|
On May 01 2012 01:36 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 00:52 Big J wrote:On May 01 2012 00:46 Mongolbonjwa wrote:On May 01 2012 00:45 MrTng wrote:On May 01 2012 00:26 SupLilSon wrote:On May 01 2012 00:11 Mongolbonjwa wrote:
You could say same about any other builds, there is always some openers that make other opening having hard time defending. Its just a nature of this game. Blink stalkers are also something that needs to be decided very early before protos even has idea that terran is going full mech in the game.
There is not a single safe opener in this game that quarantees not losing. No.. 1 rax FE is considered safe against everything, you just have to react accordingly. It doesn't mean you will hold every early game pressure, but you have the capability to. From watching Crocodile's game, if he uses that same opener every game, it is highly vulnerable. Most 1-2 base Toss all ins will crush that opener, even if scouted. If mech became a more popular style, Protoss would most definitely be able to read mech before deciding to go blink stalker. Why else would someone open 1 gas, reactor into expo in TvP? If you just wanted just marines itd be much better to go 1 rax FE and not get gas so early. 1 rax FE vs. Baneling bust. Yeah, react accordingly all you want, you're done for. 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... 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.
yeah, that's true. But in order to do so, you abbandon your 1rax FE build (so it's not 1rax FE that holds it).
And well, 1rax FE is pretty popular in TvZ but yeah, the discussion was about TvP, just someguy said it was possible to hold it with building the CC, and Im actually not really sure about it.
I mean, 10pool baneling bust is not being played for a reason - it should never collide with a build that it can beat - but crocodile probably doesn't play his build (whatever it is) when he can assume a blink allin. Furthermore when the build would really get figuered and such an allin were to became popular, there might still be tools like scans and mutliple scv scouts to determine whether it is incoming or not and whether his opening has to be abbandoned or not for something more reactive, (which then might lead into bio play).
|
On May 01 2012 01:44 ooozer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 01:35 FabledIntegral wrote:On May 01 2012 01:29 ooozer wrote:On May 01 2012 01:12 one-one-one wrote: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. 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. 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).
Pretty sure Templars come out of the gateway and are considered gateway units.
On May 01 2012 01:38 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On May 01 2012 01:27 DarkLordOlli wrote: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. 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.
I am not a Terran player. Nor did I say you should flank with BCs to take out Colossi. Yes, you'd need more stalkers, but it's fine having more stalkers when they're actually doing their job. 3 BC's means you've cut into the bio forces, so you can afford the stalkers. Thus you cannot argue that you "don't want stalkers." In fact, stalkers are exactly what you want.
Yeah, Carriers suck, I'm not denying that. Phoenix lose cost vs Vikings, but that's irrelevant when Phoenix are 2x the speed, can engage whenever they want, can chase down drops/medivacs, and can lift/kill ground units. Not to mention that with the range upgrade now they'd be even more viable. With Phoenix, Terran has to choose to either kill the phoenix, or kill the colossi. If they kill the Phoenix, the Colossi run everything over, while if they kill the Colossi, the Phoenix are all still
alive and although they might win that battle, it needs to be a significant victory as you won't win any other air battles again.
That's just how the unit comp works, it was a lot more commonplace a year or so ago until people started EMPing the Phoenix which made the style significantly more fragile and more timing attack based.
|
On May 01 2012 01:49 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Im not victimizing myself. Basically the only thing i try to point is that people bashing mech lacks both of experience and objectivity about it
|
On May 01 2012 02:06 Lyyna wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 01:49 Sapphire.lux wrote: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. Im not victimizing myself. Basically the only thing i try to point is that people bashing mech lacks both of experience and objectivity
Extremely silly notion to suggest that the people bashing it lack experience.
|
On May 01 2012 02:08 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:06 Lyyna wrote:On May 01 2012 01:49 Sapphire.lux wrote: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. Im not victimizing myself. Basically the only thing i try to point is that people bashing mech lacks both of experience and objectivity Extremely silly notion to suggest that the people bashing it lack experience.
no it's not. Just read what those people write:
"charglots counter every Mech unit", when proplayers and casters consider charge openings nearly a BO-loss for Protoss (like MKP vs Genius comments)
"Mass Immortals beat Mech", when a lot of people who actually played Mech have said that that's what BCs/banshees and Ghosts are for and there is hardly anything Protoss can do when he gets stuck on Robotech.
"Maxed Protoss rolls Mech", when you can go to any unit tester and confirm that this is not the case if you play it the way people who actually go for Mech suggest it.
Such comments signal lack of experience. That's not to say Mech is viable for pros, but at least inside the community a lot of people simply don't have a clue about strategies that are not often showcased.
|
On May 01 2012 02:06 Lyyna wrote:
Im not victimizing myself. Basically the only thing i try to point is that people bashing mech lacks both of experience and objectivity about it
Sir, I have two masters terran accounts and one toss on EU. While I am far from good, I have played over 7000 games in 1v1 and was among the first 600 in beta. I don't know how much experience more should I have with terran but I can assure you that any win you pull out vs toss that involves mech would be purely circumstantial.
For example, there is a pretty popular opening in ladder now that is 9 gas, 11 rax 12 factory into double hellion production on Tal Darim that is intended to catch tosses that go 1 gate fe. You can roast 10 to all of the toss's probes and then transition into siege tank hellion with an expo while toss is having a stalker and 2 probes. Then if you kill the toss, would you say mech is viable? I mean, mech is so gimmicky vs toss and requires the toss to make so much mistakes like non proper scouting, completely messing up all engagements and stuff. Then you pull out a win against a toss using some mech. Can you do it again? Probably not. Therefore, mech is totally not viable. Stop thinking of stuff to say so toss doesn't get nerfed cause it's gonna happen regardless if Blizz decides it's imba.
|
On May 01 2012 02:21 sieksdekciw wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:06 Lyyna wrote:
Im not victimizing myself. Basically the only thing i try to point is that people bashing mech lacks both of experience and objectivity about it Sir, I have two masters terran accounts and one toss on EU. While I am far from good, I have played over 7000 games in 1v1 and was among the first 600 in beta. I don't know how much experience more should I have with terran but I can assure you that any win you pull out vs toss that involves mech would be purely circumstantial. For example, there is a pretty popular opening in ladder now that is 9 gas, 11 rax 12 factory into double hellion production on Tal Darim that is intended to catch tosses that go 1 gate fe. You can roast 10 to all of the toss's probes and then transition into siege tank hellion with an expo while toss is having a stalker and 2 probes. Then if you kill the toss, would you say mech is viable? I mean, mech is so gimmicky vs toss and requires the toss to make so much mistakes like non proper scouting, completely messing up all engagements and stuff. Then you pull out a win against a toss using some mech. Can you do it again? Probably not. Therefore, mech is totally not viable. Stop thinking of stuff to say so toss doesn't get nerfed cause it's gonna happen regardless if Blizz decides it's imba.
I'm sure he'd disagree with you
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=323003
|
On May 01 2012 02:23 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:21 sieksdekciw wrote:On May 01 2012 02:06 Lyyna wrote:
Im not victimizing myself. Basically the only thing i try to point is that people bashing mech lacks both of experience and objectivity about it Sir, I have two masters terran accounts and one toss on EU. While I am far from good, I have played over 7000 games in 1v1 and was among the first 600 in beta. I don't know how much experience more should I have with terran but I can assure you that any win you pull out vs toss that involves mech would be purely circumstantial. For example, there is a pretty popular opening in ladder now that is 9 gas, 11 rax 12 factory into double hellion production on Tal Darim that is intended to catch tosses that go 1 gate fe. You can roast 10 to all of the toss's probes and then transition into siege tank hellion with an expo while toss is having a stalker and 2 probes. Then if you kill the toss, would you say mech is viable? I mean, mech is so gimmicky vs toss and requires the toss to make so much mistakes like non proper scouting, completely messing up all engagements and stuff. Then you pull out a win against a toss using some mech. Can you do it again? Probably not. Therefore, mech is totally not viable. Stop thinking of stuff to say so toss doesn't get nerfed cause it's gonna happen regardless if Blizz decides it's imba. I'm sure he'd disagree with you http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=323003
Ye, I've seen that. It's a fairy tale.
Take this quote:
`When I play perfectly with mech, I'll win , no matter what the protoss is doing.`
It's the other friggin way around. If you have perfect bio control, it is the strongest composition in the game. Unfortunately, since it is the strongest, it's the hardest to use and if you use it even slightly wrong, a storm hits and that's it. Mech is so immobile that there is no way to play perfectly against a toss that is not a mindless bot that keeps his whole army together.
|
On May 01 2012 02:23 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:21 sieksdekciw wrote:On May 01 2012 02:06 Lyyna wrote:
Im not victimizing myself. Basically the only thing i try to point is that people bashing mech lacks both of experience and objectivity about it Sir, I have two masters terran accounts and one toss on EU. While I am far from good, I have played over 7000 games in 1v1 and was among the first 600 in beta. I don't know how much experience more should I have with terran but I can assure you that any win you pull out vs toss that involves mech would be purely circumstantial. For example, there is a pretty popular opening in ladder now that is 9 gas, 11 rax 12 factory into double hellion production on Tal Darim that is intended to catch tosses that go 1 gate fe. You can roast 10 to all of the toss's probes and then transition into siege tank hellion with an expo while toss is having a stalker and 2 probes. Then if you kill the toss, would you say mech is viable? I mean, mech is so gimmicky vs toss and requires the toss to make so much mistakes like non proper scouting, completely messing up all engagements and stuff. Then you pull out a win against a toss using some mech. Can you do it again? Probably not. Therefore, mech is totally not viable. Stop thinking of stuff to say so toss doesn't get nerfed cause it's gonna happen regardless if Blizz decides it's imba. I'm sure he'd disagree with you http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=323003
Yes, we understand, we've read the guide. This doesn't change what every single professional Terran agrees upon.
|
On May 01 2012 02:31 sieksdekciw wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:23 hugman wrote:On May 01 2012 02:21 sieksdekciw wrote:On May 01 2012 02:06 Lyyna wrote:
Im not victimizing myself. Basically the only thing i try to point is that people bashing mech lacks both of experience and objectivity about it Sir, I have two masters terran accounts and one toss on EU. While I am far from good, I have played over 7000 games in 1v1 and was among the first 600 in beta. I don't know how much experience more should I have with terran but I can assure you that any win you pull out vs toss that involves mech would be purely circumstantial. For example, there is a pretty popular opening in ladder now that is 9 gas, 11 rax 12 factory into double hellion production on Tal Darim that is intended to catch tosses that go 1 gate fe. You can roast 10 to all of the toss's probes and then transition into siege tank hellion with an expo while toss is having a stalker and 2 probes. Then if you kill the toss, would you say mech is viable? I mean, mech is so gimmicky vs toss and requires the toss to make so much mistakes like non proper scouting, completely messing up all engagements and stuff. Then you pull out a win against a toss using some mech. Can you do it again? Probably not. Therefore, mech is totally not viable. Stop thinking of stuff to say so toss doesn't get nerfed cause it's gonna happen regardless if Blizz decides it's imba. I'm sure he'd disagree with you http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=323003 Ye, I've seen that. It's a fairy tale.
As both sides, encumbered in dead vegetation, would say, the grass is greener on the other side.
|
On May 01 2012 02:33 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:23 hugman wrote:On May 01 2012 02:21 sieksdekciw wrote:On May 01 2012 02:06 Lyyna wrote:
Im not victimizing myself. Basically the only thing i try to point is that people bashing mech lacks both of experience and objectivity about it Sir, I have two masters terran accounts and one toss on EU. While I am far from good, I have played over 7000 games in 1v1 and was among the first 600 in beta. I don't know how much experience more should I have with terran but I can assure you that any win you pull out vs toss that involves mech would be purely circumstantial. For example, there is a pretty popular opening in ladder now that is 9 gas, 11 rax 12 factory into double hellion production on Tal Darim that is intended to catch tosses that go 1 gate fe. You can roast 10 to all of the toss's probes and then transition into siege tank hellion with an expo while toss is having a stalker and 2 probes. Then if you kill the toss, would you say mech is viable? I mean, mech is so gimmicky vs toss and requires the toss to make so much mistakes like non proper scouting, completely messing up all engagements and stuff. Then you pull out a win against a toss using some mech. Can you do it again? Probably not. Therefore, mech is totally not viable. Stop thinking of stuff to say so toss doesn't get nerfed cause it's gonna happen regardless if Blizz decides it's imba. I'm sure he'd disagree with you http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=323003 Yes, we understand, we've read the guide. This doesn't change what every single professional Terran agrees upon.
Lastshadow and Illusion don't agree with you
|
Look at Idra's ZvP a year ago: roach/hydra/corruptor
Idra's ZvP now: roach into mass spine wall/infestor/broodlord
The reason why it took so long for Idra to arrive at the latter composition is because he was closed-minded. "Zerg T3 sucks. It's not viable. I tried it a few times. It loses to [this] or [that]." He had to have other people show him that it was viable before he could embrace it.
Same thing is going on with all these T's who whine about lategame TvP. Good tank spread with banshee support does well against chargelot/archon/immortal/collosus. But feel free to stick stubbornly to your ball of squishy no-AOE T1 units. Good luck with that.
|
On May 01 2012 02:35 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:33 SupLilSon wrote:On May 01 2012 02:23 hugman wrote:On May 01 2012 02:21 sieksdekciw wrote:On May 01 2012 02:06 Lyyna wrote:
Im not victimizing myself. Basically the only thing i try to point is that people bashing mech lacks both of experience and objectivity about it Sir, I have two masters terran accounts and one toss on EU. While I am far from good, I have played over 7000 games in 1v1 and was among the first 600 in beta. I don't know how much experience more should I have with terran but I can assure you that any win you pull out vs toss that involves mech would be purely circumstantial. For example, there is a pretty popular opening in ladder now that is 9 gas, 11 rax 12 factory into double hellion production on Tal Darim that is intended to catch tosses that go 1 gate fe. You can roast 10 to all of the toss's probes and then transition into siege tank hellion with an expo while toss is having a stalker and 2 probes. Then if you kill the toss, would you say mech is viable? I mean, mech is so gimmicky vs toss and requires the toss to make so much mistakes like non proper scouting, completely messing up all engagements and stuff. Then you pull out a win against a toss using some mech. Can you do it again? Probably not. Therefore, mech is totally not viable. Stop thinking of stuff to say so toss doesn't get nerfed cause it's gonna happen regardless if Blizz decides it's imba. I'm sure he'd disagree with you http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=323003 Yes, we understand, we've read the guide. This doesn't change what every single professional Terran agrees upon. Lastshadow and Illusion don't agree with you
Yea, they actually do. I don't know about Illusion, but I can tell you for a fact, I heard LS say on his stream that while mech can be alright for casual play, it's not suitable for high level play. And even if Illusion chooses to mix mech into his style to keep things fresh, I'm sure he'd tell you bio is the better route. Mech has is time and place for a competitive player just because it's highly unexpected.
Just reread through Illusions latest interview where he talks a bit about mech. He admits that it's a harder style to pull off than bio and says that the majority of Protoss have little experience countering mech. He specifically cites WG and immortals as huge problems for mech. Nowhere in there does he say it's viable. He said it gets a negative stigma but in no way is he promoting the use of mech or saying that it's a strong strategy.
Like someone said earlier, when I see a pro go mech 2 times in a row I'll believe it's viable.
Guys! MKP GSL, go ALL MARINE. Totally viable TvZ and TvT builds, right!? Come on... no one is going pure marine/medivac every TvZ/T because they saw MKP do it a few times. Sure, you can win on ladder doing it, but many times someone getting tanks will just outshoot you. Viable? I guess if your definition of viable is simply that it is possible. The best possible strategy? Far from it.
|
On May 01 2012 02:35 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:33 SupLilSon wrote:On May 01 2012 02:23 hugman wrote:On May 01 2012 02:21 sieksdekciw wrote:On May 01 2012 02:06 Lyyna wrote:
Im not victimizing myself. Basically the only thing i try to point is that people bashing mech lacks both of experience and objectivity about it Sir, I have two masters terran accounts and one toss on EU. While I am far from good, I have played over 7000 games in 1v1 and was among the first 600 in beta. I don't know how much experience more should I have with terran but I can assure you that any win you pull out vs toss that involves mech would be purely circumstantial. For example, there is a pretty popular opening in ladder now that is 9 gas, 11 rax 12 factory into double hellion production on Tal Darim that is intended to catch tosses that go 1 gate fe. You can roast 10 to all of the toss's probes and then transition into siege tank hellion with an expo while toss is having a stalker and 2 probes. Then if you kill the toss, would you say mech is viable? I mean, mech is so gimmicky vs toss and requires the toss to make so much mistakes like non proper scouting, completely messing up all engagements and stuff. Then you pull out a win against a toss using some mech. Can you do it again? Probably not. Therefore, mech is totally not viable. Stop thinking of stuff to say so toss doesn't get nerfed cause it's gonna happen regardless if Blizz decides it's imba. I'm sure he'd disagree with you http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=323003 Yes, we understand, we've read the guide. This doesn't change what every single professional Terran agrees upon. Lastshadow and Illusion don't agree with you
afaik , Ls doing for "entertaining" ,He himself said mech is bad .
|
http://tv.majorleaguegaming.com/videos/86970-spring-arena-1-rr-huk-vs-marineking-game-3
Link to a game where MKP plays mech vs HUK on antiga.
With the early double forge he clearly aims for long term play, so the little MKP might actually think it is viable.
I have played a lot of mech TvP and I have been keeping my eyes open for pro level mech games for over a year.
Viable or not, the gathered experience just leaves you with a feeling that mech is abusable in so many ways for a protoss player.
You might be able to pull a win off if you play a lot better than your opponent. This means that it is not the solution 99% of all terrans are looking for in TvP.
All I want is a reasonably fair battlefield throughout the game. Why why why did you make protoss lategame so ridiculous Blizzard ?
|
On May 01 2012 02:21 sieksdekciw wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:06 Lyyna wrote:
Im not victimizing myself. Basically the only thing i try to point is that people bashing mech lacks both of experience and objectivity about it Sir, I have two masters terran accounts and one toss on EU. While I am far from good, I have played over 7000 games in 1v1 and was among the first 600 in beta. I don't know how much experience more should I have with terran but I can assure you that any win you pull out vs toss that involves mech would be purely circumstantial. For example, there is a pretty popular opening in ladder now that is 9 gas, 11 rax 12 factory into double hellion production on Tal Darim that is intended to catch tosses that go 1 gate fe. You can roast 10 to all of the toss's probes and then transition into siege tank hellion with an expo while toss is having a stalker and 2 probes. Then if you kill the toss, would you say mech is viable? I mean, mech is so gimmicky vs toss and requires the toss to make so much mistakes like non proper scouting, completely messing up all engagements and stuff. Then you pull out a win against a toss using some mech. Can you do it again? Probably not. Therefore, mech is totally not viable. Stop thinking of stuff to say so toss doesn't get nerfed cause it's gonna happen regardless if Blizz decides it's imba.
It was obvious for me that , when talking about experience, i mean "experience with mech".
|
On May 01 2012 02:06 Lyyna wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 01:49 Sapphire.lux wrote: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. Im not victimizing myself. Basically the only thing i try to point is that people bashing mech lacks both of experience and objectivity about it
I'm sorry, maybe that was the wrong word to use.
My point was that, i think you are overestimating your own experience, objectivity and knowledge. You invested a lot of time and passion in to making a style work, to a degree. There is nothing wrong with defending ones build, ideas, etc, but you come across as a "i figured mech out" kind of atitude with only a few games on master level on ladder.
No top pro player will ever care for that, so why should random people on the forum care to listen to a guy they've never seen play in a tournament let alone win? You've got something that works for you, i to have mech builds that work for me, this however does in no way shape or form make you or me able to make "qualified" statements on an allmost inexistent style at the pro level.
I'm afraid critics can only be made silent by the top pros.
+ Show Spoiler +i love your guide BTW and i love that people try diferent things
|
On May 01 2012 02:41 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:06 Lyyna wrote:On May 01 2012 01:49 Sapphire.lux wrote: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. Im not victimizing myself. Basically the only thing i try to point is that people bashing mech lacks both of experience and objectivity about it I'm sorry, maybe that was the wrong word to use. My point was that, i think you are overestimating your own experience, objectivity and knowledge. You invested a lot of time and passion in to making a style work, to a degree. There is nothing wrong with defending ones build, ideas, etc, but you come across as a "i figured mech out" kind of atitude with only a few games on master level on ladder. No top pro player will ever care for that, so why should random people on the forum care to listen to a guy they've never seen play in a tournament let alone win? You've got something that works for you, i to have mech builds that work for me, this however does in no way shape or form make you or me able to make "qualified" statements on an allmost inexistent style at the pro level. I'm afraid critics can only be made silent by the top pros. + Show Spoiler +i love your guide BTW and i love that people try diferent things
Oh, ok, i see what you mean. But well basically, the main thing i can answer is that even if mech dont work for pro, it can work at least for every people below high master, which basically is . . . every terran struggling versus protoss? I don't personnally care about pros, its up to themselves to see how they want to play
about experiecne and objectivity . . i try to not overestimate it. I know im far from pro level, but i also know im far from the level i was when i started to mech, as i was diamond when starting it, and i made it nearly to GM (missed GM last seasons by a few points . . .). Thats why i think in able to get a good understanding of mech, and even if i admit it has weaknesses, i also want to show it has strengths to all these people who act like if mech was the worst thing in the world and bio the best
|
On May 01 2012 02:37 jdsowa wrote:
Look at Idra's ZvP a year ago: roach/hydra/corruptor
Idra's ZvP now: roach into mass spine wall/infestor/broodlord
The reason why it took so long for Idra to arrive at the latter composition is because he was closed-minded. "Zerg T3 sucks. It's not viable. I tried it a few times. It loses to [this] or [that]." He had to have other people show him that it was viable before he could embrace it.
Same thing is going on with all these T's who whine about lategame TvP. Good tank spread with banshee support does well against chargelot/archon/immortals. But feel free to stick stubbornly to your ball of squishy T1 units. Good luck with that.
Wait..What does that even mean? Like do you even realise what you're saying here. It isn't like idra goes for infestor/bl every game, theres so much more to it than that. Like, I don't even know where to start. You are ridiculously simplifying Idra's ZvP and I would say his has more depth than most other pros. His gas timings are always dependant on his opponent's play, and you will see idra experiment alot in ZvP. He doesn't have much results in the matchup, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The question of going Bl/infestor depends on your opponent's tech choice. Double stargate? Chances are double spire muta or infestor/bl gonna be your best bet.
|
On May 01 2012 02:43 stormchaser wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:37 jdsowa wrote:
Look at Idra's ZvP a year ago: roach/hydra/corruptor
Idra's ZvP now: roach into mass spine wall/infestor/broodlord
The reason why it took so long for Idra to arrive at the latter composition is because he was closed-minded. "Zerg T3 sucks. It's not viable. I tried it a few times. It loses to [this] or [that]." He had to have other people show him that it was viable before he could embrace it.
Same thing is going on with all these T's who whine about lategame TvP. Good tank spread with banshee support does well against chargelot/archon/immortals. But feel free to stick stubbornly to your ball of squishy T1 units. Good luck with that. Wait..What does that even mean? Like do you even realise what you're saying here. It isn't like idra goes for infestor/bl every game, theres so much more to it than that. Like, I don't even know where to start. You are ridiculously simplifying Idra's ZvP and I would say his has more depth than most other pros. His gas timings are always dependant on his opponent's play, and you will see idra experiment alot in ZvP. He doesn't have much results in the matchup, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The question of going Bl/infestor depends on your opponent's tech choice. Double stargate? Chances are double spire muta or infestor/bl gonna be your best bet.
Um BL/Infestor is every zergs late game goal, his point was idra cried about T3 being bad, when infact it really wasn't, he was just bad, other people innovated and made it work instead of crying about it. Same thing will happen to terran refusing to use a third of their units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
