|
4713 Posts
Actually, the real reason Thor suck against Mutas and why Goliaths would suck more, is because in BW you could only have a control group of 12, and you only actually had 11 at a time, because you needed to have a overlord with your mutas to make them clump and increase their cost effectiveness.
In other words there was a mechanic in BW that prevented units with aoe from ever reaching critical mass, actually several of them, one was overkill, the other was limited control groups. Obviously we can't bring back limited control groups, because that seems to be considered the arch sin of game design, and something that should never, ever be mentioned. But there still has to be something that disallows aoe units from efficiently reaching critical mass, its one of the big things SC2 is lacking in.
Edit: And, I think, before we even consider making mech viable, a couple of mechanics like those should exist in the game.
|
With the Thor and the high supply of Mech units that's probably not gonna happen.On January 07 2014 05:28 Ctone23 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 05:08 SC2Toastie wrote: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.
I was elaborating, yes
|
On January 07 2014 05:35 Dragonm_sc2 wrote:
FYI sky terran is not mech... I want tanks to actually be usefull without having to get 30 of them..
Ya that was sky terran and not really mech and it surprises me that many people are not able to split the two up. Sky Terran is the reason reality won and Mech held it off some what but still struggled. I would like to see mech stronger.
|
interesting OP. lets see what david kim has to say about this...
|
So basically everyone is saying they want "Tank Hellion" to be a viable composition that can fight anything.
I think this is kind of stupid.
OP makes a few great points about how some of the unused units in the Terran arsenal can be useful and everyone complains that Tanks should have EMP and fly and warpgate should be removed. Sigh.
I think one of the hardest parts of meching is getting up to the 4 bases that you need to make a mech army viable vs. protoss. The composition itself is very strong once you get there. There is nothing that can just 1A into a full, siged, Terran mech army. So a defensive turtley style using Ravens and what not is smart I think.
When Terran does get their late game army (Tanks, Thors, Vikings, Ravens, Hellbat) then Protoss needs Immortals, Templar, Tempests, and some Blink Stalker/Archon to fight that. So both races are going down quite a few of their tech paths and the game comes down to who controls and engages better.
I think map design can help make mech viable. But I don't think everything should be viable on any map.. variety is nice.
|
In its current state mech will never work in SC2.
Mech is based on extreme efficiency and positional play.
The major principle is that it should be an practically undefeatable army at late game. This is the only thing that will make the mech transition worth it. Otherwise you may as well just go bio.
In BW you could just sit on 3 bases while Protoss had the rest of the map and still win. It was a game of the other race abusing the weak early game presence either through extreme aggression or greed.
In a straight up fight you could expect to lose 200 pop of units while Terran would lose almost nothing. The whole premise of vs mech was to gain tactical advantages through mobility and slugging it out with attrition due to your early game greed.
Unfortunately David Kim will never allow this to happen because of the balance whine it would produce.
|
On January 07 2014 06:12 DinoMight wrote:
So basically everyone is saying they want "Tank Hellion" to be a viable composition that can fight anything.
I think this is kind of stupid.
OP makes a few great points about how some of the unused units in the Terran arsenal can be useful and everyone complains that Tanks should have EMP and fly and warpgate should be removed. Sigh.
I think one of the hardest parts of meching is getting up to the 4 bases that you need to make a mech army viable vs. protoss. The composition itself is very strong once you get there. There is nothing that can just 1A into a full, siged, Terran mech army. So a defensive turtley style using Ravens and what not is smart I think.
When Terran does get their late game army (Tanks, Thors, Vikings, Ravens, Hellbat) then Protoss needs Immortals, Templar, Tempests, and some Blink Stalker/Archon to fight that. So both races are going down quite a few of their tech paths and the game comes down to who controls and engages better.
I think map design can help make mech viable. But I don't think everything should be viable on any map.. variety is nice.
You don't get the stronger army, that is the problem. Mech is weak, that is why it is nog viable.
And nobody talks about hellion tank - thor was discussed, airtech, various possible changes.
I'd like you to stop posting random critisism about out posting and ignore all replies.
|
I find it funny that all these SC2 players thought using spell casters in BW was difficult. Did any of you play BW? It wasn't that difficult. Not even a little bit....
|
On another note, while I think what reality did was cool, I think Hydras early composition was poor. Also, Reality did 0 harass. It may have been note entertaining if there were some drops or more banshee harass or something...
|
On January 07 2014 06:22 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 06:12 DinoMight wrote:
So basically everyone is saying they want "Tank Hellion" to be a viable composition that can fight anything.
I think this is kind of stupid.
OP makes a few great points about how some of the unused units in the Terran arsenal can be useful and everyone complains that Tanks should have EMP and fly and warpgate should be removed. Sigh.
I think one of the hardest parts of meching is getting up to the 4 bases that you need to make a mech army viable vs. protoss. The composition itself is very strong once you get there. There is nothing that can just 1A into a full, siged, Terran mech army. So a defensive turtley style using Ravens and what not is smart I think.
When Terran does get their late game army (Tanks, Thors, Vikings, Ravens, Hellbat) then Protoss needs Immortals, Templar, Tempests, and some Blink Stalker/Archon to fight that. So both races are going down quite a few of their tech paths and the game comes down to who controls and engages better.
I think map design can help make mech viable. But I don't think everything should be viable on any map.. variety is nice.
You don't get the stronger army, that is the problem. Mech is weak, that is why it is nog viable. And nobody talks about hellion tank - thor was discussed, airtech, various possible changes. I'd like you to stop posting random critisism about out posting and ignore all replies.
This is a forum. Forums are for discussing things. If everyone you disagreed with stopped talking, it wouldn't be a forum, it would be a bunch of people like you sitting at their computer talking about how much they agree.
Mech is not weak. It's just not. If you can get a late game mech composition (which requires about 4 bases to maintain) it can go toe to toe with anything Protoss can make.
There's an easy way to see this and it's called a unit tester. Tanks, Thors, HELLBATS, Raven/Viking is not something you can jsut 1-A into with any composition, as much as you would like to think. The Tempests fly into Viking range and get hosed, the immortals start shooting at Hellbats and get hosed, Raven/Viking take away all of Protoss's detection and PDD single handedly rapes Tempests. In order to engage this effectively, Protoss needs to micro back Tempests to make sure they are not just chasing random units, needs to have High Templar to feedback the PDD and storm the Vikings if they get too close, needsto blink Stalkers away from Tank fire to cover his Tempests, and needs to use Oracles' Revelation to spot for his army since his observers will all die.
The better player wins in this scenario.
What I will say is that it is difficult to get up to the 4 base economy that you need for mech because of harass capabilities of the other races and lack of mobility. But mech units are quite strong if your composition is correct, and orbital commands allow you to sack SCVs late game to the point where Terran has 30 more army supply than P or Z can have.
TLDR; Mech UNITS are not weak. The mech playstyle may be weak because of how hard it is to secure 4 bases. But to keep repeating that a late game Terran Mech army "just dies to zealot archon immortal" is wrong.
OP's post talks about a style that tries to work with that. Which I like.
|
On January 07 2014 06:25 SoFrOsTy wrote:
I find it funny that all these SC2 players thought using spell casters in BW was difficult. Did any of you play BW? It wasn't that difficult. Not even a little bit....
I played BW. Not at a very high level, but I played it. It was a bit harder because you couldn't group spellcasters together like you can now, so you were limited to the number of hotkeys you could free up.
But I remember hotkeying my ghosts to 5-0 and just going 5L click 6L click 7L click etc. for lockdown. Worked just fine.
|
On January 07 2014 06:34 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 06:22 SC2Toastie wrote:On January 07 2014 06:12 DinoMight wrote:
So basically everyone is saying they want "Tank Hellion" to be a viable composition that can fight anything.
I think this is kind of stupid.
OP makes a few great points about how some of the unused units in the Terran arsenal can be useful and everyone complains that Tanks should have EMP and fly and warpgate should be removed. Sigh.
I think one of the hardest parts of meching is getting up to the 4 bases that you need to make a mech army viable vs. protoss. The composition itself is very strong once you get there. There is nothing that can just 1A into a full, siged, Terran mech army. So a defensive turtley style using Ravens and what not is smart I think.
When Terran does get their late game army (Tanks, Thors, Vikings, Ravens, Hellbat) then Protoss needs Immortals, Templar, Tempests, and some Blink Stalker/Archon to fight that. So both races are going down quite a few of their tech paths and the game comes down to who controls and engages better.
I think map design can help make mech viable. But I don't think everything should be viable on any map.. variety is nice.
You don't get the stronger army, that is the problem. Mech is weak, that is why it is nog viable. And nobody talks about hellion tank - thor was discussed, airtech, various possible changes. I'd like you to stop posting random critisism about out posting and ignore all replies. This is a forum. Forums are for discussing things. If everyone you disagreed with stopped talking, it wouldn't be a forum, it would be a bunch of people like you sitting at their computer talking about how much they agree. Mech is not weak. It's just not. If you can get a late game mech composition (which requires about 4 bases to maintain) it can go toe to toe with anything Protoss can make. There's an easy way to see this and it's called a unit tester. Tanks, Thors, HELLBATS, Raven/Viking is not something you can jsut 1-A into with any composition, as much as you would like to think. The Tempests fly into Viking range and get hosed, the immortals start shooting at Hellbats and get hosed, Raven/Viking take away all of Protoss's detection and PDD single handedly rapes Tempests. In order to engage this effectively, Protoss needs to micro back Tempests to make sure they are not just chasing random units, needs to have High Templar to feedback the PDD and storm the Vikings if they get too close, needsto blink Stalkers away from Tank fire to cover his Tempests, and needs to use Oracles' Revelation to spot for his army since his observers will all die. The better player wins in this scenario. What I will say is that it is difficult to get up to the 4 base economy that you need for mech because of harass capabilities of the other races and lack of mobility. But mech units are quite strong if your composition is correct, and orbital commands allow you to sack SCVs late game to the point where Terran has 30 more army supply than P or Z can have. TLDR; Mech UNITS are not weak. The mech playstyle may be weak because of how hard it is to secure 4 bases. But to keep repeating that a late game Terran Mech army "just dies to zealot archon immortal" is wrong. OP's post talks about a style that tries to work with that. Which I like.
A late game mech army is not strong at all.
A maxed out protoss/zerg army designed to beat mech will trade extremely well against a mech army. Protoss/Zerg also repops to 200/200 much faster than Terran which is where the problem lies. Mech right now is too focused, zerg can just switch between units and Terran can't defend against all of them.
Compare this to a BW mech composition of goliath, tank, vulture, valkyrie. You would be hard pressed to lose more than a few units against a 200 pop army of any composition.
Even with mass queens mutalisks hydralisks and dark swarm, Zerg still gets destroyed. You have to be a much better Zerg/Protoss player than the Terran to beat that kind of army. 90% of the time at that point the other race is dead.
Yes it was overpowered, it still took 11 or so years for late-mech to become standard in TvZ even with all that.
|
On January 07 2014 02:09 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +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. Sorry for being sarcastic. Once Terran gets enough Ravens it's really hard to stop...
Well... i don't know why you quoted me because that was i was trying to say...
On January 07 2014 03:18 Traceback wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 00:09 FFW_Rude wrote: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 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.
Well no... it's that people WANT them to fill a similar role. which is not possible. I am quite astonished that people try to compare BW and SC2...
Age of Empire 3 is not played as Age of Empire 2.
Warcraft 3 is not played as Warcraft 2
Supreme commander is not played as Total Annihilation.
Starcraft 2 is not played as Brood war.
We should just live it at that.
I see people are now comparing Guardians and Brood Lords and now i don't understand this thread at all.
People want tank to be effective against all race... While we are at it, i want Carriers to shoot void rays and emp to launch an instant nuke. Why can't people ACCEPT the game as it is. You can talk about imbalance. But people are talking thing that needs so much change/redesign that it's impossible. Or it could be... if the game costed 300€ by expansion.
|
What if Banshees cost 250 minerals instead of 150/100?
They're strong against armored units, Hellions/Hellbats are strong against light. Individually neither has the micro or damage potential of the Vulture, but if the Banshee becomes a mineral dump unit and the Vulture's role is split between the two of them, something magical might happen?
I'm not saying that this alone would fix everything, but I haven't seen the idea brought up before and wanted to throw it out there for consideration.
On January 07 2014 06:34 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 06:22 SC2Toastie wrote:On January 07 2014 06:12 DinoMight wrote:
So basically everyone is saying they want "Tank Hellion" to be a viable composition that can fight anything.
I think this is kind of stupid.
OP makes a few great points about how some of the unused units in the Terran arsenal can be useful and everyone complains that Tanks should have EMP and fly and warpgate should be removed. Sigh.
I think one of the hardest parts of meching is getting up to the 4 bases that you need to make a mech army viable vs. protoss. The composition itself is very strong once you get there. There is nothing that can just 1A into a full, siged, Terran mech army. So a defensive turtley style using Ravens and what not is smart I think.
When Terran does get their late game army (Tanks, Thors, Vikings, Ravens, Hellbat) then Protoss needs Immortals, Templar, Tempests, and some Blink Stalker/Archon to fight that. So both races are going down quite a few of their tech paths and the game comes down to who controls and engages better.
I think map design can help make mech viable. But I don't think everything should be viable on any map.. variety is nice.
You don't get the stronger army, that is the problem. Mech is weak, that is why it is nog viable. And nobody talks about hellion tank - thor was discussed, airtech, various possible changes. I'd like you to stop posting random critisism about out posting and ignore all replies. This is a forum. Forums are for discussing things. If everyone you disagreed with stopped talking, it wouldn't be a forum, it would be a bunch of people like you sitting at their computer talking about how much they agree. Mech is not weak. It's just not. If you can get a late game mech composition (which requires about 4 bases to maintain) it can go toe to toe with anything Protoss can make. There's an easy way to see this and it's called a unit tester. Tanks, Thors, HELLBATS, Raven/Viking is not something you can jsut 1-A into with any composition, as much as you would like to think. The Tempests fly into Viking range and get hosed, the immortals start shooting at Hellbats and get hosed, Raven/Viking take away all of Protoss's detection and PDD single handedly rapes Tempests. In order to engage this effectively, Protoss needs to micro back Tempests to make sure they are not just chasing random units, needs to have High Templar to feedback the PDD and storm the Vikings if they get too close, needsto blink Stalkers away from Tank fire to cover his Tempests, and needs to use Oracles' Revelation to spot for his army since his observers will all die. The better player wins in this scenario. What I will say is that it is difficult to get up to the 4 base economy that you need for mech because of harass capabilities of the other races and lack of mobility. But mech units are quite strong if your composition is correct, and orbital commands allow you to sack SCVs late game to the point where Terran has 30 more army supply than P or Z can have. TLDR; Mech UNITS are not weak. The mech playstyle may be weak because of how hard it is to secure 4 bases. But to keep repeating that a late game Terran Mech army "just dies to zealot archon immortal" is wrong. OP's post talks about a style that tries to work with that. Which I like.
Can you please link to a pro-level game where this composition shows up? I'm interested in seeing just how positional this kind of mech army is. Not just any Factory-heavy army fits the bill for what people want, as I'm sure you know. There's a reason the Warhound was so hated. (OK, many reasons.)
On January 07 2014 06:58 FFW_Rude 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. Sorry for being sarcastic. Once Terran gets enough Ravens it's really hard to stop... Well... i don't know why you quoted me because that was i was trying to say... Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 03:18 Traceback wrote:On January 07 2014 00:09 FFW_Rude wrote: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 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. Well no... it's that people WANT them to fill a similar role. which is not possible. I am quite astonished that people try to compare BW and SC2... Age of Empire 3 is not played as Age of Empire 2. Warcraft 3 is not played as Warcraft 2 Supreme commander is not played as Total Annihilation. Starcraft 2 is not played as Brood war. We should just live it at that. I see people are now comparing Guardians and Brood Lords and now i don't understand this thread at all. People want tank to be effective against all race... While we are at it, i want Carriers to shoot void rays and emp to launch an instant nuke. Why can't people ACCEPT the game as it is. You can talk about imbalance. But people are talking thing that needs so much change/redesign that it's impossible. Or it could be... if the game costed 300€ by expansion.
Did you play WC3? If you did, you would know that TFT did "so much change/redesign" of the way WC3 functioned that it completely changed the way the game worked... for the better! And it didn't cost 300€, either. There is precedent for Blizzard making their RTSes better.
|
On January 07 2014 06:55 sluggaslamoo wrote:A late game mech army is not strong at all.
A maxed out protoss/zerg army designed to beat mech will trade extremely well against a mech army.
Compare this to a BW mech composition of goliath, tank, vulture, valkyrie. You would be hard pressed to lose more than a few units against a 200 pop army of any composition.
Even with mass queens mutalisks hydralisks and dark swarm, Zerg still gets destroyed. You have to be a much better Zerg/Protoss player than the Terran to beat that kind of army. 90% of the time at that point the other race is dead.
Yes it was overpowered, it still took 11 or so years for late-mech to become standard in TvZ even with all that.
What is a Protoss army designed to beat mech? Late game, it's some Tempests, Templar, and then some Immortals and observers/oracle to spot. Zealot/Archon melt to a big tank line/Hellbats. So you end up with an army that still takes skill to use.
What I'm trying to say is that there is no Protoss composition that you can 1A at a meching Terran. You still need to control it well. It can trade cost efficiently, but you need to have skill. So both players need to have skill. AKA it's balanced and viable because the better player wins.
Also, do we WANT to have an army that is unkillable by anything? Sure late game Terran Mech was unbeatable in BW. Infestor Brood Lord was also unbeatable in Wings, and I for one think that was extremely lame. I think late game Terran mech in SC2 can trade cost efficiently, but it will still take some losses. Besides, it's not like Tempests and archons are cheap units that are easy to remake..
IMO it's different than BW for sure, but if you can secure 4 bases the better player wins. I don't think there should ever be an army that can't die to anything else in the game... games would just turn into turtling up to 4 bases which isn't fun for me at all.
|
I wish Mech had some sort of compensation for not having free heal. Everything else that is currently used alot has some sort of costless Heal or free unit creation. It would be really nice to have something that works without heal, but that would mean it would be super effective against units that get effective when they have time to heal.
|
On January 07 2014 07:10 pure.Wasted wrote:What if Banshees cost 250 minerals instead of 150/100? They're strong against armored units, Hellions/Hellbats are strong against light. Individually neither has the micro or damage potential of the Vulture, but if the Banshee becomes a mineral dump unit and the Vulture's role is split between the two of them, something magical might happen? I'm not saying that this alone would fix everything, but I haven't seen the idea brought up before and wanted to throw it out there for consideration. Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 06:34 DinoMight wrote:On January 07 2014 06:22 SC2Toastie wrote:On January 07 2014 06:12 DinoMight wrote:
So basically everyone is saying they want "Tank Hellion" to be a viable composition that can fight anything.
I think this is kind of stupid.
OP makes a few great points about how some of the unused units in the Terran arsenal can be useful and everyone complains that Tanks should have EMP and fly and warpgate should be removed. Sigh.
I think one of the hardest parts of meching is getting up to the 4 bases that you need to make a mech army viable vs. protoss. The composition itself is very strong once you get there. There is nothing that can just 1A into a full, siged, Terran mech army. So a defensive turtley style using Ravens and what not is smart I think.
When Terran does get their late game army (Tanks, Thors, Vikings, Ravens, Hellbat) then Protoss needs Immortals, Templar, Tempests, and some Blink Stalker/Archon to fight that. So both races are going down quite a few of their tech paths and the game comes down to who controls and engages better.
I think map design can help make mech viable. But I don't think everything should be viable on any map.. variety is nice.
You don't get the stronger army, that is the problem. Mech is weak, that is why it is nog viable. And nobody talks about hellion tank - thor was discussed, airtech, various possible changes. I'd like you to stop posting random critisism about out posting and ignore all replies. This is a forum. Forums are for discussing things. If everyone you disagreed with stopped talking, it wouldn't be a forum, it would be a bunch of people like you sitting at their computer talking about how much they agree. Mech is not weak. It's just not. If you can get a late game mech composition (which requires about 4 bases to maintain) it can go toe to toe with anything Protoss can make. There's an easy way to see this and it's called a unit tester. Tanks, Thors, HELLBATS, Raven/Viking is not something you can jsut 1-A into with any composition, as much as you would like to think. The Tempests fly into Viking range and get hosed, the immortals start shooting at Hellbats and get hosed, Raven/Viking take away all of Protoss's detection and PDD single handedly rapes Tempests. In order to engage this effectively, Protoss needs to micro back Tempests to make sure they are not just chasing random units, needs to have High Templar to feedback the PDD and storm the Vikings if they get too close, needsto blink Stalkers away from Tank fire to cover his Tempests, and needs to use Oracles' Revelation to spot for his army since his observers will all die. The better player wins in this scenario. What I will say is that it is difficult to get up to the 4 base economy that you need for mech because of harass capabilities of the other races and lack of mobility. But mech units are quite strong if your composition is correct, and orbital commands allow you to sack SCVs late game to the point where Terran has 30 more army supply than P or Z can have. TLDR; Mech UNITS are not weak. The mech playstyle may be weak because of how hard it is to secure 4 bases. But to keep repeating that a late game Terran Mech army "just dies to zealot archon immortal" is wrong. OP's post talks about a style that tries to work with that. Which I like. Can you please link to a pro-level game where this composition shows up? I'm interested in seeing just how positional this kind of mech army is. Not just any Factory-heavy army fits the bill for what people want, as I'm sure you know. There's a reason the Warhound was so hated. (OK, many reasons.) Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 06:58 FFW_Rude wrote: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. Sorry for being sarcastic. Once Terran gets enough Ravens it's really hard to stop... Well... i don't know why you quoted me because that was i was trying to say... On January 07 2014 03:18 Traceback wrote:On January 07 2014 00:09 FFW_Rude wrote: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 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. Well no... it's that people WANT them to fill a similar role. which is not possible. I am quite astonished that people try to compare BW and SC2... Age of Empire 3 is not played as Age of Empire 2. Warcraft 3 is not played as Warcraft 2 Supreme commander is not played as Total Annihilation. Starcraft 2 is not played as Brood war. We should just live it at that. I see people are now comparing Guardians and Brood Lords and now i don't understand this thread at all. People want tank to be effective against all race... While we are at it, i want Carriers to shoot void rays and emp to launch an instant nuke. Why can't people ACCEPT the game as it is. You can talk about imbalance. But people are talking thing that needs so much change/redesign that it's impossible. Or it could be... if the game costed 300€ by expansion. Did you play WC3? If you did, you would know that TFT did "so much change/redesign" of the way WC3 functioned that it completely changed the way the game worked... for the better! And it didn't cost 300€, either. There is precedent for Blizzard making their RTSes better.
Mech is not being played much at the pro scene, so there aren't many examples. I'm not trying to say mech is super viable and everyone including pros is dead wrong. I'm trying to say that the reason its not viable is not what people think it is.
I think it's not viable because its too hard to get 4 bases safely AT THE PRO LEVEL vs a good opponent. If you're able to do so however, I think the mech composition itself is strong.
It's like saying 200/200 pop of Carriers is not viable. It's not viable because you die trying to get to it, not because once you have it it's bad.
Infestor Brood Lord worked because Infestors were actually useful as you got to the Brood Lords. But as you build your mech composition its just not effective until it reaches critical mass and it's hard to get to critical mass without lots of bases (which are hard to defend).
That's my point
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 07 2014 07:10 pure.Wasted wrote:What if Banshees cost 250 minerals instead of 150/100? They're strong against armored units, Hellions/Hellbats are strong against light. Individually neither has the micro or damage potential of the Vulture, but if the Banshee becomes a mineral dump unit and the Vulture's role is split between the two of them, something magical might happen? I'm not saying that this alone would fix everything, but I haven't seen the idea brought up before and wanted to throw it out there for consideration. Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 06:34 DinoMight wrote:On January 07 2014 06:22 SC2Toastie wrote:On January 07 2014 06:12 DinoMight wrote:
So basically everyone is saying they want "Tank Hellion" to be a viable composition that can fight anything.
I think this is kind of stupid.
OP makes a few great points about how some of the unused units in the Terran arsenal can be useful and everyone complains that Tanks should have EMP and fly and warpgate should be removed. Sigh.
I think one of the hardest parts of meching is getting up to the 4 bases that you need to make a mech army viable vs. protoss. The composition itself is very strong once you get there. There is nothing that can just 1A into a full, siged, Terran mech army. So a defensive turtley style using Ravens and what not is smart I think.
When Terran does get their late game army (Tanks, Thors, Vikings, Ravens, Hellbat) then Protoss needs Immortals, Templar, Tempests, and some Blink Stalker/Archon to fight that. So both races are going down quite a few of their tech paths and the game comes down to who controls and engages better.
I think map design can help make mech viable. But I don't think everything should be viable on any map.. variety is nice.
You don't get the stronger army, that is the problem. Mech is weak, that is why it is nog viable. And nobody talks about hellion tank - thor was discussed, airtech, various possible changes. I'd like you to stop posting random critisism about out posting and ignore all replies. This is a forum. Forums are for discussing things. If everyone you disagreed with stopped talking, it wouldn't be a forum, it would be a bunch of people like you sitting at their computer talking about how much they agree. Mech is not weak. It's just not. If you can get a late game mech composition (which requires about 4 bases to maintain) it can go toe to toe with anything Protoss can make. There's an easy way to see this and it's called a unit tester. Tanks, Thors, HELLBATS, Raven/Viking is not something you can jsut 1-A into with any composition, as much as you would like to think. The Tempests fly into Viking range and get hosed, the immortals start shooting at Hellbats and get hosed, Raven/Viking take away all of Protoss's detection and PDD single handedly rapes Tempests. In order to engage this effectively, Protoss needs to micro back Tempests to make sure they are not just chasing random units, needs to have High Templar to feedback the PDD and storm the Vikings if they get too close, needsto blink Stalkers away from Tank fire to cover his Tempests, and needs to use Oracles' Revelation to spot for his army since his observers will all die. The better player wins in this scenario. What I will say is that it is difficult to get up to the 4 base economy that you need for mech because of harass capabilities of the other races and lack of mobility. But mech units are quite strong if your composition is correct, and orbital commands allow you to sack SCVs late game to the point where Terran has 30 more army supply than P or Z can have. TLDR; Mech UNITS are not weak. The mech playstyle may be weak because of how hard it is to secure 4 bases. But to keep repeating that a late game Terran Mech army "just dies to zealot archon immortal" is wrong. OP's post talks about a style that tries to work with that. Which I like. Can you please link to a pro-level game where this composition shows up? I'm interested in seeing just how positional this kind of mech army is. Not just any Factory-heavy army fits the bill for what people want, as I'm sure you know. There's a reason the Warhound was so hated. (OK, many reasons.) Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 06:58 FFW_Rude wrote: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. Sorry for being sarcastic. Once Terran gets enough Ravens it's really hard to stop... Well... i don't know why you quoted me because that was i was trying to say... On January 07 2014 03:18 Traceback wrote:On January 07 2014 00:09 FFW_Rude wrote: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 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. Well no... it's that people WANT them to fill a similar role. which is not possible. I am quite astonished that people try to compare BW and SC2... Age of Empire 3 is not played as Age of Empire 2. Warcraft 3 is not played as Warcraft 2 Supreme commander is not played as Total Annihilation. Starcraft 2 is not played as Brood war. We should just live it at that. I see people are now comparing Guardians and Brood Lords and now i don't understand this thread at all. People want tank to be effective against all race... While we are at it, i want Carriers to shoot void rays and emp to launch an instant nuke. Why can't people ACCEPT the game as it is. You can talk about imbalance. But people are talking thing that needs so much change/redesign that it's impossible. Or it could be... if the game costed 300€ by expansion. Did you play WC3? If you did, you would know that TFT did "so much change/redesign" of the way WC3 functioned that it completely changed the way the game worked... for the better! And it didn't cost 300€, either. There is precedent for Blizzard making their RTSes better.
Those changes didn't come AFTER the game was out. The game was shipped out different.
|
On January 07 2014 07:16 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 07:10 pure.Wasted wrote:What if Banshees cost 250 minerals instead of 150/100? They're strong against armored units, Hellions/Hellbats are strong against light. Individually neither has the micro or damage potential of the Vulture, but if the Banshee becomes a mineral dump unit and the Vulture's role is split between the two of them, something magical might happen? I'm not saying that this alone would fix everything, but I haven't seen the idea brought up before and wanted to throw it out there for consideration. On January 07 2014 06:34 DinoMight wrote:On January 07 2014 06:22 SC2Toastie wrote:On January 07 2014 06:12 DinoMight wrote:
So basically everyone is saying they want "Tank Hellion" to be a viable composition that can fight anything.
I think this is kind of stupid.
OP makes a few great points about how some of the unused units in the Terran arsenal can be useful and everyone complains that Tanks should have EMP and fly and warpgate should be removed. Sigh.
I think one of the hardest parts of meching is getting up to the 4 bases that you need to make a mech army viable vs. protoss. The composition itself is very strong once you get there. There is nothing that can just 1A into a full, siged, Terran mech army. So a defensive turtley style using Ravens and what not is smart I think.
When Terran does get their late game army (Tanks, Thors, Vikings, Ravens, Hellbat) then Protoss needs Immortals, Templar, Tempests, and some Blink Stalker/Archon to fight that. So both races are going down quite a few of their tech paths and the game comes down to who controls and engages better.
I think map design can help make mech viable. But I don't think everything should be viable on any map.. variety is nice.
You don't get the stronger army, that is the problem. Mech is weak, that is why it is nog viable. And nobody talks about hellion tank - thor was discussed, airtech, various possible changes. I'd like you to stop posting random critisism about out posting and ignore all replies. This is a forum. Forums are for discussing things. If everyone you disagreed with stopped talking, it wouldn't be a forum, it would be a bunch of people like you sitting at their computer talking about how much they agree. Mech is not weak. It's just not. If you can get a late game mech composition (which requires about 4 bases to maintain) it can go toe to toe with anything Protoss can make. There's an easy way to see this and it's called a unit tester. Tanks, Thors, HELLBATS, Raven/Viking is not something you can jsut 1-A into with any composition, as much as you would like to think. The Tempests fly into Viking range and get hosed, the immortals start shooting at Hellbats and get hosed, Raven/Viking take away all of Protoss's detection and PDD single handedly rapes Tempests. In order to engage this effectively, Protoss needs to micro back Tempests to make sure they are not just chasing random units, needs to have High Templar to feedback the PDD and storm the Vikings if they get too close, needsto blink Stalkers away from Tank fire to cover his Tempests, and needs to use Oracles' Revelation to spot for his army since his observers will all die. The better player wins in this scenario. What I will say is that it is difficult to get up to the 4 base economy that you need for mech because of harass capabilities of the other races and lack of mobility. But mech units are quite strong if your composition is correct, and orbital commands allow you to sack SCVs late game to the point where Terran has 30 more army supply than P or Z can have. TLDR; Mech UNITS are not weak. The mech playstyle may be weak because of how hard it is to secure 4 bases. But to keep repeating that a late game Terran Mech army "just dies to zealot archon immortal" is wrong. OP's post talks about a style that tries to work with that. Which I like. Can you please link to a pro-level game where this composition shows up? I'm interested in seeing just how positional this kind of mech army is. Not just any Factory-heavy army fits the bill for what people want, as I'm sure you know. There's a reason the Warhound was so hated. (OK, many reasons.) On January 07 2014 06:58 FFW_Rude wrote: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. Sorry for being sarcastic. Once Terran gets enough Ravens it's really hard to stop... Well... i don't know why you quoted me because that was i was trying to say... On January 07 2014 03:18 Traceback wrote:On January 07 2014 00:09 FFW_Rude wrote: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 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. Well no... it's that people WANT them to fill a similar role. which is not possible. I am quite astonished that people try to compare BW and SC2... Age of Empire 3 is not played as Age of Empire 2. Warcraft 3 is not played as Warcraft 2 Supreme commander is not played as Total Annihilation. Starcraft 2 is not played as Brood war. We should just live it at that. I see people are now comparing Guardians and Brood Lords and now i don't understand this thread at all. People want tank to be effective against all race... While we are at it, i want Carriers to shoot void rays and emp to launch an instant nuke. Why can't people ACCEPT the game as it is. You can talk about imbalance. But people are talking thing that needs so much change/redesign that it's impossible. Or it could be... if the game costed 300€ by expansion. Did you play WC3? If you did, you would know that TFT did "so much change/redesign" of the way WC3 functioned that it completely changed the way the game worked... for the better! And it didn't cost 300€, either. There is precedent for Blizzard making their RTSes better. Mech is not being played much at the pro scene, so there aren't many examples. I'm not trying to say mech is super viable and everyone including pros is dead wrong. I'm trying to say that the reason its not viable is not what people think it is. I think it's not viable because its too hard to get 4 bases safely AT THE PRO LEVEL vs a good opponent. If you're able to do so however, I think the mech composition itself is strong. It's like saying 200/200 pop of Carriers is not viable. It's not viable because you die trying to get to it, not because once you have it it's bad. Infestor Brood Lord worked because Infestors were actually useful as you got to the Brood Lords. But as you build your mech composition its just not effective until it reaches critical mass and it's hard to get to critical mass without lots of bases (which are hard to defend). That's my point
OK well let's say that you're right. That still doesn't tell me if this composition is based around positional play or not, and even if I can get positive confirmation on that, we can only really say that we're 1/4 on the way to solving 1/2 of the problem.
|
On January 07 2014 07:21 FFW_Rude wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 07 2014 07:10 pure.Wasted wrote:What if Banshees cost 250 minerals instead of 150/100? They're strong against armored units, Hellions/Hellbats are strong against light. Individually neither has the micro or damage potential of the Vulture, but if the Banshee becomes a mineral dump unit and the Vulture's role is split between the two of them, something magical might happen? I'm not saying that this alone would fix everything, but I haven't seen the idea brought up before and wanted to throw it out there for consideration. Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 06:34 DinoMight wrote:On January 07 2014 06:22 SC2Toastie wrote:On January 07 2014 06:12 DinoMight wrote:
So basically everyone is saying they want "Tank Hellion" to be a viable composition that can fight anything.
I think this is kind of stupid.
OP makes a few great points about how some of the unused units in the Terran arsenal can be useful and everyone complains that Tanks should have EMP and fly and warpgate should be removed. Sigh.
I think one of the hardest parts of meching is getting up to the 4 bases that you need to make a mech army viable vs. protoss. The composition itself is very strong once you get there. There is nothing that can just 1A into a full, siged, Terran mech army. So a defensive turtley style using Ravens and what not is smart I think.
When Terran does get their late game army (Tanks, Thors, Vikings, Ravens, Hellbat) then Protoss needs Immortals, Templar, Tempests, and some Blink Stalker/Archon to fight that. So both races are going down quite a few of their tech paths and the game comes down to who controls and engages better.
I think map design can help make mech viable. But I don't think everything should be viable on any map.. variety is nice.
You don't get the stronger army, that is the problem. Mech is weak, that is why it is nog viable. And nobody talks about hellion tank - thor was discussed, airtech, various possible changes. I'd like you to stop posting random critisism about out posting and ignore all replies. This is a forum. Forums are for discussing things. If everyone you disagreed with stopped talking, it wouldn't be a forum, it would be a bunch of people like you sitting at their computer talking about how much they agree. Mech is not weak. It's just not. If you can get a late game mech composition (which requires about 4 bases to maintain) it can go toe to toe with anything Protoss can make. There's an easy way to see this and it's called a unit tester. Tanks, Thors, HELLBATS, Raven/Viking is not something you can jsut 1-A into with any composition, as much as you would like to think. The Tempests fly into Viking range and get hosed, the immortals start shooting at Hellbats and get hosed, Raven/Viking take away all of Protoss's detection and PDD single handedly rapes Tempests. In order to engage this effectively, Protoss needs to micro back Tempests to make sure they are not just chasing random units, needs to have High Templar to feedback the PDD and storm the Vikings if they get too close, needsto blink Stalkers away from Tank fire to cover his Tempests, and needs to use Oracles' Revelation to spot for his army since his observers will all die. The better player wins in this scenario. What I will say is that it is difficult to get up to the 4 base economy that you need for mech because of harass capabilities of the other races and lack of mobility. But mech units are quite strong if your composition is correct, and orbital commands allow you to sack SCVs late game to the point where Terran has 30 more army supply than P or Z can have. TLDR; Mech UNITS are not weak. The mech playstyle may be weak because of how hard it is to secure 4 bases. But to keep repeating that a late game Terran Mech army "just dies to zealot archon immortal" is wrong. OP's post talks about a style that tries to work with that. Which I like. Can you please link to a pro-level game where this composition shows up? I'm interested in seeing just how positional this kind of mech army is. Not just any Factory-heavy army fits the bill for what people want, as I'm sure you know. There's a reason the Warhound was so hated. (OK, many reasons.) Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 06:58 FFW_Rude wrote: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. Sorry for being sarcastic. Once Terran gets enough Ravens it's really hard to stop... Well... i don't know why you quoted me because that was i was trying to say... On January 07 2014 03:18 Traceback wrote:On January 07 2014 00:09 FFW_Rude wrote: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 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. Well no... it's that people WANT them to fill a similar role. which is not possible. I am quite astonished that people try to compare BW and SC2... Age of Empire 3 is not played as Age of Empire 2. Warcraft 3 is not played as Warcraft 2 Supreme commander is not played as Total Annihilation. Starcraft 2 is not played as Brood war. We should just live it at that. I see people are now comparing Guardians and Brood Lords and now i don't understand this thread at all. People want tank to be effective against all race... While we are at it, i want Carriers to shoot void rays and emp to launch an instant nuke. Why can't people ACCEPT the game as it is. You can talk about imbalance. But people are talking thing that needs so much change/redesign that it's impossible. Or it could be... if the game costed 300€ by expansion. Did you play WC3? If you did, you would know that TFT did "so much change/redesign" of the way WC3 functioned that it completely changed the way the game worked... for the better! And it didn't cost 300€, either. There is precedent for Blizzard making their RTSes better. Those changes didn't come AFTER the game was out. The game was shipped out different.
If the balance team is still clueless about how to fix mech after 4 years of WOL discussions, then all I can say is they need all the head's up they can get before LOTV.
(Nevermind that they shouldn't have gone on vacation for HOTS. One would imagine they're pretty well rested up after that, and ready to do the real legwork.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
