|
On January 07 2014 02:22 fried_rice wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 02:09 DinoMight wrote:On January 07 2014 01:54 FFW_Rude wrote:On January 07 2014 01:22 deacon.frost wrote:As a SC BW noob - was a bio viable choice in SC BW PvT? Because if not why is the "no mech in PvT" so wrong now? Why do we have to have mech viable in every MU now? If it was viable and pros do that, then ignore my ignorance. But Terran Strategy on Liquipedia is mentioning mainly Factory... Bio play is there mentioned as "a catch-with-pants-down Bionic play"  Excuse poor grammar and English in general, after 8 hours in work after 4 weeks at home my brain is empty Really your innocent question is good. Because Bio PvT was a no no in BW (unless reaaallly special timings) but people want to play TvP as it was in BW in SC2. You can't play mech vs P in SC2, you can't play Bio in BW. Period. It's like people complaining about destructible rocks on maps where there was destructible temple/eggs/hatchery in BW. But it's for the love of comparing. Don't get me wrong i love BW. Put people complained in BW too. It wasn't as vocal as today. Seriously.. whenever anyone gives the "mech MUST be viable" argument "BECAUSE BW!" I get a bit annoyed because obviously there are strategies now that are viable that weren't in BW. That's like if every Protoss demanded the Bisu build be viable in PvZ again. It's a different game. Mech can work but it needs to be played a certain way. The turtle to 4 base Raven style may not be the most fast-paced fun to watch thing ever, but it is viable on certain maps. Once Terran gets enough Ravens it's really hard to stop... Has it crossed your mind that people might not want "MECH BECAUSE BW, GIMME NOSTALGIA" but because as the game is right now HALF of the Terran tech tree is USELESS, whereas for other races every unit has its uses and is seen in pro-play.
Against a Terran going bio, options as Protoss are limited. Sure there are Oracles/DTs/Blink Stalkers for harass or early game all-in. But when it comes down to fighting a bio army with Stim and Medivacs, you need splash damage. All the other units are to support the splash damage dealing units. Carriers, Void Rays, Tempests are pretty useless against Bio. Phoenixes can be viable as part of a gimmicky Colossus/Phoenix allin but eventually their usefullness wears out as the bio ball gets larger and the Viking count rises.
And we have the mother of all useless units, the Mothership! 400/400 for a slower MsCore that can't overcharge.
So yeah, Terrans can't build Tanks/Thors vs. Protoss, but Protoss also has units that aren't viable against bio.
I also think being more creative will help. Bomber showed some really good games w/ Blue Flame Hellbats vs Protoss going Templar first. More innovation will help.
|
On January 07 2014 01:30 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 01:22 deacon.frost wrote:As a SC BW noob - was a bio viable choice in SC BW PvT? Because if not why is the "no mech in PvT" so wrong now? Why do we have to have mech viable in every MU now? If it was viable and pros do that, then ignore my ignorance. But Terran Strategy on Liquipedia is mentioning mainly Factory... Bio play is there mentioned as "a catch-with-pants-down Bionic play" Excuse poor grammar and English in general, after 8 hours in work after 4 weeks at home my brain is empty In a word, no. Outside of early-game timing pushes, bio wasn't a viable strategy because it was shut down so hard by P splash (Reavers and Templar). PvBio in BW was probably a more significantly "hard" hard counter than any interaction in SC2, outside of maybe Immortals vs. Siege Tanks.
It has been used a few times where the Terran practiced dodging and splitting against reavers and storm to prepare for a big match so they were good enough to minimize the splash damage from Reavers. However, the amount of micro required is nuts so this strategy is more of one used when you know who the opponent and have lots of time to prep.
|
That is a fairly wrong statement. Vultures were not the reason mech was strong, even tho vultures are indeed better than helions, but no for that much. Vultures costed 75m, but terran having mules in SC2 and having its gas bottlenecking its mech units production, minerals are not an issue in SC2. However vultures took at least 1 of the 2 upgrades to be efficient out of the map as speedless and mineless vultures wouldnt do anything to any decent player. They didnt do better against non-light units as suggested, they just did full dmg to shields, but for example dragoons wouldnt take full dmg after the shields were down. The only difference was the mines, which were supply less and basically free. On themselves the mines are not reason enough to make vultures better, but the sinergy between the vulture harrass and how mine zone-ing complements it well, make it better since, prolly vultures and hellion have the same or close worker killing rates.
1) Reactor-addon + Mules indeed makes hellion good early game, but not mid/late game. Rather, your much more incentivized to mineral dumb into OC's and then sack scv's in Sc2. BW was entirely different you would produce a lot of Vultures instead. This means that BW is much more mobile and action-oriented w/ Sc2-mech being a lot more turtlish (when it is attempted).
2) Vultures w/ spider mines performed far better both in isolated istuations and in larger scales than Hellions vs blink stalkers.. Obviously this is in temrs of cost efficiency as Vultures cost 33% less - you must here ignore the fact that Mules exist in this comparison (because there is an opportunity cost in terms of OC's/more turrets to wall off).
Tanks were the main reason why mech was strong, the 75 sieged dmg which had spalsh dmg, made them the best ground to ground unit, specially when u had enough of them. It was so strong that Protoss'es, normally known for having the strongest units than the other races, had to find work arounds, to avoid fighting straight up against tanks, be it arbiters, or just completly avoiding them with carriers. SC2 had the 75dmg tanks, but as soon as ppl started to QQ instead of finding these workarounds, finding new strats to bet it by themselves, it "forced" blizzard to nerf them for over 50% their dmg, making them 35dmg (note also that the pom pom mode dmg was also reduced from 30 to 15dmg).
You have multiple facts wrong/missing here;
1) Damage is 70 not 75.
2) It doesn't deal 70 damage to everything which you seem to think. Rather, its explosive, meaning 50% vs Zealots. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Damage.
3) Also worth pointing out perhaps is that it had 1 less range in BW than in Sc2
4) It has 10 less HP
5) It overkilled - arguably the Siege Tank in Sc2 has much more effective DPS than the BW Siege Tank (ignoring the cost differences).
Taking into account that the BW-tank costs 25 less gas and being 2 supply rather than 3, the BW tank is probably still a bit better, however the difference is nothing compared to the 33% differnece between the superior Vulture and the awfull Hellion.
Just look at a standard mech TvP game in BW and compare it to when mech is attempted in Sc2. In Sc2 it is almost purely Siege Tanks. In BW it consist of heavy Vulture's.... If you go heavy Siege Tanks w/ little Vulture support you lose to heavy Zealot play in BW, (similarly to what you would do in Sc2).
Thors are really bad units, they are expensive not only resourcewise but in time too, they take a lot of space, anti-air attack looks good on paper, but its very reduced aoe range and its reload speed makes it very cost inneficient anti-air unit, 7 mutas can take out a thor when magic boxed, they die really fast when not repaired.
Goliaths were also bad/even worse vs Mutalisks. The different here is in the amount of larva aviable. In Sc2 the zerg can outproduce the terran w/ Mutalisks in the midgame while still having a superiro econ. In BW - in order to outproduce someone w/ Mutalisks that went mass Goliaths you would have to sacrifice a lot of econ.
|
On January 07 2014 00:09 FFW_Rude wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 00:02 Foxxan wrote:BW mech would also have been super lame (regardless of superior econ) if Vultures costed 100 minerals (instead of 75 mins). A bit offtopic The latest bw balance patch changed these two relevant things: vulture 100->75 dragoon 150/50->125/50 If i recall speedvultures are the fastest unit in the game ? Thats correct. Almost double speed of the dragoon Wasn't sure if they were fastest as a speedling. Good to see i remember well  Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 00:09 goody153 wrote:On January 06 2014 23:27 FFW_Rude wrote:
To add to this. Vultures were also FAST AS FUCK with the upgrade, making the runbys for a kind of unmobile army so powerfull. That's another big difference. If i recall speedvultures are the fastest unit in the game ? sc2 hellions doesn't even match on how good vultures were during BW. Yes the fastest i believe. Hellions will always lose to stalkers in sc2. During BW if you micro the vultures you might even get a couple of kills due to mines. Well you can't really compare hellions and vultures are they are very different units. I was just adding a fact to the huge ass post that talked about BW mech differences
They are different units, but in the mech composition they seem to be attempting to fill a similar role. Therefore it is very valid to compare how the differences between them affect how well they accomplish that role.
|
On January 07 2014 01:33 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 01:27 SC2Toastie wrote:On January 07 2014 00:13 DinoMight wrote:
It seems to me that people who want to "Mech" in SC2 basically ONLY want to make tanks. I think this is pretty silly, honestly.
Mech in Brood War was Tank based, but it also involved Goliaths, Vultures, Spider Mines, Science Vessels...
in SC2, an army that is Tank, Thor, Hellbat, Viking, Raven is very strong with the Tanks as the primary damage dealers and the rest of the units there to support them.
I think the difference in SC2 is that bases are more difficult to defend than in BW (warpins, turbovacs, etc.) and therefore it's hard to get to the 4 bases you need to make this composition. But the composition itself is strong. SC2 tank requires SO much support (Viking Ghost Thor Hellbat Raven Banshee) you only have like 5 Tanks in the end. The problem with MEch in SC2 is the weakness of the tank and the fact there's no positional control except for the HT and MSC. Only the Templar and MSC can defend a location with low supply, while in any other fight, the deathball ALWAYS wins against a spread army. Just to show it, I tested in the unit tester. 40 3/3 Siege Tanks, Presieged 25 Zealots, 9 Immortals, 12 Archons, 3/3 slightly spread. 120 Supply for Terran in 2 chokes vs 130 Supply for Protoss. In a decent RTS situation, an immobile long range splash unit would SHREDDER a low range attacking army. In SC2? 7 Immortals and 2 Archons survive. Mech and interesting games in general hardly exist because there is NO defensive advantage. More shit usually beats less shit, even if said shit is slightly weaker. This is mostly because of Steppes of War balance and poor maps. It's starting to show that SC2 games are often not intersting because nothing really happens because it can't happen (Protoss being the exception in being able to decently defend without commiting a lot of supply thanks to Cannons, HT, Warp in and MSC). The other races have no such things (Spines suck, the rest of units are low range and inefficient for Zerg, or for Terran, defense being the Planetary OR leaving supply behind in large bunkers that cover a small area). IT SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO RUSH INTO A LIGHTLY DEFENDED BASE UNCAREFULLY - BUT IT IS. If I move my army around and take a Siege Tank shell, am I frightened or do I think... meh..? I think meh. What did it do, take 12 medivac energy, 2 zerglings or scratch some shields? Siege Tanks (and Hosts/Lurkers) should be FEARED! You should be afraid to run into a base like you are against HT Cannon! Bigger open maps, worse economy, better defensive units, no warp in and go from there. There's your interesting game. That's exactly my point. You are testing pure siege Tank vs. an army well constructed to fight pure siege tank. Now try the same thing again, but add blue flame Hellbats and 2 ghosts for EMP.
"An army well constructed to fight pure siege tank"
My point: There is so much stuff that is good against the siege tank that you end up with more support than tanks and thus, no space control, and thus, deathballs.
The siege tank is WEAK. Just as every defensive mechanism in this game.
|
Taking into account that the BW-tank costs 25 less gas and being 2 supply rather than 3
+ thor not being really good as anti air = insta lose vs magic box
these 2 things are the core of mech not being viable imo
|
I think people can make Mech viable, but for it to really be on par with the other army compositions, Mech needs a Factory based Spellcaster.
|
Taking into account that the BW-tank costs 25 less gas and being 2 supply rather than 3
+ thor not being really good as anti air = insta lose vs magic box
these 2 things are the core of mech not being viable imo
Pretty sure Thor is better than Goliaths vs Mutalisks (esp when repaired), however given the larva buff that zerg received in SC2, the Thor should indeed be even better.
And I still have no clue how you also could ignore Vultures? They are 1) 33% cheaper than Hellions and 2) Allround a better unit vs non-light (especially when you take into account Spider Mines).
Siege Tanks in BW are only marginally less expensive which probably is offset by its marginal worse effective DPS.
So the only net difference here between Siege Tanks in BW and Sc2 is the 3 vs 2 supply. That, however cannot explain at all why Mech is worse in the midgame in SC2 than in BW (as supply should almost be irrelevant at that phase in the midgame).
So no - the Siege tank explantion is a big myth. Instead, the real explanation is that toss has midgame-hardcounters in Sc2 and zerg has much more larva (+ Hellion at 100 mineral).
|
On January 07 2014 03:56 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Taking into account that the BW-tank costs 25 less gas and being 2 supply rather than 3
+ thor not being really good as anti air = insta lose vs magic box
these 2 things are the core of mech not being viable imo Pretty sure Thor is better than Goliaths vs Mutalisks (esp when repaired), however given the larva buff that zerg received in SC2, the Thor should indeed be even better. And I still have no clue how you also could ignore Vultures? They are 1) 33% cheaper than Hellions and 2) Allround a better unit vs non-light (especially when you take into account Spider Mines). Siege Tanks in BW are only marginally less expensive which probably is offset by its marginal worse effective DPS. So the only net difference here between Siege Tanks in BW and Sc2 is the 3 vs 2 supply. That, however cannot explain at all why Mech is worse in the midgame in SC2 than in BW (as supply should almost be irrelevant at that phase in the midgame). So no - the Siege tank explantion is a big myth. Instead, the real explanation is that toss has midgame-hardcounters in Sc2 and zerg has much more larva (+ Hellion at 100 mineral).
ok, the vultures were really great, but i think they would now be a bit too powerful with those mines cause of the deathball movement. it would do too much damage right now
and the mech army is too small to split up now. it has to all stay together or you can't do any real damage. every bits would help + only 1 gas geyser per base would also help already (3 supply per base less)
|
On January 07 2014 04:05 r1flEx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 03:56 Hider wrote:Taking into account that the BW-tank costs 25 less gas and being 2 supply rather than 3
+ thor not being really good as anti air = insta lose vs magic box
these 2 things are the core of mech not being viable imo Pretty sure Thor is better than Goliaths vs Mutalisks (esp when repaired), however given the larva buff that zerg received in SC2, the Thor should indeed be even better. And I still have no clue how you also could ignore Vultures? They are 1) 33% cheaper than Hellions and 2) Allround a better unit vs non-light (especially when you take into account Spider Mines). Siege Tanks in BW are only marginally less expensive which probably is offset by its marginal worse effective DPS. So the only net difference here between Siege Tanks in BW and Sc2 is the 3 vs 2 supply. That, however cannot explain at all why Mech is worse in the midgame in SC2 than in BW (as supply should almost be irrelevant at that phase in the midgame). So no - the Siege tank explantion is a big myth. Instead, the real explanation is that toss has midgame-hardcounters in Sc2 and zerg has much more larva (+ Hellion at 100 mineral). ok, the vultures were really great, but i think they would now be a bit too powerful with those mines cause of the deathball movement. it would do too much damage right now and the mech army is too small to split up now. it has to all stay together or you can't do any real damage. every bits would help + only 1 gas geyser per base would also help already (3 supply per base less)
Pathing and overall speed of units too. Stuff like roach speed, speedling, charge, the pretty high speed of the deathball ALL make the Tank worse.
|
The science vessel filled pretty much all the holes in the old mech. Mutas were a mech problem, but not when you had irradiate and pushed with turrets.
EMP simply removed shields, so you don't have stupid problems like immortals or archons with +3 shields. Compared to the new EMP, with its shitty radius, the old one was disgusting.
Defense matrix was also a useful ability to have, particularly against tonnes of zealots. Really got them clumping on the front line units so they could eat splash...
When you think of the raven, it pretty much compliments nothing. There's no single unit that you can say "Oh, I'm transitioning to Ravens. I'm going to need some _______ to go with them." They just do what they do.
PDD is good in a stupid way, because against some units it's the difference maker, and against most units it doesn't matter.
Auto turrets are possibly the worst invention ever, and fall under the same category as infested terrans, broodlings, or locusts (free units). This is one of the more under-utilized abilities of the Raven, but we've seen in some games how a fly-in and drop of auto-turrets can create a world of complications for the low low price of 50 energy.
Seeker Missile is also a standalone ability that doesn't compliment anything but can decimate an entire army as easily as 2 nukes.
Battle-Cruisers are just weak as shit unless you have a lot of them. Think of them as Carriers or Tempests. These energy units are not some kind of answer. They're more like the red-headed step-child of the terran army. They don't really fit into any composition and nobody really looks forward to them. They've probably lost people more games than they've won.
This energy enabling mech nonsense is just that. Energy units, or I'll say "high-tier Terran flyers" , aren't some answer or solution to a mech problem... Ravens are simply the best Terran unit against virtually anything. They are the unit that saves mech by raping the concept of synergy. The all-in-one tool of Terran zone control that goes with everything by going with nothing. That's not a solution to a meching problem. It's the definition of the problem.
|
mech is pretty viable since the armoury buff, i dont think drastic changes are needed, a small change to make ghosts more affordable would be a step in the right direction as it has a positive infuluence in bio late game vs protoss and sc2 style mech
|
On January 07 2014 04:10 nottapro wrote:
mech is pretty viable since the armoury buff, i dont think drastic changes are needed, a small change to make ghosts more affordable would be a step in the right direction as it has a positive infuluence in bio late game vs protoss and sc2 style mech
Ghost buff imo accomplishes nothing - Ghost timings didnt need the reactor because of walking distance, and in long mech games it hardly makes a difference.
Siege Tanks need to be scary again. Full damage vs Shields giving Tanks in their chrrent state 100% Shield Damage is the nicest way of fixing them vs the three worst counters - Zealots, Archons, Immortals. Doesnt hurt any other interaction but sentry (5 more damage 1st shot), Ht (same) and DT.
Also, it frees up a lot of gas not spend on Ghost.
Lastly, Terran Air gets an upgrade that gives immunity to Feedback, and maybe A small BC damage buff.
The first two do nothing vs Z/T, the last one shouldn't pose too many problems.
|
On January 07 2014 03:00 DinoMight wrote:
Against a Terran going bio, options as Protoss are limited. Sure there are Oracles/DTs/Blink Stalkers for harass or early game all-in. But when it comes down to fighting a bio army with Stim and Medivacs, you need splash damage. All the other units are to support the splash damage dealing units. Carriers, Void Rays, Tempests are pretty useless against Bio. Phoenixes can be viable as part of a gimmicky Colossus/Phoenix allin but eventually their usefullness wears out as the bio ball gets larger and the Viking count rises.
And we have the mother of all useless units, the Mothership! 400/400 for a slower MsCore that can't overcharge.
So yeah, Terrans can't build Tanks/Thors vs. Protoss, but Protoss also has units that aren't viable against bio.
I also think being more creative will help. Bomber showed some really good games w/ Blue Flame Hellbats vs Protoss going Templar first. More innovation will help.
It definitely goes both ways. I personally would like to do something other than the MMM+ghost+viking. I'm getting old man my control sucks 
|
On January 07 2014 02:52 fried_rice wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 02:45 Genie1 wrote:
Well this game also shows the flaw of the broodlord and swarmhost in its entirety because these units are effectively not doing any damage if they are killed off while the Guardian and Lurker can be used to chip away at strong points and blockades like the PF north wall that was there. Even 2 guardians chipping away at it is better then what 2 broodlords could do. I don't get it, how are Guardians better than Broodlords? A Broodlord does the same damage as a Guardian and also SHOOTS UNITS, it's a stupid unit IMHO but it's better than a Guardian in every aspect (if you ignore that Guardians morphed from Mutalisks).
That theres no viking unit (range) and that they dont transition as smoothly zvt are the only arguement I can think off
|
On January 07 2014 04:55 Ctone23 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 03:00 DinoMight wrote:
Against a Terran going bio, options as Protoss are limited. Sure there are Oracles/DTs/Blink Stalkers for harass or early game all-in. But when it comes down to fighting a bio army with Stim and Medivacs, you need splash damage. All the other units are to support the splash damage dealing units. Carriers, Void Rays, Tempests are pretty useless against Bio. Phoenixes can be viable as part of a gimmicky Colossus/Phoenix allin but eventually their usefullness wears out as the bio ball gets larger and the Viking count rises.
And we have the mother of all useless units, the Mothership! 400/400 for a slower MsCore that can't overcharge.
So yeah, Terrans can't build Tanks/Thors vs. Protoss, but Protoss also has units that aren't viable against bio.
I also think being more creative will help. Bomber showed some really good games w/ Blue Flame Hellbats vs Protoss going Templar first. More innovation will help.
It definitely goes both ways. I personally would like to do something other than the MMM+ghost+viking. I'm getting old man my control sucks
PvT units we don't see: Voidray, Carrier, Mothership (3/17), Tempest are endgame. There is a case to be made to include Phoenix. Of the used units, 8 units that are used often.
TvP units we don't see: Siege Tank, Hellion, Widow Mine, Banshee, Raven, Battlecruiser, Thor (7/14), assuming Hellbats are used. 3 core units, 2 support, 1 vs mass zealot, 1 that gets made once per game.
You're not that limited.
|
On January 07 2014 05:08 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 04:55 Ctone23 wrote:On January 07 2014 03:00 DinoMight wrote:
Against a Terran going bio, options as Protoss are limited. Sure there are Oracles/DTs/Blink Stalkers for harass or early game all-in. But when it comes down to fighting a bio army with Stim and Medivacs, you need splash damage. All the other units are to support the splash damage dealing units. Carriers, Void Rays, Tempests are pretty useless against Bio. Phoenixes can be viable as part of a gimmicky Colossus/Phoenix allin but eventually their usefullness wears out as the bio ball gets larger and the Viking count rises.
And we have the mother of all useless units, the Mothership! 400/400 for a slower MsCore that can't overcharge.
So yeah, Terrans can't build Tanks/Thors vs. Protoss, but Protoss also has units that aren't viable against bio.
I also think being more creative will help. Bomber showed some really good games w/ Blue Flame Hellbats vs Protoss going Templar first. More innovation will help.
It definitely goes both ways. I personally would like to do something other than the MMM+ghost+viking. I'm getting old man my control sucks PvT units we don't see: Voidray, Carrier, Mothership (3/17), Tempest are endgame. There is a case to be made to include Phoenix. Of the used units, 8 units that are used often. TvP units we don't see: Siege Tank, Hellion, Widow Mine, Banshee, Raven, Battlecruiser, Thor (7/14), assuming Hellbats are used. 3 core units, 2 support, 1 vs mass zealot, 1 that gets made once per game. You're not that limited.
Reaper is basically just an upgraded SCV scout that can kill a worker or 2.
|
Still, however minor, it plays it's role in the matchup, whetger you like it or not.
|
On January 07 2014 05:08 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 04:55 Ctone23 wrote:On January 07 2014 03:00 DinoMight wrote:
Against a Terran going bio, options as Protoss are limited. Sure there are Oracles/DTs/Blink Stalkers for harass or early game all-in. But when it comes down to fighting a bio army with Stim and Medivacs, you need splash damage. All the other units are to support the splash damage dealing units. Carriers, Void Rays, Tempests are pretty useless against Bio. Phoenixes can be viable as part of a gimmicky Colossus/Phoenix allin but eventually their usefullness wears out as the bio ball gets larger and the Viking count rises.
And we have the mother of all useless units, the Mothership! 400/400 for a slower MsCore that can't overcharge.
So yeah, Terrans can't build Tanks/Thors vs. Protoss, but Protoss also has units that aren't viable against bio.
I also think being more creative will help. Bomber showed some really good games w/ Blue Flame Hellbats vs Protoss going Templar first. More innovation will help.
It definitely goes both ways. I personally would like to do something other than the MMM+ghost+viking. I'm getting old man my control sucks PvT units we don't see: Voidray, Carrier, Mothership (3/17), Tempest are endgame. There is a case to be made to include Phoenix. Of the used units, 8 units that are used often. TvP units we don't see: Siege Tank, Hellion, Widow Mine, Banshee, Raven, Battlecruiser, Thor (7/14), assuming Hellbats are used. 3 core units, 2 support, 1 vs mass zealot, 1 that gets made once per game. You're not that limited.
I was speaking to the viability of other unit compositions in the matchup. I have been adding blue flame hellbats with decent results, though.
|
FYI sky terran is not mech... I want tanks to actually be usefull without having to get 30 of them..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
