|
On May 01 2012 02:16 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:08 FabledIntegral wrote: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.
1. There are only 3 mech units, and BFH clearly are decent/good vs Chargelots. The issue is how ridiculously good chargelots are vs the mech composition overall, which they are, and that's completely true. Charge opening as you put it is completely irrelevant to chargelots being very good vs it.
2. Mass Immortals do beat Mech. What are you even talking about with having BC's/Banshees/Ghosts? Sure, you can have maybe one, which I would highly recommend Ghosts, but there's no way you're having all that, especially BC's, unless it's super lategame. Maybe Ghost/Banshee.
3. Maxed Protoss can easily roll mech that pushes out. If you're taking about a simulation where maybe the Mech army is already fortified in, then cool, but of course you have to push out, deny bases, etc. as mech (as mech can easily in TvZ). Your unit simulator is highly irrelevant to actual game scenarios.
Not to mention the entire complaint is how ridiculously hard it is to engage Protoss as Terran lategame because it's so hard to control you're army. Mech overall is significantly harder to play. I don't understand how that's an argument.
Once again I will say it's completely silly to insinuate people haven't experimented with mech. Everyone really has wanted to at the very least try it, if not try it repeatedly. None of your points are really valid whatsoever.
|
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.
I think you did not quite understand what he meant. It is not about Idra's ZvP in particular but rather an example that sometimes things, which are deemed to be impossible, suddenly become viable when someone is brave enough to think out of the box and to experiment. The post, you quote, is just an example of how Idra's close-mindedness affected one particular MU for him. It is not be a super-accurate "Idra's ZvP in a nutshell" post...
|
On May 01 2012 02:59 Iamyournoob wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:43 stormchaser wrote: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. I think you did not quite understand what he meant. It is not about Idra's ZvP in particular but rather an example that sometimes things, which are deemed to be impossible, suddenly become viable when someone is brave enough to think out of the box and to experiment. The post, you quote, is just an example of how Idra's close-mindedness affected one particular MU for him. It is not be a super-accurate "Idra's ZvP in a nutshell" post...
lol BL were still thought to be crap until Blizz nerfed Ghosts to HELL. In stark contrast to that situation in TvZ, everything Toss has to combat mech in PvT has been buffed. I don't see the parallel.
|
On May 01 2012 02:52 -TesteR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:43 stormchaser wrote: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.
When blizzard buffed infestors to be viable against marines and vikings, it made teir 3 more powerful. The infestor and its ability to deal with marines and vikings lead to lead to the rise of the zerg "super army" that is so feared. Infestors provide the stability that zerg needs to make the broodlord useful.
Terran lacks or has not found a way to support their teir 3 units in the same way. Also, BCs and thors have really short range, unlike BL and colossi. Also, seperate upgrade tracks, though zerg has some of the same issues for BL with melee and air units. Several thors(2+) scale reasonablely against zealots beacuse they do 30 x 2 damage a shot, but have no ability to retreat. But they are to pricey to be viable if you cannot save them after most fights.
|
Our current stance on this is we believe slight imbalances in maps actually make the game more interesting, as long as the imbalances aren’t too great.
Yes... About as interesting as rock paper scissors... It's one thing to give subtle advantages on a map (like kespa did with protoss) and have 70% win ratios and go "yeah, its fun to watch"
|
On April 30 2012 04:50 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2012 22:32 RehnFreemark wrote:On April 29 2012 22:25 Lagcraft wrote:
Did you just say medivacs were a healing storm? Seriously dude?
The fact is, protoss can continue to pump out collossi, high templar, cheap zealots for buffering, and archons late game. Three of these units do massive splash damage and three of them share upgrades. If you don't get the perfect engagement against a protoss and stop their production facilities via pylons or what have you, you lose due to faster renforcement of better units.
At least one of our high-tier units (Thor, Battlecruiser) needs to have it's energy taken away and replaced with a cooldown. It's not a fair playing field when the high templar counters every high-tier unit we have.
And that's exactly what I was saying. If your protoss adversaries can "continue to pump out colossi, high templar, cheap zealots and archons" late game it means you haven't done any kind of proper harassing. Take down their probes, snipe a nexus, disrupt their economy or production and you'll see that P has a much harder time keeping up pumping out units that cost 150-200 gas each. If you just go 200v200 then it's a matter of who gets the better storm/emp, there's really not much to argue about that (i already say i dislike it). The thor/battlecruiser argument is silly. P use a lot of high tier units because withtout them their unit composition would be completely wrecked by a mere bioball, it's not an advantage we have, we *have* to get those expensive shit in the field because our (already expensive) gateway units alone can't do jack shit to marine, marauders and medivacs This is one of the worst arguments imo. "If you haven't prevented them from getting this, you've done something wrong." How is that possible to be true? If the protoss intercepted your harassments, traded evenly, and had similar economies through skirmishes through the game, why should Terran suddenly be at a disadvantage?
As I said, I don't like the fact that the game is like this, but it's under everybody's eyes that this is the situation.
It's the same as PvZ. "If you haven't prevented the Z from getting brood lords, you've done something wrong".
PvT is the same, with Terran getting the short end of the stick. I agree that it sucks, but it's just the way the game is. As a terran in TvP what you want to do to win is damage your enemy's economy so much that you make it hard for him to get the deathball, or at least hard to reinforce it after a fight. If the terran isn't able to do so, he puts the protoss in his comfort zone, and the game basically becomes a "who gets the best emp/storm"; just like a protoss puts the zerg in his comfort zone if he allows him to reach brood lords with ease, and the game becomes "will he land a good vortex or not".
Let me tell you again, I don't like it, and you know why? Because this idea that each race should be better at a certain specific stage of the game (early, mid, late) is plain dumb, and prone to balance issues. Just take zerg and protoss, two races that should both be weaker at the early stage of the game and stronger the more the game progresses. What has this idea led to? 2 base timing pushes for P, 12 mins roach maxout for Z. Wow, I'm sure that was working as intended mr Kim!
Look at TvP, T stronger in the early game, P in the later. What has this become? Only frustration for terran players because they feel that after a certain point their game becomes a blind alley. They have to resolve to stuff like mass drops, which requires no small multitasking ability, while they feel (don't matter it's true or not) that the P player only has to build stuff and a move
|
On May 01 2012 03:33 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +Our current stance on this is we believe slight imbalances in maps actually make the game more interesting, as long as the imbalances aren’t too great. Yes... About as interesting as rock paper scissors... It's one thing to give subtle advantages on a map (like kespa did with protoss) and have 70% win ratios and go "yeah, its fun to watch"
Yeah that statment should have been followed up with: "We believe 70% is far to high and would prefer at maximum a 5%-7% advantage. However, Cloud Kingdom is a recent addition to the ladder and we will see if the issue corrects itself over the coming months."
|
On May 01 2012 03:34 RehnFreemark wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 04:50 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 29 2012 22:32 RehnFreemark wrote:On April 29 2012 22:25 Lagcraft wrote:
Did you just say medivacs were a healing storm? Seriously dude?
The fact is, protoss can continue to pump out collossi, high templar, cheap zealots for buffering, and archons late game. Three of these units do massive splash damage and three of them share upgrades. If you don't get the perfect engagement against a protoss and stop their production facilities via pylons or what have you, you lose due to faster renforcement of better units.
At least one of our high-tier units (Thor, Battlecruiser) needs to have it's energy taken away and replaced with a cooldown. It's not a fair playing field when the high templar counters every high-tier unit we have.
And that's exactly what I was saying. If your protoss adversaries can "continue to pump out colossi, high templar, cheap zealots and archons" late game it means you haven't done any kind of proper harassing. Take down their probes, snipe a nexus, disrupt their economy or production and you'll see that P has a much harder time keeping up pumping out units that cost 150-200 gas each. If you just go 200v200 then it's a matter of who gets the better storm/emp, there's really not much to argue about that (i already say i dislike it). The thor/battlecruiser argument is silly. P use a lot of high tier units because withtout them their unit composition would be completely wrecked by a mere bioball, it's not an advantage we have, we *have* to get those expensive shit in the field because our (already expensive) gateway units alone can't do jack shit to marine, marauders and medivacs This is one of the worst arguments imo. "If you haven't prevented them from getting this, you've done something wrong." How is that possible to be true? If the protoss intercepted your harassments, traded evenly, and had similar economies through skirmishes through the game, why should Terran suddenly be at a disadvantage? As I said, I don't like the fact that the game is like this, but it's under everybody's eyes that this is the situation. It's the same as PvZ. "If you haven't prevented the Z from getting brood lords, you've done something wrong". PvT is the same, with Terran getting the short end of the stick. I agree that it sucks, but it's just the way the game is. As a terran in TvP what you want to do to win is damage your enemy's economy so much that you make it hard for him to get the deathball, or at least hard to reinforce it after a fight. If the terran isn't able to do so, he puts the protoss in his comfort zone, and the game basically becomes a "who gets the best emp/storm"; just like a protoss puts the zerg in his comfort zone if he allows him to reach brood lords with ease, and the game becomes "will he land a good vortex or not". Let me tell you again, I don't like it, and you know why? Because this idea that each race should be better at a certain specific stage of the game (early, mid, late) is plain dumb, and prone to balance issues. Just take zerg and protoss, two races that should both be weaker at the early stage of the game and stronger the more the game progresses. What has this idea led to? 2 base timing pushes for P, 12 mins roach maxout for Z. Wow, I'm sure that was working as intended mr Kim! Look at TvP, T stronger in the early game, P in the later. What has this become? Only frustration for terran players because they feel that after a certain point their game becomes a blind alley. They have to resolve to stuff like mass drops, which requires no small multitasking ability, while they feel (don't matter it's true or not) that the P player only has to build stuff and a move
I don't understand what you're talking about. They never intended Zerg and Protoss to be weaker at the early stage and stronger the more the game progresses. Where do you get this notion? Maybe I missed something.
From what I'm aware, they want it as much like BW, which was fairly balanced the entire game, with only EXTREME 45+ minute games that could get skewed IF the map was split 50-50 (or maybe 55-45). Timings open, but that's all they are, timings. I don't think Blizzard ever stated they intended Zerg/Protoss to be stronger the longer the game went on, but I could be wrong.
|
Summing up TvZ and TvP as a masters Terran player since season 1:
I am awful at StarCraft. I am awful at macro, and I am also awful at micro. I am still better than anyone diamond and lower, but that doesn't change the fact that I am still really bad.
But I shouldn't be losing to players that are even worse than me, despite how awful I am, beating me with lower APMs, or even when I have a resource/supply advantage.
|
No mentionong of tvp late game? ...
|
lol idra has been heard. i dont know which episode but there was a huge debate between idra nad day9 on state of the game about early scouting.
|
and what about the 99% win rate in antiga tvz?
|
On May 01 2012 04:33 Naxx wrote:
and what about the 99% win rate in antiga tvz?
Who has 99% win rate, sure hope it's not terran, cause I think I might be the 1%.
|
On April 27 2012 10:31 Andreas wrote:
David Kim just oozes of incompetence. All he talks about are statistics, and all he can show to is Blizzard's "justified winrates" which we don't know if are reliable stats or not. The stats we do know are real (map winrates) are skewed as hell. TvP is my main concern right now, and I'd love how David Kim thinks it's balanced that Terran has a slightly better chance to win in the first 13 minutes, and then a really low chance to win once it gets past that point. Insead, all I get to know is that their justified TvP winrate is 50% in Korea, so I guess it's fine?
Seems like balance issues got really specific. I remember when things were as simple as "Terran is OP". This means the game is getting more and more balanced.
|
On April 27 2012 10:32 schmutttt wrote:
Even as a Zerg player I feel TvP late game needs addressing.
At first I thought this but, watching this season's GSL, only the very top Protoss (like Parting and, right now, Naniwa) make it look imba.
|
On May 01 2012 05:04 RinconH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 10:32 schmutttt wrote:
Even as a Zerg player I feel TvP late game needs addressing. At first I thought this but, watching this season's GSL, only the very top Protoss (like Parting and, right now, Naniwa) make it look imba.
Well, to be fair, MVP, Nestea and DongRaeGu make all their respective races look imba when they are on fire.
|
On April 30 2012 21:05 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 20:25 keglu wrote:On April 30 2012 18:20 Big J wrote:On April 30 2012 17:39 sieksdekciw wrote:On April 30 2012 14:55 Kharnage wrote:
Terran mech does. Say what you like, but toe to toe fully upgraded, maxed mech armies can stare down the protoss robo army.
Show me a single SINGLE pro replay in the current year where terran mech beats toss. Show me one of yours. You can't? Theorycrafting or not, I SWEAR to you that fully updated terran mech is SEVERELY weaker when toe to toe against fully updated toss army. If you can't provide at least one replay where terran mech beats toss, I call your words pure biased bullshit. MarineKing vs Genius, Group Stage GSL Season 1, Dual Sight What's on the line for you with your SWEAR? And what kind of proof do you want? There is a whole thread from a french high master Terran (Lyyna) in which Mech v P is being discussed and you can see replays of various Master League people doing it. Lyyna's style is to max out and slowly take the map and exclusively engage in maxed battles, so at least when he plays it, his Terran Mech is SEVERELY stronger when going toe to toe against a fully upgraded toss army. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=323003I don't want to argue that Mech is viable no matter what, but Mech builds and (more often) Mech Units are being mixed in. And no matter what you want to use, 3/3 Mech with the right support can take on every Protoss ball head on - if anything, the head on fights are the big strength of Mech. MKP lost like every engagement with set siege line, he won thank to few lucky hellion runbys killing a lot of probes. Not good example of Mech beating Protoss army. Yeah, hellion runbys are totally luckbased, they have nothing to do with the unit being fast and killing a ton of workers in a few seconds. And loading them into a medivac and dropping them in a mineral line is absolutly luckbased. And which engagements did he lose? Genius was barely able to raise enough of an army from his hurt economy to prevent MKP from just rolling in and killing him, while MKP was expanding, upgrading and adding tech during all this. That's not "losing an engagement", that's "getting further ahead by forcing equal trades of a better economy".
He didnt ever drop them he just run them up the ramp after first lost engagement. After that he had increasing eco advantage so even without cost effective engagmenets was able to win a game. You know, you can add hellions to bio comp if you want to rely on runbys to win a game
|
Give thor a range upgrade option so that mech is viable in t v p!
|
Can't wait for those battlehellions to hopefully make tvp an interesting matchup!
|
To determine balance by going off of tournament wins and win ratios assumes that there is equal skill levels in each race, which quite frankly, is a far reach assumption. If all the best players play Terran, until they nerf them down so lesser players in other races have same ratio, is hardly balance, which is why starcraft 2 is very imbalanced atm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
