| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 01 2012 00:46 Mongolbonjwa wrote: Actually its possible to hold baneling bust with 1raxFE. Just build your CC in your wall and some bunkers. against a 10pool baneling bust? I'm not so sure... | ||
|
ooozer
Germany231 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On May 01 2012 00:57 ooozer wrote: Making mech viable not only against T and Z, but against toss also? Don't get me wrong, diversity is good, but what does toss get in exchange? Toss is always forced to play the stale gateway + whatever comes out of the robo style. We can't go Sky toss, because toss air is hard to get and easily countered. We can't go robo only, because its units lack efficiency without gateway, and we can't go pure gateway because terran could simply mass emp templars and kite all day. Making mech more viable would leave terran with two possible ways of approching the fights, whereas toss has only to choose between colossi or HT. A choice we lose in the super lategame anyways Just because Toss gameplay is flawed as well (Air play), doesn't mean that it is not a positive thing to remove flaws from Terran gameplay. | ||
|
one-one-one
Sweden551 Posts
On May 01 2012 00:57 ooozer wrote: Making mech viable not only against T and Z, but against toss also? Don't get me wrong, diversity is good, but what does toss get in exchange? Toss is always forced to play the stale gateway + whatever comes out of the robo style. We can't go Sky toss, because toss air is hard to get and easily countered. We can't go robo only, because its units lack efficiency without gateway, and we can't go pure gateway because terran could simply mass emp templars and kite all day. Making mech more viable would leave terran with two possible ways of approching the fights, whereas toss has only to choose between colossi or HT. A choice we lose in the super lategame anyways This is the most ignorant piece of crap I have read in a long while. Are you trolling ? The terran race has had the choice between bio and mech since SC1. In fact, the race is designed to have 3 different tech paths. Bio , air and mech, where mech means whatever comes out of a factory. You complain that terran should not have 2 choices? And then you say that protoss already has 2 choices. WTF ! In SC:BW things went down like this: ppl tried bio vs protoss and found it was bad and then went on to develop mech. In SC2 people find that bio has its limitations in the lategame because you almost always loose once the game gets past the 20 minute mark. It is now natural to look at alternatives. What we find then is that mech is not very good, and the most annoying thing is that Blizzard has nerfed terran mech units several times. You have gotten your templar-tech route buffed for it to be viable. Archons got upped range and massive status. What did terran get in exchange ? Mech nerfs. This is why the matchup is broken. Bio is starting to get figured out by tosses but the alternative mech route completely sucks. Time for a huge nerf to feedback as they did with ghost snipe IMHO! edit: And I would happily take a nerf to the marauder to make bio weaker in the early and mid-game as a compensation. | ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
Ask yourselves seriously, why should a relatively low-gas MMM build be viable against expensive gas-heavy T2 and T3 late game Toss deathball? There is no bio equivalent to the thor or the tank. There is no bio AOE option aside from EMP. If T started thinking more in terms of "OK, he has heavy tanky T2 and T3, I need heavy, tanky, AOE T2 and T3" then everyone would be better off. | ||
|
Lyyna
France776 Posts
I mean, the discussion about the opening is ridiculous : There is no opening that can hold everything. Saying that mech's opening aren't safe and that this makes the style non-viable is stupid because if you look a bit at bio openings, they are also vulnerable to some allins. People aren't objective in this discussion. To have them considering mech as viable, you would need -A perfect opening able to blindly hold any agression or allins while getting a early expand while allowing to do some pressure -The ability to add (and defend) 1 extra base every 1m30 or so -The ability to go for an exact army setup and always win every single battle at every timing versus every possible protoss army -The ability to never loose a single unit/building to harass Is this exagerated? Im not sure. When i read every post, when i gather every criticism i read about mech, i end up with what i wrote just above. People also seems to assume,when they go into "But that will die easily to XXX" mode, that the terran is on 2 bases without the right to scan or move out of his base at all until max even to scout, versus a protoss with infinite ressources and total vision on the whole map The fact is that mech may not works for pro (which may not be true. I mean, i was able to make this works at a high master lvl with nearly inexistant multitask and micro . . . ) , but it at least works at master/GM lvl. We can assume it works for people below that peoplem and thats basically . . . 99 % of the people playing sc2? People also keep saying that pro KOR said mech isnt viable , that it is already explored,etc . . well, just think about something : you were already saying it a year ago. Imagine yourself, one year ago, talking about the current MKP's mech opening (so, before MKP start doing it) to a pro KOR. What do you think would be his answer? oh wait,something like "Yeah its not viable mech is explored and we saw its bad". But what happened in the last year? MKP did a few times this mech opening, and even if its known, he still win with it. Lets think again about the "explored and non-viable" thing . . Mech can win, mech can loose, mech has good and bad points, but the biggest problem of mech still ends up being the community's mindset. What do you prefer? To stay here,whining about protoss slicing through your bio army again and again, game after game, killing you regardless of how well you played the first 20 minutes of the game ? Personally, i prefer to try stuff and take risks. And thats why i never lost a TvP in a true lategame situation since months. I may be crazy , i may realize that mech is bad any time, but ill at least know that i tried everything possible to make it works . . while most people talking about it never played it at all | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On May 01 2012 01:17 jdsowa wrote: The reason why a lot of T have trouble with lategame P is because their minds are stuck with this "bio"/"mech" dichotomy, as if both paths are perfectly viable through the lategame. Ask yourselves seriously, why should a relatively low-gas MMM build be viable against expensive gas-heavy T2 and T3 late game Toss deathball? There is no bio equivalent to the thor or the tank. There is no bio AOE option aside from EMP. If T started thinking more in terms of "OK, he has heavy tanky T2 and T3, I need heavy, tanky, AOE T2 and T3" then everyone would be better off. As previously stated, it doesn't work. Of course those units were tried. In fact, that's what Terrans initially all tried at the beginning of the release of the game. The most silly notion is that Terran players "refuse" to deviate from particular builds. As if they were stubborn and weren't already fed up with the matchup. It's so silly. The main complaint is how incredibly hard the bio force is to use lategame vs P, don't you think people have tried much easier unit comps? Units such as Thors and Siege tanks slow down your army ridiculously while not adding really any valuable firepower, despite being significantly more costly. | ||
|
Zombo Joe
Canada850 Posts
On May 01 2012 01:17 jdsowa wrote: The reason why a lot of T have trouble with lategame P is because their minds are stuck with this "bio"/"mech" dichotomy, as if both paths are perfectly viable through the lategame. Ask yourselves seriously, why should a relatively low-gas MMM build be viable against expensive gas-heavy T2 and T3 late game Toss deathball? There is no bio equivalent to the thor or the tank. There is no bio AOE option aside from EMP. If T started thinking more in terms of "OK, he has heavy tanky T2 and T3, I need heavy, tanky, AOE T2 and T3" then everyone would be better off. And here we are back realizing that Terran does not have a viable T2 or T3 option against Protoss. Battlecruisers are a maybe, but it relies on Protoss not making enough Stalkers which he should be able to with 15 gateways in the late game. | ||
Olli
Austria24417 Posts
On May 01 2012 01:17 jdsowa wrote: The reason why a lot of T have trouble with lategame P is because their minds are stuck with this "bio"/"mech" dichotomy, as if both paths are perfectly viable through the lategame. Ask yourselves seriously, why should a relatively low-gas MMM build be viable against expensive gas-heavy T2 and T3 late game Toss deathball? There is no bio equivalent to the thor or the tank. There is no bio AOE option aside from EMP. If T started thinking more in terms of "OK, he has heavy tanky T2 and T3, I need heavy, tanky, AOE T2 and T3" then everyone would be better off. THANK YOU. Add two or three Battlecruisers to your lategame army and watch how protoss players start freaking out. With good EMP control you will crush protoss armies. Protoss does NOT want stalkers in their army because they die in a matter of seconds. If you use your EMPs well and I have to use my remaining energy to feedback BCs, your army crushes mine. You'll force stalkers which I don't wanna make and if I don't get my feedbacks off or decide to storm instead, I will have to expose my stalkers to kill your BCs. If I do none of those, you can Yamato target my Colossi, which I believe one shots them. And don't worry about upgrades, good terran players will have vehicle weapons for their vikings anyway. This isn't just theory, I've seen it happen. Not even mentioning all the times you'll simply win because protoss has no idea what the hell he's supposed to do. | ||
|
ooozer
Germany231 Posts
On May 01 2012 01:12 one-one-one wrote: This is the most ignorant piece of crap I have read in a long while. Are you trolling ? The terran race has had the choice between bio and mech since SC1. In fact, the race is designed to have 3 different tech paths. Bio , air and mech, where mech means whatever comes out of a factory. You complain that terran should not have 2 choices? And then you say that protoss already has 2 choices. WTF ! In SC:BW things went down like this: ppl tried bio vs protoss and found it was bad and then went on to develop mech. In SC2 people find that bio has its limitations in the lategame because you almost always loose once the game gets past the 20 minute mark. It is now natural to look at alternatives. What we find then is that mech is not very good, and the most annoying thing is that Blizzard has nerfed terran mech units several times. You have gotten your templar-tech route buffed for it to be viable. Archons got upped range and massive status. What did terran get in exchange ? Mech nerfs. This is why the matchup is broken. Bio is starting to get figured out by tosses but the alternative mech route completely sucks. Time for a huge nerf to feedback as they did with ghost snipe IMHO! edit: And I would happily take a nerf to the marauder to make bio weaker in the early and mid-game as a compensation. Stop bitching around. I said diversity is good, but not one sided. No toss does not have 2 ways of approching a fight, but one. Tech path is different. Toss has 2 possible tech paths (the third, air, being almost useless against terran) : HT or Colossi. The current protoss deathball consists of Zealots/Stalker/HT/Archons/Colossi/(immortals, depending on marauder count). The terran aquivalent would be MMMVG. Toss can't go robo only, or stargate only, or templar tech only (like factory only). Against any composition, toss HAS to play this style. Only the count of certain units would change. Making mech viable isn't necessarily wrong, but since toss has no other real way of approaching the MU either, it would be unfair, period. And please don't compare this to BW: Toss had his unique way to approach terrans aswell as a unique way of approching vs Zerg. In Sc2, only the unit count and the mothership make the difference. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On May 01 2012 01:27 DarkLordOlli wrote: THANK YOU. Add two or three Battlecruisers to your lategame army and watch how protoss players start freaking out. With good EMP control you will crush protoss armies. Protoss does NOT want stalkers in their army because they die in a matter of seconds. If you use your EMPs well and I have to use my remaining energy to feedback BCs, your army crushes mine. You'll force stalkers which I don't wanna make and if I don't get my feedbacks off or decide to storm instead, I will have to expose my stalkers to kill your BCs. If I do none of those, you can Yamato target my Colossi, which I believe one shots them. And don't worry about upgrades, good terran players will have vehicle weapons for their vikings anyway. This isn't just theory, I've seen it happen. Not even mentioning all the times you'll simply win because protoss has no idea what the hell he's supposed to do. Yamato doesn't oneshot Colossi, Protoss already has some stalkers for Vikings, and BC's are the easiest target to Feedback in existence, which should be no problem too since they are slower than the rest of the Terran army and the Yamato (which needs to be teched and also needs a lot of energy) has a pre attack delay animation which renders the BC immobile before it can be used. That being said, I personally use BC's ultra lategame and find them to be an ok transition, as they typically force voids, who are much easier to Yamato than Colossi which are in the back of the army rather than the front. | ||
|
Holytornados
United States1022 Posts
On May 01 2012 01:27 DarkLordOlli wrote: THANK YOU. Add two or three Battlecruisers to your lategame army and watch how protoss players start freaking out. With good EMP control you will crush protoss armies. Protoss does NOT want stalkers in their army because they die in a matter of seconds. If you use your EMPs well and I have to use my remaining energy to feedback BCs, your army crushes mine. You'll force stalkers which I don't wanna make and if I don't get my feedbacks off or decide to storm instead, I will have to expose my stalkers to kill your BCs. If I do none of those, you can Yamato target my Colossi, which I believe one shots them. And don't worry about upgrades, good terran players will have vehicle weapons for their vikings anyway. This isn't just theory, I've seen it happen. Not even mentioning all the times you'll simply win because protoss has no idea what the hell he's supposed to do. Have you tried simply adding two or three BC's against a late game comp? It doesn't work. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On May 01 2012 01:29 ooozer wrote: Stop bitching around. I said diversity is good, but not one sided. No toss does not have 2 ways of approching a fight, but one. Tech path is different. Toss has 2 possible tech paths (the third, air, being almost useless against terran) : HT or Colossi. The current protoss deathball consists of Zealots/Stalker/HT/Archons/Colossi/(immortals, depending on marauder count). The terran aquivalent would be MMMVG. Toss can't go robo only, or stargate only, or templar tech only (like factory only). Against any composition, toss HAS to play this style. Only the count of certain units would change. Making mech viable isn't necessarily wrong, but since toss has no other real way of approaching the MU either, it would be unfair, period. And please don't compare this to BW: Toss had his unique way to approach terrans aswell as a unique way of approching vs Zerg. In Sc2, only the unit count and the mothership make the difference. You have made almost no argument for it being "unfair." Besides the fact Protoss air is insanely good vs mech and Phoenix/Colossi still comes out as a unit composition every now and then vs Terran, but your notion that "Toss has no other way to approach the MU" doesn't make much sense when Toss already can choose "just robo" or "just templar" despite what you're saying. Sure, super lategame they'll be significantly far better off with both, but that's why Toss are rolling Terran, because they have a better unit composition. The entire argument is to give Terran a better lategame unit composition to fight Toss. I really don't understand what you're point is. | ||
|
Thrombozyt
Germany1269 Posts
On May 01 2012 00:52 Big J wrote: against a 10pool baneling bust? I'm not so sure... You will scout the 10-pool baneling bust way way way in advance with your scouting SCV and have the choice to abandon your build. The regular baneling bust off 2 hatches is way harder to scout, but you can hold. Besides.. wasn't it initially about 1 rax FE vs protoss? The equivalent would be the hellion expand vs zerg. | ||
|
Olli
Austria24417 Posts
On May 01 2012 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Yamato doesn't oneshot Colossi, Protoss already has some stalkers for Vikings, and BC's are the easiest target to Feedback in existence, which should be no problem too since they are slower than the rest of the Terran army and the Yamato (which needs to be teched and also needs a lot of energy) has a pre attack delay animation which renders the BC immobile before it can be used. That being said, I personally use BC's ultra lategame and find them to be an ok transition, as they typically force voids, who are much easier to Yamato than Colossi which are in the back of the army rather than the front. Sure protoss has stalkers but BCs and Vikings work differently as you as a terran will probably know better than me. I doubt you'd ever flank with BCs to take out Colossi, that's not their job. I will also need more stalkers to deal with both vikings and BCs and as already said, I don't wanna make those. What I meant with not getting feedbacks off is if I get EMP'd. The thing with protoss air is that it's even less viable against terran. Mass carriers are countered by mass marines, that's all there is to it. So whenever you can force void rays (which won't be upgraded as well), that's a huge win. I'm not saying it's an easy thing to pull off or it's an easy victory if done right, but I do think it's a way better approach than sticking with low tier units against massive splash, T3 units. | ||
|
one-one-one
Sweden551 Posts
On May 01 2012 01:35 FabledIntegral wrote: You have made almost no argument for it being "unfair." Besides the fact Protoss air is insanely good vs mech and Phoenix/Colossi still comes out as a unit composition every now and then vs Terran, but your notion that "Toss has no other way to approach the MU" doesn't make much sense when Toss already can choose "just robo" or "just templar" despite what you're saying. Sure, super lategame they'll be significantly far better off with both, but that's why Toss are rolling Terran, because they have a better unit composition. The entire argument is to give Terran a better lategame unit composition to fight Toss. I really don't understand what you're point is. ^^ This! Chargelot archon Gateway units + templars Gateway units + colossus Gateway units + immortals Gateway units + archons Only one way to play the matchup ? Yeah right And you forget one thing. IF mech was viable in TvP then protoss air would be the goto tech switch to make. This would mean that the carrier gets a natural role in the matchup. I can't believe that Blizzard hasn't figured this out. | ||
|
ooozer
Germany231 Posts
On May 01 2012 01:35 FabledIntegral wrote: You have made almost no argument for it being "unfair." Besides the fact Protoss air is insanely good vs mech and Phoenix/Colossi still comes out as a unit composition every now and then vs Terran, but your notion that "Toss has no other way to approach the MU" doesn't make much sense when Toss already can choose "just robo" or "just templar" despite what you're saying. Sure, super lategame they'll be significantly far better off with both, but that's why Toss are rolling Terran, because they have a better unit composition. The entire argument is to give Terran a better lategame unit composition to fight Toss. I really don't understand what you're point is. Phoenix lose cost for cost against Vikings, Thor lose in a 1on1 against void rays, but have nice splash. No, toss doesn't just use templars. They use gateway + templars. That's the difference. All you demand is, using only factory units (and starport) and I Tell you: toss can't do so. Toss can't rely on only star gate or robo. They always play a mix of gateway + x. The terran equivalent would be rax + x (which they do use atm). | ||
|
Lyyna
France776 Posts
On May 01 2012 01:44 ooozer wrote: Phoenix lose cost for cost against Vikings, Thor lose in a 1on1 against void rays, but have nice splash. No, toss doesn't just use templars. They use gateway + templars. That's the difference. All you demand is, using only factory units (and starport) and I Tell you: toss can't do so. Toss can't rely on only star gate or robo. They always play a mix of gateway + x. The terran equivalent would be rax + x (which they do use atm). And zerg equivalents would be . . . hatch + X ? Stupid way to think. You cant compare races like that | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On May 01 2012 01:17 Lyyna wrote: The main problem with mech theorycraft is the huge amount of people who dont know anything about it and try to bash people doing it with random arguments. I mean, the discussion about the opening is ridiculous : There is no opening that can hold everything. Saying that mech's opening aren't safe and that this makes the style non-viable is stupid because if you look a bit at bio openings, they are also vulnerable to some allins. People aren't objective in this discussion. To have them considering mech as viable, you would need -A perfect opening able to blindly hold any agression or allins while getting a early expand while allowing to do some pressure -The ability to add (and defend) 1 extra base every 1m30 or so -The ability to go for an exact army setup and always win every single battle at every timing versus every possible protoss army -The ability to never loose a single unit/building to harass Is this exagerated? Im not sure. When i read every post, when i gather every criticism i read about mech, i end up with what i wrote just above. People also seems to assume,when they go into "But that will die easily to XXX" mode, that the terran is on 2 bases without the right to scan or move out of his base at all until max even to scout, versus a protoss with infinite ressources and total vision on the whole map The fact is that mech may not works for pro (which may not be true. I mean, i was able to make this works at a high master lvl with nearly inexistant multitask and micro . . . ) , but it at least works at master/GM lvl. We can assume it works for people below that peoplem and thats basically . . . 99 % of the people playing sc2? People also keep saying that pro KOR said mech isnt viable , that it is already explored,etc . . well, just think about something : you were already saying it a year ago. Imagine yourself, one year ago, talking about the current MKP's mech opening (so, before MKP start doing it) to a pro KOR. What do you think would be his answer? oh wait,something like "Yeah its not viable mech is explored and we saw its bad". But what happened in the last year? MKP did a few times this mech opening, and even if its known, he still win with it. Lets think again about the "explored and non-viable" thing . . Mech can win, mech can loose, mech has good and bad points, but the biggest problem of mech still ends up being the community's mindset. What do you prefer? To stay here,whining about protoss slicing through your bio army again and again, game after game, killing you regardless of how well you played the first 20 minutes of the game ? Personally, i prefer to try stuff and take risks. And thats why i never lost a TvP in a true lategame situation since months. I may be crazy , i may realize that mech is bad any time, but ill at least know that i tried everything possible to make it works . . while most people talking about it never played it at all A lot of people play mech and have been since beta. This has nothing to do with balance or pro level play. You can just do a search for threads with different guides of mech, they have been around for a long time. Again, a lot of people play a lot of different styles "just for fun". To victimise yourself that you are somehow missunderstood is pathetic though. It does not matter one bit how many guide threads or "amateurs" play whatever style. The fact of the matter is that strategys are "tested", "viable", "whatever", ONLY WHEN PROS DO IT CONSISTENTLY. You see MKP do the Gorapadong build sometimes. Never 2 times in a row. There is a very good reason for that. Either he does not feel comfortable due to not having enough experience with it, or he knows mech, unlike bio, it a "surprise!!!" kind of build, a gimmick. What is a "good" build? IMO, it's a build that allows you to be safe, gives attack timings, has a good late game transition. Above all else though, a build becomes standard (popular and very good) if it can be effective even when the oponent knows what you are doing. Mech TvT is the perfect example. Until someone at the highst level can prove all of this, mech in TvP remains a "fun style", a once in a while thing, a gimmick, the definition of underpowered. | ||
|
mburke05
United States130 Posts
there was a good replay a while ago of taeja vs puzzle on ladder where taeja got on 8 bases and cut entombed valley in half, while forcing protoss to turtle on 3 bases, and finally had to yield to let him get his fourth. he went 6 port battlecruises as a transition, got his supply down to close to 14 scvs (we saw via replay), and puzzle just fedback the shit out of them and blinked into them when bio would try and retreat. the micro required to simply have your colossi with your stalkers when you blink in such a fashion, vs the corresponding emp/stim kite/concave foration is just retardedly skewed in protosses favor. and the fact that protosses are requesting that we add an a unit that requires even more babysitting and micro is just hilarious. and, for those who keep proposing mech. please know there are different variations of mech, thor/helion vs siege tank /helion (ive tried tank/helion and it works on maps like shakuras if the protoss is awful and doesnt know how to counter with blink stalkers). but basically every mech variation requires that the protoss take a ton of damage at some point in the game to put him behind and allow for the terran to macro safely. because the terran cannot safely on 3 bases in such a scenario vs an intelligent protoss who can use warp prisms and blink stalkers effectively. more importantly, and obviously, mech armies take minutes to replenish, whereas a protoss gateway army (which works fine after a huge engagement trade to cleanup) literally is remade in seconds. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs TBD
WardiTV European League
ByuN vs ShoWTimE
HeRoMaRinE vs MaxPax
Wardi Open
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
