshees and then pushing or fake pushing is a strong way to play vs Infestors. It's basically called "outplaying" your opponent, meaning you lean onto the weaknesses of his composition and try to force mistakes out of him.
On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And no, mech isn't viable in tvp, the only way it is viable is if you open up cloak banshee and hellion drop and kill 20 probes and are infinitely far ahead (every single game in the day9 daily about mech was like that) in which case it doesn't matter what you follow it up with ur gonna win either way. Show me a game where both players are evenly matched in the midgame, the protoss does blink stalkers backstabs, nexus recalls, speed prism harrass and the terran actually wins. because so far, every replay of mech I have seen the terran win was either when the terran was 30 workers ahead after the early game, or the protoss didn't do anything and made the wrong units.
That's why I keep on saying that it isn't viable, but that doesn't mean that it could not become viable through some buffs. Stop missreading and missinterpreting what I'm writing. Your blindly ranting against things that I haven't said or implied.
On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
edit: And before you say anything else, the most experienced mech player in TvP on this planet, goody himself, said that Mech isn't viable in TvP and he isn't meching in tvp for quite a while now. so what are we even having this discussion for? You are absolutely deluded, every single one of your posts is mind-boggling, really.
Yes and this is completly wrong information. Goody said that he thinks the only way to play Mech in TvP is by Planetary Fortress pushing in superlong games and that he thinks bio is stronger. He did not say that it is not viable.
And if you actually watch his stream, you will see that he still plays Mechbuilds against Protoss. (just like he has been mixing in bio builds vs Zerg as well) People keep on talking about Goody, giving him shit for bad mechanics and being slow etc, quoting him on every Mech comment in TvP, but most of them have never actually watched his stream. It's really really annoying.
|
On March 22 2012 18:46 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:03 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 17:34 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg" Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo. And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army. Mech is being played against Zerg from the lowest to the highest level. At the highest level I think I have seen less mass mutaplay vs Mech, than Mech vs Protoss in the last months. That's all I'm gonna say about viability of Mechplay vs Zerg and mutaliskplay vs Mech in WoL. To TvP: There are a ton of threads on TL about Mech vP (from players up to high masters), Mech gets thrown in as kind of cheese by progamers sometimes... I don't think the game needs a lot of changes for it to become playable, but that's all just speculations (just like your counterposition is just a speculation). Pretty much everything you have mentioned has already been figuered, how you can deal with it seperatly, it rather seems like the amount of possibilities combined with toplevel multitasking makes Mech such a tough choice. Terran is designed with 2seperate groundtechpaths; production, upgrades, costdistribution among units, techlevels inside of the paths, roledistribution inside the paths, broodwar gamplay background... everything screams that. But that's a bad thing more than anything. And no, blink stalkers, speed prism drops, chargelots, immortals, nexus recall hasn't been figured out yet. You can't counter that with mech at all. There is no unit that you can simply send back to deal with any of this. There are threads about Mech, but it doesn't mean it's viable, because it simply isn't. I'm sure we can get Jinro to comment on this. But in all honesty I'm getting tired of you specifically. You certainly haven't even tried Mech in TvP, so for the love of god, stop posting here. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And mutas are extremely viable against Mech, as a tech switch. You cannot mass pure muta obviously, but you tech switch long enough to out produce the terran on every end and then kill move him with broodlords, that is arguably the best way to beat mech in zvt. Yeah, it's a strong way to play vs Mech, but nothing that can't be beaten, just like dropping all over the place/mixing in banshees and then pushing or fake pushing is a strong way to play vs Infestors. It's basically called "outplaying" your opponent, meaning you lean onto the weaknesses of his composition and try to force mistakes out of him. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And no, mech isn't viable in tvp, the only way it is viable is if you open up cloak banshee and hellion drop and kill 20 probes and are infinitely far ahead (every single game in the day9 daily about mech was like that) in which case it doesn't matter what you follow it up with ur gonna win either way. Show me a game where both players are evenly matched in the midgame, the protoss does blink stalkers backstabs, nexus recalls, speed prism harrass and the terran actually wins. because so far, every replay of mech I have seen the terran win was either when the terran was 30 workers ahead after the early game, or the protoss didn't do anything and made the wrong units. That's why I keep on saying that it isn't viable, but that doesn't mean that it could not become viable through some buffs. Stop missreading and missinterpreting what I'm writing. Your blindly ranting against things that I haven't said or implied. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
edit: And before you say anything else, the most experienced mech player in TvP on this planet, goody himself, said that Mech isn't viable in TvP and he isn't meching in tvp for quite a while now. so what are we even having this discussion for? You are absolutely deluded, every single one of your posts is mind-boggling, really. Yes and this is completly wrong information. Goody said that he thinks the only way to play Mech in TvP is by Planetary Fortress pushing in superlong games and that he thinks bio is stronger. He did not say that it is not viable. And if you actually watch his stream, you will see that he still plays Mechbuilds against Protoss. (just like he has been mixing in bio builds vs Zerg as well) People keep on talking about Goody, giving him shit for bad mechanics and being slow etc, quoting him on every Mech comment in TvP, but most of them have never actually watched his stream. It's really really annoying.
No, you are wrong. Goody isn't even playing Terran vP anymore, because he thinks Mech is bad and he sucks with bio. Goody is actually playing Protoss vs. Protoss now.
|
On March 22 2012 18:46 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:03 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 17:34 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg" Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo. And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army. Mech is being played against Zerg from the lowest to the highest level. At the highest level I think I have seen less mass mutaplay vs Mech, than Mech vs Protoss in the last months. That's all I'm gonna say about viability of Mechplay vs Zerg and mutaliskplay vs Mech in WoL. To TvP: There are a ton of threads on TL about Mech vP (from players up to high masters), Mech gets thrown in as kind of cheese by progamers sometimes... I don't think the game needs a lot of changes for it to become playable, but that's all just speculations (just like your counterposition is just a speculation). Pretty much everything you have mentioned has already been figuered, how you can deal with it seperatly, it rather seems like the amount of possibilities combined with toplevel multitasking makes Mech such a tough choice. Terran is designed with 2seperate groundtechpaths; production, upgrades, costdistribution among units, techlevels inside of the paths, roledistribution inside the paths, broodwar gamplay background... everything screams that. But that's a bad thing more than anything. And no, blink stalkers, speed prism drops, chargelots, immortals, nexus recall hasn't been figured out yet. You can't counter that with mech at all. There is no unit that you can simply send back to deal with any of this. There are threads about Mech, but it doesn't mean it's viable, because it simply isn't. I'm sure we can get Jinro to comment on this. But in all honesty I'm getting tired of you specifically. You certainly haven't even tried Mech in TvP, so for the love of god, stop posting here. All the mobility and drop issues are pretty much dealt with the same way they are dealt with in TvT: Turretrings, small amounts of sieged tanks in the main, vikings, sensor towers. Immortals are dealt with by adding ghosts or banshees. Chargelots mealt against kiting hellions. --> go to any Mechthread and they can tell you how it becomes dealable if you know about it. And yes, I have played a lot of Mech vs Protoss in the past week. It's great fun, but (imo) it needs some buffs, because it's extremly volatile in the early and midgame and maybe not "crushing" enough in lategame engagements to justify this stlye. Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And mutas are extremely viable against Mech, as a tech switch. You cannot mass pure muta obviously, but you tech switch long enough to out produce the terran on every end and then kill move him with broodlords, that is arguably the best way to beat mech in zvt. Yeah, it's a strong way to play vs Mech, but nothing that can't be beaten, just like dropping all over the place/mixing in banshees and then pushing or fake pushing is a strong way to play vs Infestors. It's basically called "outplaying" your opponent, meaning you lean onto the weaknesses of his composition and try to force mistakes out of him. Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And no, mech isn't viable in tvp, the only way it is viable is if you open up cloak banshee and hellion drop and kill 20 probes and are infinitely far ahead (every single game in the day9 daily about mech was like that) in which case it doesn't matter what you follow it up with ur gonna win either way. Show me a game where both players are evenly matched in the midgame, the protoss does blink stalkers backstabs, nexus recalls, speed prism harrass and the terran actually wins. because so far, every replay of mech I have seen the terran win was either when the terran was 30 workers ahead after the early game, or the protoss didn't do anything and made the wrong units. That's why I keep on saying that it isn't viable, but that doesn't mean that it could not become viable through some buffs. Stop missreading and missinterpreting what I'm writing. Your blindly ranting against things that I haven't said or implied. Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
edit: And before you say anything else, the most experienced mech player in TvP on this planet, goody himself, said that Mech isn't viable in TvP and he isn't meching in tvp for quite a while now. so what are we even having this discussion for? You are absolutely deluded, every single one of your posts is mind-boggling, really. Yes and this is completly wrong information. Goody said that he thinks the only way to play Mech in TvP is by Planetary Fortress pushing in superlong games and that he thinks bio is stronger. He did not say that it is not viable. And if you actually watch his stream, you will see that he still plays Mechbuilds against Protoss. (just like he has been mixing in bio builds vs Zerg as well) People keep on talking about Goody, giving him shit for bad mechanics and being slow etc, quoting him on every Mech comment in TvP, but most of them have never actually watched his stream. It's really really annoying.
I could be mistaken but I'm quite sure I saw Goody playing Protoss on NarutO's stream a day ago.
|
On March 22 2012 18:49 ChaosTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 18:46 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:03 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 17:34 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg" Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo. And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army. Mech is being played against Zerg from the lowest to the highest level. At the highest level I think I have seen less mass mutaplay vs Mech, than Mech vs Protoss in the last months. That's all I'm gonna say about viability of Mechplay vs Zerg and mutaliskplay vs Mech in WoL. To TvP: There are a ton of threads on TL about Mech vP (from players up to high masters), Mech gets thrown in as kind of cheese by progamers sometimes... I don't think the game needs a lot of changes for it to become playable, but that's all just speculations (just like your counterposition is just a speculation). Pretty much everything you have mentioned has already been figuered, how you can deal with it seperatly, it rather seems like the amount of possibilities combined with toplevel multitasking makes Mech such a tough choice. Terran is designed with 2seperate groundtechpaths; production, upgrades, costdistribution among units, techlevels inside of the paths, roledistribution inside the paths, broodwar gamplay background... everything screams that. But that's a bad thing more than anything. And no, blink stalkers, speed prism drops, chargelots, immortals, nexus recall hasn't been figured out yet. You can't counter that with mech at all. There is no unit that you can simply send back to deal with any of this. There are threads about Mech, but it doesn't mean it's viable, because it simply isn't. I'm sure we can get Jinro to comment on this. But in all honesty I'm getting tired of you specifically. You certainly haven't even tried Mech in TvP, so for the love of god, stop posting here. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And mutas are extremely viable against Mech, as a tech switch. You cannot mass pure muta obviously, but you tech switch long enough to out produce the terran on every end and then kill move him with broodlords, that is arguably the best way to beat mech in zvt. Yeah, it's a strong way to play vs Mech, but nothing that can't be beaten, just like dropping all over the place/mixing in banshees and then pushing or fake pushing is a strong way to play vs Infestors. It's basically called "outplaying" your opponent, meaning you lean onto the weaknesses of his composition and try to force mistakes out of him. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And no, mech isn't viable in tvp, the only way it is viable is if you open up cloak banshee and hellion drop and kill 20 probes and are infinitely far ahead (every single game in the day9 daily about mech was like that) in which case it doesn't matter what you follow it up with ur gonna win either way. Show me a game where both players are evenly matched in the midgame, the protoss does blink stalkers backstabs, nexus recalls, speed prism harrass and the terran actually wins. because so far, every replay of mech I have seen the terran win was either when the terran was 30 workers ahead after the early game, or the protoss didn't do anything and made the wrong units. That's why I keep on saying that it isn't viable, but that doesn't mean that it could not become viable through some buffs. Stop missreading and missinterpreting what I'm writing. Your blindly ranting against things that I haven't said or implied. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
edit: And before you say anything else, the most experienced mech player in TvP on this planet, goody himself, said that Mech isn't viable in TvP and he isn't meching in tvp for quite a while now. so what are we even having this discussion for? You are absolutely deluded, every single one of your posts is mind-boggling, really. Yes and this is completly wrong information. Goody said that he thinks the only way to play Mech in TvP is by Planetary Fortress pushing in superlong games and that he thinks bio is stronger. He did not say that it is not viable. And if you actually watch his stream, you will see that he still plays Mechbuilds against Protoss. (just like he has been mixing in bio builds vs Zerg as well) People keep on talking about Goody, giving him shit for bad mechanics and being slow etc, quoting him on every Mech comment in TvP, but most of them have never actually watched his stream. It's really really annoying. No, you are wrong. Goody isn't even playing Terran vP anymore, because he thinks Mech is bad and he sucks with bio. Goody is actually playing Protoss vs. Protoss now.
yeah, that's very recently and we will see if he sticks to it. Until now only Morrow plays split race...
(also Goody started as Protoss player to begin with)
|
Don't throw in Goody's name as a proof of how a certain strategy doesn't work. For a long time, Goody was for me a proof that Terran was a joke race lol. He is the guy with 80 APM (like your so-called 80 APM top Protoss), and who supply blocks himself at 21 supply while doing a 1rax fe (cf liquipedia: Cordially nicknamed the "Supply Block Terran" by MC during a game vs ReaL). Honestly, he's cool and likes siege tanks and shit, but him disappearing as a progamer is not the worst thing, if anything it means that the game progresses.
Just fyi, I know that mech isn't viable, but I base myself on MVP's comments, not Goody's playstyle :D
In the end, Terran was probably too much awesomeness for Goody to handle.
|
On March 22 2012 18:49 ChaosTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 18:46 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:03 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 17:34 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg" Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo. And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army. Mech is being played against Zerg from the lowest to the highest level. At the highest level I think I have seen less mass mutaplay vs Mech, than Mech vs Protoss in the last months. That's all I'm gonna say about viability of Mechplay vs Zerg and mutaliskplay vs Mech in WoL. To TvP: There are a ton of threads on TL about Mech vP (from players up to high masters), Mech gets thrown in as kind of cheese by progamers sometimes... I don't think the game needs a lot of changes for it to become playable, but that's all just speculations (just like your counterposition is just a speculation). Pretty much everything you have mentioned has already been figuered, how you can deal with it seperatly, it rather seems like the amount of possibilities combined with toplevel multitasking makes Mech such a tough choice. Terran is designed with 2seperate groundtechpaths; production, upgrades, costdistribution among units, techlevels inside of the paths, roledistribution inside the paths, broodwar gamplay background... everything screams that. But that's a bad thing more than anything. And no, blink stalkers, speed prism drops, chargelots, immortals, nexus recall hasn't been figured out yet. You can't counter that with mech at all. There is no unit that you can simply send back to deal with any of this. There are threads about Mech, but it doesn't mean it's viable, because it simply isn't. I'm sure we can get Jinro to comment on this. But in all honesty I'm getting tired of you specifically. You certainly haven't even tried Mech in TvP, so for the love of god, stop posting here. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And mutas are extremely viable against Mech, as a tech switch. You cannot mass pure muta obviously, but you tech switch long enough to out produce the terran on every end and then kill move him with broodlords, that is arguably the best way to beat mech in zvt. Yeah, it's a strong way to play vs Mech, but nothing that can't be beaten, just like dropping all over the place/mixing in banshees and then pushing or fake pushing is a strong way to play vs Infestors. It's basically called "outplaying" your opponent, meaning you lean onto the weaknesses of his composition and try to force mistakes out of him. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And no, mech isn't viable in tvp, the only way it is viable is if you open up cloak banshee and hellion drop and kill 20 probes and are infinitely far ahead (every single game in the day9 daily about mech was like that) in which case it doesn't matter what you follow it up with ur gonna win either way. Show me a game where both players are evenly matched in the midgame, the protoss does blink stalkers backstabs, nexus recalls, speed prism harrass and the terran actually wins. because so far, every replay of mech I have seen the terran win was either when the terran was 30 workers ahead after the early game, or the protoss didn't do anything and made the wrong units. That's why I keep on saying that it isn't viable, but that doesn't mean that it could not become viable through some buffs. Stop missreading and missinterpreting what I'm writing. Your blindly ranting against things that I haven't said or implied. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
edit: And before you say anything else, the most experienced mech player in TvP on this planet, goody himself, said that Mech isn't viable in TvP and he isn't meching in tvp for quite a while now. so what are we even having this discussion for? You are absolutely deluded, every single one of your posts is mind-boggling, really. Yes and this is completly wrong information. Goody said that he thinks the only way to play Mech in TvP is by Planetary Fortress pushing in superlong games and that he thinks bio is stronger. He did not say that it is not viable. And if you actually watch his stream, you will see that he still plays Mechbuilds against Protoss. (just like he has been mixing in bio builds vs Zerg as well) People keep on talking about Goody, giving him shit for bad mechanics and being slow etc, quoting him on every Mech comment in TvP, but most of them have never actually watched his stream. It's really really annoying. No, you are wrong. Goody isn't even playing Terran vP anymore, because he thinks Mech is bad and he sucks with bio. Goody is actually playing Protoss vs. Protoss now.
I think both you and BigJ need to take a quick break and reread each other's posts with a bit more charity. To me you guys seem closer in mind than your hostility makes one believe.
I'll use the good will of this post to ask for a favour, anyone know of a good TvZ, TvP mech build I could mess around with to test it in my own scrub games?
|
On March 22 2012 18:53 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 18:49 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:46 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:03 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 17:34 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg" Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo. And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army. Mech is being played against Zerg from the lowest to the highest level. At the highest level I think I have seen less mass mutaplay vs Mech, than Mech vs Protoss in the last months. That's all I'm gonna say about viability of Mechplay vs Zerg and mutaliskplay vs Mech in WoL. To TvP: There are a ton of threads on TL about Mech vP (from players up to high masters), Mech gets thrown in as kind of cheese by progamers sometimes... I don't think the game needs a lot of changes for it to become playable, but that's all just speculations (just like your counterposition is just a speculation). Pretty much everything you have mentioned has already been figuered, how you can deal with it seperatly, it rather seems like the amount of possibilities combined with toplevel multitasking makes Mech such a tough choice. Terran is designed with 2seperate groundtechpaths; production, upgrades, costdistribution among units, techlevels inside of the paths, roledistribution inside the paths, broodwar gamplay background... everything screams that. But that's a bad thing more than anything. And no, blink stalkers, speed prism drops, chargelots, immortals, nexus recall hasn't been figured out yet. You can't counter that with mech at all. There is no unit that you can simply send back to deal with any of this. There are threads about Mech, but it doesn't mean it's viable, because it simply isn't. I'm sure we can get Jinro to comment on this. But in all honesty I'm getting tired of you specifically. You certainly haven't even tried Mech in TvP, so for the love of god, stop posting here. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And mutas are extremely viable against Mech, as a tech switch. You cannot mass pure muta obviously, but you tech switch long enough to out produce the terran on every end and then kill move him with broodlords, that is arguably the best way to beat mech in zvt. Yeah, it's a strong way to play vs Mech, but nothing that can't be beaten, just like dropping all over the place/mixing in banshees and then pushing or fake pushing is a strong way to play vs Infestors. It's basically called "outplaying" your opponent, meaning you lean onto the weaknesses of his composition and try to force mistakes out of him. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And no, mech isn't viable in tvp, the only way it is viable is if you open up cloak banshee and hellion drop and kill 20 probes and are infinitely far ahead (every single game in the day9 daily about mech was like that) in which case it doesn't matter what you follow it up with ur gonna win either way. Show me a game where both players are evenly matched in the midgame, the protoss does blink stalkers backstabs, nexus recalls, speed prism harrass and the terran actually wins. because so far, every replay of mech I have seen the terran win was either when the terran was 30 workers ahead after the early game, or the protoss didn't do anything and made the wrong units. That's why I keep on saying that it isn't viable, but that doesn't mean that it could not become viable through some buffs. Stop missreading and missinterpreting what I'm writing. Your blindly ranting against things that I haven't said or implied. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
edit: And before you say anything else, the most experienced mech player in TvP on this planet, goody himself, said that Mech isn't viable in TvP and he isn't meching in tvp for quite a while now. so what are we even having this discussion for? You are absolutely deluded, every single one of your posts is mind-boggling, really. Yes and this is completly wrong information. Goody said that he thinks the only way to play Mech in TvP is by Planetary Fortress pushing in superlong games and that he thinks bio is stronger. He did not say that it is not viable. And if you actually watch his stream, you will see that he still plays Mechbuilds against Protoss. (just like he has been mixing in bio builds vs Zerg as well) People keep on talking about Goody, giving him shit for bad mechanics and being slow etc, quoting him on every Mech comment in TvP, but most of them have never actually watched his stream. It's really really annoying. No, you are wrong. Goody isn't even playing Terran vP anymore, because he thinks Mech is bad and he sucks with bio. Goody is actually playing Protoss vs. Protoss now. yeah, that's very recently and we will see if he sticks to it. Until now only Morrow plays split race...
He is doing it for a few weeks now. But nice cop-out. First you tell me I'm wrong and then you paddle back and just go "will see if he sticks with it" and you wonder why nobody here wants to read your posts. Maybe it's because you are such a disingenuous person. You tried to prove your point and completely ignored the fact that Goody isn't even playing TvP anymore. Like I said, I'm getting tired of you.
|
On March 22 2012 18:56 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 18:49 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:46 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:03 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 17:34 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg" Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo. And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army. Mech is being played against Zerg from the lowest to the highest level. At the highest level I think I have seen less mass mutaplay vs Mech, than Mech vs Protoss in the last months. That's all I'm gonna say about viability of Mechplay vs Zerg and mutaliskplay vs Mech in WoL. To TvP: There are a ton of threads on TL about Mech vP (from players up to high masters), Mech gets thrown in as kind of cheese by progamers sometimes... I don't think the game needs a lot of changes for it to become playable, but that's all just speculations (just like your counterposition is just a speculation). Pretty much everything you have mentioned has already been figuered, how you can deal with it seperatly, it rather seems like the amount of possibilities combined with toplevel multitasking makes Mech such a tough choice. Terran is designed with 2seperate groundtechpaths; production, upgrades, costdistribution among units, techlevels inside of the paths, roledistribution inside the paths, broodwar gamplay background... everything screams that. But that's a bad thing more than anything. And no, blink stalkers, speed prism drops, chargelots, immortals, nexus recall hasn't been figured out yet. You can't counter that with mech at all. There is no unit that you can simply send back to deal with any of this. There are threads about Mech, but it doesn't mean it's viable, because it simply isn't. I'm sure we can get Jinro to comment on this. But in all honesty I'm getting tired of you specifically. You certainly haven't even tried Mech in TvP, so for the love of god, stop posting here. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And mutas are extremely viable against Mech, as a tech switch. You cannot mass pure muta obviously, but you tech switch long enough to out produce the terran on every end and then kill move him with broodlords, that is arguably the best way to beat mech in zvt. Yeah, it's a strong way to play vs Mech, but nothing that can't be beaten, just like dropping all over the place/mixing in banshees and then pushing or fake pushing is a strong way to play vs Infestors. It's basically called "outplaying" your opponent, meaning you lean onto the weaknesses of his composition and try to force mistakes out of him. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And no, mech isn't viable in tvp, the only way it is viable is if you open up cloak banshee and hellion drop and kill 20 probes and are infinitely far ahead (every single game in the day9 daily about mech was like that) in which case it doesn't matter what you follow it up with ur gonna win either way. Show me a game where both players are evenly matched in the midgame, the protoss does blink stalkers backstabs, nexus recalls, speed prism harrass and the terran actually wins. because so far, every replay of mech I have seen the terran win was either when the terran was 30 workers ahead after the early game, or the protoss didn't do anything and made the wrong units. That's why I keep on saying that it isn't viable, but that doesn't mean that it could not become viable through some buffs. Stop missreading and missinterpreting what I'm writing. Your blindly ranting against things that I haven't said or implied. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
edit: And before you say anything else, the most experienced mech player in TvP on this planet, goody himself, said that Mech isn't viable in TvP and he isn't meching in tvp for quite a while now. so what are we even having this discussion for? You are absolutely deluded, every single one of your posts is mind-boggling, really. Yes and this is completly wrong information. Goody said that he thinks the only way to play Mech in TvP is by Planetary Fortress pushing in superlong games and that he thinks bio is stronger. He did not say that it is not viable. And if you actually watch his stream, you will see that he still plays Mechbuilds against Protoss. (just like he has been mixing in bio builds vs Zerg as well) People keep on talking about Goody, giving him shit for bad mechanics and being slow etc, quoting him on every Mech comment in TvP, but most of them have never actually watched his stream. It's really really annoying. No, you are wrong. Goody isn't even playing Terran vP anymore, because he thinks Mech is bad and he sucks with bio. Goody is actually playing Protoss vs. Protoss now. I think both you and BigJ need to take a quick break and reread each other's posts with a bit more charity. To me you guys seem closer in mind than your hostility makes one believe. I'll use the good will of this post to ask for a favour, anyone know of a good TvZ, TvP mech build I could mess around with to test it in my own scrub games?
that's why I'm absolutly not attacking him personally or his post. I just try to defend what I'm saying.
That's the most recent "big Mech vs Protoss", thread, but the (high masters) guy that posted the most in it (with lots of replays), said he would make a guide on it in the next days, so I'd watch out for it.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=311341
Mech vZ, I think this one shows great details:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=308972
|
On March 22 2012 18:56 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 18:49 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:46 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:03 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 17:34 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg" Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo. And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army. Mech is being played against Zerg from the lowest to the highest level. At the highest level I think I have seen less mass mutaplay vs Mech, than Mech vs Protoss in the last months. That's all I'm gonna say about viability of Mechplay vs Zerg and mutaliskplay vs Mech in WoL. To TvP: There are a ton of threads on TL about Mech vP (from players up to high masters), Mech gets thrown in as kind of cheese by progamers sometimes... I don't think the game needs a lot of changes for it to become playable, but that's all just speculations (just like your counterposition is just a speculation). Pretty much everything you have mentioned has already been figuered, how you can deal with it seperatly, it rather seems like the amount of possibilities combined with toplevel multitasking makes Mech such a tough choice. Terran is designed with 2seperate groundtechpaths; production, upgrades, costdistribution among units, techlevels inside of the paths, roledistribution inside the paths, broodwar gamplay background... everything screams that. But that's a bad thing more than anything. And no, blink stalkers, speed prism drops, chargelots, immortals, nexus recall hasn't been figured out yet. You can't counter that with mech at all. There is no unit that you can simply send back to deal with any of this. There are threads about Mech, but it doesn't mean it's viable, because it simply isn't. I'm sure we can get Jinro to comment on this. But in all honesty I'm getting tired of you specifically. You certainly haven't even tried Mech in TvP, so for the love of god, stop posting here. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And mutas are extremely viable against Mech, as a tech switch. You cannot mass pure muta obviously, but you tech switch long enough to out produce the terran on every end and then kill move him with broodlords, that is arguably the best way to beat mech in zvt. Yeah, it's a strong way to play vs Mech, but nothing that can't be beaten, just like dropping all over the place/mixing in banshees and then pushing or fake pushing is a strong way to play vs Infestors. It's basically called "outplaying" your opponent, meaning you lean onto the weaknesses of his composition and try to force mistakes out of him. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And no, mech isn't viable in tvp, the only way it is viable is if you open up cloak banshee and hellion drop and kill 20 probes and are infinitely far ahead (every single game in the day9 daily about mech was like that) in which case it doesn't matter what you follow it up with ur gonna win either way. Show me a game where both players are evenly matched in the midgame, the protoss does blink stalkers backstabs, nexus recalls, speed prism harrass and the terran actually wins. because so far, every replay of mech I have seen the terran win was either when the terran was 30 workers ahead after the early game, or the protoss didn't do anything and made the wrong units. That's why I keep on saying that it isn't viable, but that doesn't mean that it could not become viable through some buffs. Stop missreading and missinterpreting what I'm writing. Your blindly ranting against things that I haven't said or implied. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
edit: And before you say anything else, the most experienced mech player in TvP on this planet, goody himself, said that Mech isn't viable in TvP and he isn't meching in tvp for quite a while now. so what are we even having this discussion for? You are absolutely deluded, every single one of your posts is mind-boggling, really. Yes and this is completly wrong information. Goody said that he thinks the only way to play Mech in TvP is by Planetary Fortress pushing in superlong games and that he thinks bio is stronger. He did not say that it is not viable. And if you actually watch his stream, you will see that he still plays Mechbuilds against Protoss. (just like he has been mixing in bio builds vs Zerg as well) People keep on talking about Goody, giving him shit for bad mechanics and being slow etc, quoting him on every Mech comment in TvP, but most of them have never actually watched his stream. It's really really annoying. No, you are wrong. Goody isn't even playing Terran vP anymore, because he thinks Mech is bad and he sucks with bio. Goody is actually playing Protoss vs. Protoss now. I think both you and BigJ need to take a quick break and reread each other's posts with a bit more charity. To me you guys seem closer in mind than your hostility makes one believe. I'll use the good will of this post to ask for a favour, anyone know of a good TvZ, TvP mech build I could mess around with to test it in my own scrub games?
Works up to GM: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=308972
Mech isn't good in PvT, if you win... you just won since your opponent is ignorant to a basic counter. Skymech is an alternative since it's even more crazy and you can WTF-stomp your opponent.
The higher you get, the better are crazy shit tactics like 1 base BC rushes since almost every Master/Low GM plays a counter-timing based style which can't adapt to crazyness.
|
On March 22 2012 18:55 ZenithM wrote:
Don't throw in Goody's name as a proof of how a certain strategy doesn't work. For a long time, Goody was for me a proof that Terran was a joke race lol. He is the guy with 80 APM (like your so-called 80 APM top Protoss), and who supply blocks himself at 21 supply while doing a 1rax fe (cf liquipedia: Cordially nicknamed the "Supply Block Terran" by MC during a game vs ReaL). Honestly, he's cool and likes siege tanks and shit, but him disappearing as a progamer is not the worst thing, if anything it means that the game progresses.
Just fyi, I know that mech isn't viable, but I base myself on MVP's comments, not Goody's playstyle :D
In the end, Terran was probably too much awesomeness for Goody to handle.
Don't tell us about random errors that Goody made and think that it has any relevance to Terran balance issues. 
|
On March 22 2012 19:01 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 18:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 22 2012 18:49 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:46 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:03 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 17:34 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg" Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo. And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army. Mech is being played against Zerg from the lowest to the highest level. At the highest level I think I have seen less mass mutaplay vs Mech, than Mech vs Protoss in the last months. That's all I'm gonna say about viability of Mechplay vs Zerg and mutaliskplay vs Mech in WoL. To TvP: There are a ton of threads on TL about Mech vP (from players up to high masters), Mech gets thrown in as kind of cheese by progamers sometimes... I don't think the game needs a lot of changes for it to become playable, but that's all just speculations (just like your counterposition is just a speculation). Pretty much everything you have mentioned has already been figuered, how you can deal with it seperatly, it rather seems like the amount of possibilities combined with toplevel multitasking makes Mech such a tough choice. Terran is designed with 2seperate groundtechpaths; production, upgrades, costdistribution among units, techlevels inside of the paths, roledistribution inside the paths, broodwar gamplay background... everything screams that. But that's a bad thing more than anything. And no, blink stalkers, speed prism drops, chargelots, immortals, nexus recall hasn't been figured out yet. You can't counter that with mech at all. There is no unit that you can simply send back to deal with any of this. There are threads about Mech, but it doesn't mean it's viable, because it simply isn't. I'm sure we can get Jinro to comment on this. But in all honesty I'm getting tired of you specifically. You certainly haven't even tried Mech in TvP, so for the love of god, stop posting here. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And mutas are extremely viable against Mech, as a tech switch. You cannot mass pure muta obviously, but you tech switch long enough to out produce the terran on every end and then kill move him with broodlords, that is arguably the best way to beat mech in zvt. Yeah, it's a strong way to play vs Mech, but nothing that can't be beaten, just like dropping all over the place/mixing in banshees and then pushing or fake pushing is a strong way to play vs Infestors. It's basically called "outplaying" your opponent, meaning you lean onto the weaknesses of his composition and try to force mistakes out of him. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And no, mech isn't viable in tvp, the only way it is viable is if you open up cloak banshee and hellion drop and kill 20 probes and are infinitely far ahead (every single game in the day9 daily about mech was like that) in which case it doesn't matter what you follow it up with ur gonna win either way. Show me a game where both players are evenly matched in the midgame, the protoss does blink stalkers backstabs, nexus recalls, speed prism harrass and the terran actually wins. because so far, every replay of mech I have seen the terran win was either when the terran was 30 workers ahead after the early game, or the protoss didn't do anything and made the wrong units. That's why I keep on saying that it isn't viable, but that doesn't mean that it could not become viable through some buffs. Stop missreading and missinterpreting what I'm writing. Your blindly ranting against things that I haven't said or implied. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
edit: And before you say anything else, the most experienced mech player in TvP on this planet, goody himself, said that Mech isn't viable in TvP and he isn't meching in tvp for quite a while now. so what are we even having this discussion for? You are absolutely deluded, every single one of your posts is mind-boggling, really. Yes and this is completly wrong information. Goody said that he thinks the only way to play Mech in TvP is by Planetary Fortress pushing in superlong games and that he thinks bio is stronger. He did not say that it is not viable. And if you actually watch his stream, you will see that he still plays Mechbuilds against Protoss. (just like he has been mixing in bio builds vs Zerg as well) People keep on talking about Goody, giving him shit for bad mechanics and being slow etc, quoting him on every Mech comment in TvP, but most of them have never actually watched his stream. It's really really annoying. No, you are wrong. Goody isn't even playing Terran vP anymore, because he thinks Mech is bad and he sucks with bio. Goody is actually playing Protoss vs. Protoss now. I think both you and BigJ need to take a quick break and reread each other's posts with a bit more charity. To me you guys seem closer in mind than your hostility makes one believe. I'll use the good will of this post to ask for a favour, anyone know of a good TvZ, TvP mech build I could mess around with to test it in my own scrub games? that's why I'm absolutly not attacking him personally or his post. I just try to defend what I'm saying. That's the most recent "big Mech vs Protoss", thread, but the (high masters) guy that posted the most in it (with lots of replays), said he would make a guide on it in the next days, so I'd watch out for it. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=311341Mech vZ, I think this one shows great details: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=308972
But how should I have a serious discussion with you when you just ignore facts. We both know that goody isn't playing TvP anymore, so why pretend that he is and that his PvP is just a wild adventure? That's just speculation and pointless.
|
On March 22 2012 18:57 ChaosTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 18:53 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 18:49 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:46 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:03 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 17:34 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg" Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo. And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army. Mech is being played against Zerg from the lowest to the highest level. At the highest level I think I have seen less mass mutaplay vs Mech, than Mech vs Protoss in the last months. That's all I'm gonna say about viability of Mechplay vs Zerg and mutaliskplay vs Mech in WoL. To TvP: There are a ton of threads on TL about Mech vP (from players up to high masters), Mech gets thrown in as kind of cheese by progamers sometimes... I don't think the game needs a lot of changes for it to become playable, but that's all just speculations (just like your counterposition is just a speculation). Pretty much everything you have mentioned has already been figuered, how you can deal with it seperatly, it rather seems like the amount of possibilities combined with toplevel multitasking makes Mech such a tough choice. Terran is designed with 2seperate groundtechpaths; production, upgrades, costdistribution among units, techlevels inside of the paths, roledistribution inside the paths, broodwar gamplay background... everything screams that. But that's a bad thing more than anything. And no, blink stalkers, speed prism drops, chargelots, immortals, nexus recall hasn't been figured out yet. You can't counter that with mech at all. There is no unit that you can simply send back to deal with any of this. There are threads about Mech, but it doesn't mean it's viable, because it simply isn't. I'm sure we can get Jinro to comment on this. But in all honesty I'm getting tired of you specifically. You certainly haven't even tried Mech in TvP, so for the love of god, stop posting here. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And mutas are extremely viable against Mech, as a tech switch. You cannot mass pure muta obviously, but you tech switch long enough to out produce the terran on every end and then kill move him with broodlords, that is arguably the best way to beat mech in zvt. Yeah, it's a strong way to play vs Mech, but nothing that can't be beaten, just like dropping all over the place/mixing in banshees and then pushing or fake pushing is a strong way to play vs Infestors. It's basically called "outplaying" your opponent, meaning you lean onto the weaknesses of his composition and try to force mistakes out of him. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And no, mech isn't viable in tvp, the only way it is viable is if you open up cloak banshee and hellion drop and kill 20 probes and are infinitely far ahead (every single game in the day9 daily about mech was like that) in which case it doesn't matter what you follow it up with ur gonna win either way. Show me a game where both players are evenly matched in the midgame, the protoss does blink stalkers backstabs, nexus recalls, speed prism harrass and the terran actually wins. because so far, every replay of mech I have seen the terran win was either when the terran was 30 workers ahead after the early game, or the protoss didn't do anything and made the wrong units. That's why I keep on saying that it isn't viable, but that doesn't mean that it could not become viable through some buffs. Stop missreading and missinterpreting what I'm writing. Your blindly ranting against things that I haven't said or implied. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
edit: And before you say anything else, the most experienced mech player in TvP on this planet, goody himself, said that Mech isn't viable in TvP and he isn't meching in tvp for quite a while now. so what are we even having this discussion for? You are absolutely deluded, every single one of your posts is mind-boggling, really. Yes and this is completly wrong information. Goody said that he thinks the only way to play Mech in TvP is by Planetary Fortress pushing in superlong games and that he thinks bio is stronger. He did not say that it is not viable. And if you actually watch his stream, you will see that he still plays Mechbuilds against Protoss. (just like he has been mixing in bio builds vs Zerg as well) People keep on talking about Goody, giving him shit for bad mechanics and being slow etc, quoting him on every Mech comment in TvP, but most of them have never actually watched his stream. It's really really annoying. No, you are wrong. Goody isn't even playing Terran vP anymore, because he thinks Mech is bad and he sucks with bio. Goody is actually playing Protoss vs. Protoss now. yeah, that's very recently and we will see if he sticks to it. Until now only Morrow plays split race... He is doing it for a few weeks now. But nice cop-out. First you tell me I'm wrong and then you paddle back and just go "will see if he sticks with it" and you wonder why nobody here wants to read your posts. Maybe it's because you are such a disingenuous person. You tried to prove your point and completely ignored the fact that Goody isn't even playing TvP anymore. Like I said, I'm getting tired of you.
I know that the last time I tuned into his stream ~2weeks ago he was doing a 2base tank push against Protoss (and afterwards some standard TvT tankspam, where I turned off again).
Also unless he has switched to Protoss fulltime or doesn't ladder anymore, he is going to play TvP on the ladder.
|
On March 22 2012 19:01 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 18:56 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 22 2012 18:49 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:46 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:03 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 17:34 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg" Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo. And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army. Mech is being played against Zerg from the lowest to the highest level. At the highest level I think I have seen less mass mutaplay vs Mech, than Mech vs Protoss in the last months. That's all I'm gonna say about viability of Mechplay vs Zerg and mutaliskplay vs Mech in WoL. To TvP: There are a ton of threads on TL about Mech vP (from players up to high masters), Mech gets thrown in as kind of cheese by progamers sometimes... I don't think the game needs a lot of changes for it to become playable, but that's all just speculations (just like your counterposition is just a speculation). Pretty much everything you have mentioned has already been figuered, how you can deal with it seperatly, it rather seems like the amount of possibilities combined with toplevel multitasking makes Mech such a tough choice. Terran is designed with 2seperate groundtechpaths; production, upgrades, costdistribution among units, techlevels inside of the paths, roledistribution inside the paths, broodwar gamplay background... everything screams that. But that's a bad thing more than anything. And no, blink stalkers, speed prism drops, chargelots, immortals, nexus recall hasn't been figured out yet. You can't counter that with mech at all. There is no unit that you can simply send back to deal with any of this. There are threads about Mech, but it doesn't mean it's viable, because it simply isn't. I'm sure we can get Jinro to comment on this. But in all honesty I'm getting tired of you specifically. You certainly haven't even tried Mech in TvP, so for the love of god, stop posting here. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And mutas are extremely viable against Mech, as a tech switch. You cannot mass pure muta obviously, but you tech switch long enough to out produce the terran on every end and then kill move him with broodlords, that is arguably the best way to beat mech in zvt. Yeah, it's a strong way to play vs Mech, but nothing that can't be beaten, just like dropping all over the place/mixing in banshees and then pushing or fake pushing is a strong way to play vs Infestors. It's basically called "outplaying" your opponent, meaning you lean onto the weaknesses of his composition and try to force mistakes out of him. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And no, mech isn't viable in tvp, the only way it is viable is if you open up cloak banshee and hellion drop and kill 20 probes and are infinitely far ahead (every single game in the day9 daily about mech was like that) in which case it doesn't matter what you follow it up with ur gonna win either way. Show me a game where both players are evenly matched in the midgame, the protoss does blink stalkers backstabs, nexus recalls, speed prism harrass and the terran actually wins. because so far, every replay of mech I have seen the terran win was either when the terran was 30 workers ahead after the early game, or the protoss didn't do anything and made the wrong units. That's why I keep on saying that it isn't viable, but that doesn't mean that it could not become viable through some buffs. Stop missreading and missinterpreting what I'm writing. Your blindly ranting against things that I haven't said or implied. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
edit: And before you say anything else, the most experienced mech player in TvP on this planet, goody himself, said that Mech isn't viable in TvP and he isn't meching in tvp for quite a while now. so what are we even having this discussion for? You are absolutely deluded, every single one of your posts is mind-boggling, really. Yes and this is completly wrong information. Goody said that he thinks the only way to play Mech in TvP is by Planetary Fortress pushing in superlong games and that he thinks bio is stronger. He did not say that it is not viable. And if you actually watch his stream, you will see that he still plays Mechbuilds against Protoss. (just like he has been mixing in bio builds vs Zerg as well) People keep on talking about Goody, giving him shit for bad mechanics and being slow etc, quoting him on every Mech comment in TvP, but most of them have never actually watched his stream. It's really really annoying. No, you are wrong. Goody isn't even playing Terran vP anymore, because he thinks Mech is bad and he sucks with bio. Goody is actually playing Protoss vs. Protoss now. I think both you and BigJ need to take a quick break and reread each other's posts with a bit more charity. To me you guys seem closer in mind than your hostility makes one believe. I'll use the good will of this post to ask for a favour, anyone know of a good TvZ, TvP mech build I could mess around with to test it in my own scrub games? that's why I'm absolutly not attacking him personally or his post. I just try to defend what I'm saying. That's the most recent "big Mech vs Protoss", thread, but the (high masters) guy that posted the most in it (with lots of replays), said he would make a guide on it in the next days, so I'd watch out for it. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=311341Mech vZ, I think this one shows great details: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=308972
Thanks a ton.
|
On March 22 2012 19:04 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 18:57 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:53 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 18:49 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:46 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 18:03 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 17:34 ChaosTerran wrote:On March 22 2012 17:21 Big J wrote:On March 22 2012 14:40 dignitas.merz wrote:
I feel I should shed som light on at least my own opinion here. I do whine a lot recently, guilty as charged. I did not use to whine, for a very long time, I kept imbalance issues out of it for the most part. Why I'm whining at this day is because I look around and I see the only terrans being successful are koreans. I look at the koreans play and try to figure out why they still maintain such a high success with this race, and the conclusions I draw is that they're really just abusing the strong terran early game. I do very much so believe Protoss is stronger than Terran in the lategame, Zerg is too since the ghost nerf. However I'll be the first one to admit right here that the early game is imbalanced in favour of Terrans. Terran has a variety of 1 base openings that are sick strong, hard to identify, and all the units (hellions, marauders, marines) benefit a great deal from good control, which can make them ridiculously cost efficient.
People will argue "Then just resort to using the strenghts of your race" or "If Terran is so strong early but weak late, why do you even play for the lategame?" It's simple. All races should be equally capable in each stage of the game, they should have racial strenghts and weaknesses of course, but having a race who CLEARLY excells in the early game and slowly crumbles in the lategame is problematic for many reasons. Terrans early game strenght comes much from our ability to wall off early, which denies the opponent important intel early on. It also comes from us having a ranged tier 1 unit (the marine) so denying scouting probes/drones are a lot easier compared to zealots or zerglings . It's also due to our racial mechanic which is the mule, basically giving us a sick income boost of minerals on which we can spend towards powerful units early game such as hellions or marines. It also allows us to incorporate workers into our all-ins because mules compensate for the mining time lost if we bring scvs.
Now why this is problematic is because if one race clearly excells at the early game, the other races main objective will always be to just survive and take it til the lategame where they are stronger, while our objective is kill them as soon as possible. This basically results in P and Z tailoring their builds towards all-in play blindly, they even play overly safe sometimes (i.e. protoss going 3 gate before expand just because they scouted gas). This creates some really random scenarios at times which I don't think belongs in game where skill should excell above all else.
just a small question, because you are somewhat implying TvZ to be similar: Isn't it a concious decision in TvZ to not go for a good lategame, but instead play for the early wins? Mech is viable in this matchup and does have a very strong lategame, that can deal pretty well with everything a zerg can throw at you at this time, yet I somehow get the feeling that Terrans don't want to change style, because their winrates are still >50% with bioplay, because it still gets a ton of early-midwins, while not getting crushed in the lategame a lot of times. (And I'm not standing alone with this opinion. Various progamers have said things along those lines as well) I do believe that this is somewhat the best (designwise) it can get for a race that is basically 2races (techpaths) combined in one and the question should not be "how does blizzard balance the current game out so that bio works better in the lategame vs Protoss/Zerg", but rather it should be "blizzard should ensure that Mech becomes viable vs Protoss and maybe even more viable vs Zerg - and possibly even nerf down bios early game a little more vs Zerg" Imo, Mech can't ever work in WoL on most maps because of how immobile it is, especially against Mutas Mech is so bad, you need to put up a bajillion turrets everywhere because if the Zerg ever find a weak spot somewhere he can kill of your entire main until your army eventually gets there. And mech won't ever work against protoss either, unless they remove blink, charge, immortals, speed prisms, nexus recall from the game. And then you also have the problem of hard counters. Zerg goes mass roach, you mass tanks, then he switches into mutas, you mass thors, then back to roach, then goes broordlords and even if you instantely scout it, it takes you ages to mass up the counter to the specific unit. You also can't harrass zerg at all, if he just puts up spine crawlers at his expo. And by the way, if you count Mech and Bio as 2 in 1, you could very well count infestor and muta as 2 in 1 and chargelot archon and robo as 2 in 1. Mech would have to be buffed to no end to become viable in SC2, I would of course be ok with bio getting nerfed, but only if you massively buff every single mech unit and give us something to overcome the immobility of the mech army. Mech is being played against Zerg from the lowest to the highest level. At the highest level I think I have seen less mass mutaplay vs Mech, than Mech vs Protoss in the last months. That's all I'm gonna say about viability of Mechplay vs Zerg and mutaliskplay vs Mech in WoL. To TvP: There are a ton of threads on TL about Mech vP (from players up to high masters), Mech gets thrown in as kind of cheese by progamers sometimes... I don't think the game needs a lot of changes for it to become playable, but that's all just speculations (just like your counterposition is just a speculation). Pretty much everything you have mentioned has already been figuered, how you can deal with it seperatly, it rather seems like the amount of possibilities combined with toplevel multitasking makes Mech such a tough choice. Terran is designed with 2seperate groundtechpaths; production, upgrades, costdistribution among units, techlevels inside of the paths, roledistribution inside the paths, broodwar gamplay background... everything screams that. But that's a bad thing more than anything. And no, blink stalkers, speed prism drops, chargelots, immortals, nexus recall hasn't been figured out yet. You can't counter that with mech at all. There is no unit that you can simply send back to deal with any of this. There are threads about Mech, but it doesn't mean it's viable, because it simply isn't. I'm sure we can get Jinro to comment on this. But in all honesty I'm getting tired of you specifically. You certainly haven't even tried Mech in TvP, so for the love of god, stop posting here. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And mutas are extremely viable against Mech, as a tech switch. You cannot mass pure muta obviously, but you tech switch long enough to out produce the terran on every end and then kill move him with broodlords, that is arguably the best way to beat mech in zvt. Yeah, it's a strong way to play vs Mech, but nothing that can't be beaten, just like dropping all over the place/mixing in banshees and then pushing or fake pushing is a strong way to play vs Infestors. It's basically called "outplaying" your opponent, meaning you lean onto the weaknesses of his composition and try to force mistakes out of him. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
And no, mech isn't viable in tvp, the only way it is viable is if you open up cloak banshee and hellion drop and kill 20 probes and are infinitely far ahead (every single game in the day9 daily about mech was like that) in which case it doesn't matter what you follow it up with ur gonna win either way. Show me a game where both players are evenly matched in the midgame, the protoss does blink stalkers backstabs, nexus recalls, speed prism harrass and the terran actually wins. because so far, every replay of mech I have seen the terran win was either when the terran was 30 workers ahead after the early game, or the protoss didn't do anything and made the wrong units. That's why I keep on saying that it isn't viable, but that doesn't mean that it could not become viable through some buffs. Stop missreading and missinterpreting what I'm writing. Your blindly ranting against things that I haven't said or implied. On March 22 2012 18:10 ChaosTerran wrote:
edit: And before you say anything else, the most experienced mech player in TvP on this planet, goody himself, said that Mech isn't viable in TvP and he isn't meching in tvp for quite a while now. so what are we even having this discussion for? You are absolutely deluded, every single one of your posts is mind-boggling, really. Yes and this is completly wrong information. Goody said that he thinks the only way to play Mech in TvP is by Planetary Fortress pushing in superlong games and that he thinks bio is stronger. He did not say that it is not viable. And if you actually watch his stream, you will see that he still plays Mechbuilds against Protoss. (just like he has been mixing in bio builds vs Zerg as well) People keep on talking about Goody, giving him shit for bad mechanics and being slow etc, quoting him on every Mech comment in TvP, but most of them have never actually watched his stream. It's really really annoying. No, you are wrong. Goody isn't even playing Terran vP anymore, because he thinks Mech is bad and he sucks with bio. Goody is actually playing Protoss vs. Protoss now. yeah, that's very recently and we will see if he sticks to it. Until now only Morrow plays split race... He is doing it for a few weeks now. But nice cop-out. First you tell me I'm wrong and then you paddle back and just go "will see if he sticks with it" and you wonder why nobody here wants to read your posts. Maybe it's because you are such a disingenuous person. You tried to prove your point and completely ignored the fact that Goody isn't even playing TvP anymore. Like I said, I'm getting tired of you. I know that the last time I tuned into his stream ~2weeks ago he was doing a 2base tank push against Protoss (and afterwards some standard TvT tankspam, where I turned off again). Also unless he has switched to Protoss fulltime or doesn't ladder anymore, he is going to play TvP on the ladder.
Well obviously, since he plays as terran on the ladder. It's practically impossible to play PvP on the ladder when you queue as terran, we both know that. But in professional vP's he picks protoss, which is the important part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
