|
On January 07 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +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.
But mech does not needs to be fix for being viable in every match up... That's what i'm saying. And don't say they are clueless.. They more capable than any of us in doing those things.
|
On January 07 2014 07:22 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 07:16 DinoMight wrote: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, so unless I can have positive confirmation of that, we can only really say that we're 1/4 on the way to solving 1/2 of the problem.
Oh sorry I didn't see your comment about positional play.
I rarely cheese or allin etc. So I end up playing a lot of big macro games vs. Mech. This obviously allows me to experience a late game terran mech army because I think mech's weakness is in the early-mid game.
Let's see. I have a few friends who like to mech so I play against this style a lot. I also run into it on the ladder occasionally. It works kind of the same way you'd do it TvT I guess. Usually they will show up witha big army of Tank/Blue flame Hellbat/Vikings and then siege up my 4th if I have it, or prevent me from taking a 4th. Positioning is important because they have to prevent my army from walking across the map and going to kill their base but at the same time they have to be in a position that they can deny expansions. When they're well positioned it's quite hard to fight because if you attack into it you die almost 100% of the time.
To attack directly into a Terran army like this you need Tempests and High Templar with some immortal/Blink Stalker support. So it gets expensive. And if he is parked outside your base denying your 4th, you have to engage really well because jsut trading armies puts you at a disadvantage.
So yes, I'd say it rewards positional play.
I think if Blizzard can give Terrans something to help them get to that late game army that helps in the early game but doesn't change late game too much, then it might be viable to mech at the pro level. But even then I think you can do it all the way up to Masters on ladder and win.
I play Terran as my offrace and I've taken a few ladder games just dicking around with mech.. it's fun. You have to be prepared to turtle for a while though. Vs. Zerg I end up massing BattleCruisers, Thors and Ravens after turtling on Tanks and Hellbats for a long time. Vs. Protoss I get a whole bunch of Tanks, Blue Flame Hellbats, Vikings, and Ravens. If I need I add a couple of ghosts (iftney're templar/immortal heavy) Widow mines are great with this compisition too because Raven/Viking denies them detection.
|
On January 07 2014 07:26 FFW_Rude wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote: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. But mech does not needs to be fix for being viable in every match up... That's what i'm saying. And don't say they are clueless.. They more capable than any of us in doing those things.
They're so capable that they have absolutely no idea what the "next step for Terran mech" is??? Ookay then.
If you enjoy watching deathballs duke it out for 4 years in a row, all the more power to you. I think it's stupid. There's almost no chance of Blizzard making Protoss a solid race at this point, but if they can make positional mech work in TvP maybe that will force the P to play in an interesting way to fight back.
At the very least the Terran side will be more interesting to watch than the toned down, micro-lite MMM variant Terrans use in TvP.
|
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
I think you misunderstand the problem.
Sure, unittester mech vs protoss is even (problem #1).
Mech has SO many weaknesses before 4 base 11 orbital 170 gas-heavy army supply to almost every random tech Protoss has NOBODY gets there.
The reward for surviving? An army that is slightly better than the bio-army (which is safer an has kill potential before 25m) in the main engagement.
At this point, it happens quite often Protoss remaxes within a minute WITH tech units while Terran gets 1 cycle (max 70 supply) out and still dies.
So. Current Mech:
- superweak until 20 minutes
- marginally stronger after 20 minutes
- still not capable of flat out overpowering in a frontal engagement
- in no way capable of holding multiple fronts decently (after engagement, warp 10 zealots ar 2 diferent locationa - they alwaya trade favorably).
Meanwhile, Bio has faster games, kill potential, is a lot more fun to play, more stable throughout the game and only slightly weaker in the main engagement (and arguably better at the remax).
So - why mech? More risk for no gain?
|
4713 Posts
On January 07 2014 07:32 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 07:26 FFW_Rude wrote:On January 07 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote: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. But mech does not needs to be fix for being viable in every match up... That's what i'm saying. And don't say they are clueless.. They more capable than any of us in doing those things. They're so capable that they have absolutely no idea what the "next step for Terran mech" is??? Ookay then. If you enjoy watching deathballs duke it out for 4 years in a row, all the more power to you. I think it's stupid. There's almost no chance of Blizzard making Protoss a solid race at this point, but if they can make positional mech work in TvP maybe that will force the P to play in an interesting way to fight back. At the very least the Terran side will be more interesting to watch than the toned down, micro-lite MMM variant Terrans use in TvP.
I have no idea what you mean with the last comment. Terran has to rely heavily on micro in TvP to make his bio cost efficient, kiting, splitting, dodging and then you later on have to juggle position of your bio, ghosts, vikings and EMP while doing those, and do that under pressure of having to probably multi-task more locations.
It would be fun though if positional mech worked like it did in BW and, just by virtue of it being solid, forced protoss to play in a smart and nice to watch way.
|
On January 07 2014 07:41 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 07:32 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 07 2014 07:26 FFW_Rude wrote:On January 07 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote: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. But mech does not needs to be fix for being viable in every match up... That's what i'm saying. And don't say they are clueless.. They more capable than any of us in doing those things. They're so capable that they have absolutely no idea what the "next step for Terran mech" is??? Ookay then. If you enjoy watching deathballs duke it out for 4 years in a row, all the more power to you. I think it's stupid. There's almost no chance of Blizzard making Protoss a solid race at this point, but if they can make positional mech work in TvP maybe that will force the P to play in an interesting way to fight back. At the very least the Terran side will be more interesting to watch than the toned down, micro-lite MMM variant Terrans use in TvP. I have no idea what you mean with the last comment. Terran has to rely heavily on micro in TvP to make his bio cost efficient, kiting, splitting, dodging and then you later on have to juggle position of your bio, ghosts, vikings and EMP while doing those, and do that under pressure of having to probably multi-task more locations. It would be fun though if positional mech worked like it did in BW and, just by virtue of it being solid, forced protoss to play in a smart and nice to watch way.
I can see how my comments could be taken out of context.
I agree that the Terran has to micro a lot more than the Protoss in TvP. But not as much as he does in TvZ, which is what I was comparing against... in my head. So even the T side of things isn't as interesting as it could be.
Sorry for the confusion.
|
Back in BW, it was so awe inspiring to watch Nada target with the Yamato cannon at lightning speed because it had to be done individually. Or when Jangbi mass storms on a terran mech army that stretches across the map. Or Boxer's mass lockdown on carriers. Now it's like, so what? My grandma can mass storm and EMP as well as anyone.
|
On January 07 2014 07:31 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 07:22 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 07 2014 07:16 DinoMight wrote: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, so unless I can have positive confirmation of that, we can only really say that we're 1/4 on the way to solving 1/2 of the problem. Oh sorry I didn't see your comment about positional play. I rarely cheese or allin etc. So I end up playing a lot of big macro games vs. Mech. This obviously allows me to experience a late game terran mech army because I think mech's weakness is in the early-mid game. Let's see. I have a few friends who like to mech so I play against this style a lot. I also run into it on the ladder occasionally. It works kind of the same way you'd do it TvT I guess. Usually they will show up witha big army of Tank/Blue flame Hellbat/Vikings and then siege up my 4th if I have it, or prevent me from taking a 4th. Positioning is important because they have to prevent my army from walking across the map and going to kill their base but at the same time they have to be in a position that they can deny expansions. When they're well positioned it's quite hard to fight because if you attack into it you die almost 100% of the time. To attack directly into a Terran army like this you need Tempests and High Templar with some immortal/Blink Stalker support. So it gets expensive. And if he is parked outside your base denying your 4th, you have to engage really well because jsut trading armies puts you at a disadvantage. So yes, I'd say it rewards positional play. I think if Blizzard can give Terrans something to help them get to that late game army that helps in the early game but doesn't change late game too much, then it might be viable to mech at the pro level. But even then I think you can do it all the way up to Masters on ladder and win. I play Terran as my offrace and I've taken a few ladder games just dicking around with mech.. it's fun. You have to be prepared to turtle for a while though. Vs. Zerg I end up massing BattleCruisers, Thors and Ravens after turtling on Tanks and Hellbats for a long time. Vs. Protoss I get a whole bunch of Tanks, Blue Flame Hellbats, Vikings, and Ravens. If I need I add a couple of ghosts (iftney're templar/immortal heavy) Widow mines are great with this compisition too because Raven/Viking denies them detection. based on the beginning of this post I'd state that you are overestimating the strenght of mech because you go for macrogames (probably you mean passive turtle games) and don't abuse me h - giving yourself a big disadvantage and not hindering the mech player in getting his composition.
If you engage it af it's strongest without abusing your own advantages, guess what, it gets hard.
What people mean with 'positional play' is not sieging at a good location - it is spreading your tank line so you can handle attacks from all angles, which is impossible because you just lose stuff for free if you spread out.
|
On January 07 2014 07:47 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 07:31 DinoMight wrote:On January 07 2014 07:22 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 07 2014 07:16 DinoMight wrote: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, so unless I can have positive confirmation of that, we can only really say that we're 1/4 on the way to solving 1/2 of the problem. Oh sorry I didn't see your comment about positional play. I rarely cheese or allin etc. So I end up playing a lot of big macro games vs. Mech. This obviously allows me to experience a late game terran mech army because I think mech's weakness is in the early-mid game. Let's see. I have a few friends who like to mech so I play against this style a lot. I also run into it on the ladder occasionally. It works kind of the same way you'd do it TvT I guess. Usually they will show up witha big army of Tank/Blue flame Hellbat/Vikings and then siege up my 4th if I have it, or prevent me from taking a 4th. Positioning is important because they have to prevent my army from walking across the map and going to kill their base but at the same time they have to be in a position that they can deny expansions. When they're well positioned it's quite hard to fight because if you attack into it you die almost 100% of the time. To attack directly into a Terran army like this you need Tempests and High Templar with some immortal/Blink Stalker support. So it gets expensive. And if he is parked outside your base denying your 4th, you have to engage really well because jsut trading armies puts you at a disadvantage. So yes, I'd say it rewards positional play. I think if Blizzard can give Terrans something to help them get to that late game army that helps in the early game but doesn't change late game too much, then it might be viable to mech at the pro level. But even then I think you can do it all the way up to Masters on ladder and win. I play Terran as my offrace and I've taken a few ladder games just dicking around with mech.. it's fun. You have to be prepared to turtle for a while though. Vs. Zerg I end up massing BattleCruisers, Thors and Ravens after turtling on Tanks and Hellbats for a long time. Vs. Protoss I get a whole bunch of Tanks, Blue Flame Hellbats, Vikings, and Ravens. If I need I add a couple of ghosts (iftney're templar/immortal heavy) Widow mines are great with this compisition too because Raven/Viking denies them detection. based on the beginning of this post I'd state that you are overestimating the strenght of mech because you go for macrogames (probably you mean passive turtle games) and don't abuse me h - giving yourself a big disadvantage and not hindering the mech player in getting his composition. If you engage it af it's strongest without abusing your own advantages, guess what, it gets hard. What people mean with 'positional play' is not sieging at a good location - it is spreading your tank line so you can handle attacks from all angles, which is impossible because you just lose stuff for free if you spread out.
Well, one could say you are underestimating the strength of mech because you get cheesed a lot.
I've never said "mech is viable at a pro level." I'm just arguing for why I think it isn't viable. It's not viable because it's hard to get 4 bases. The units themselves are strong I think.
|
If you want the game to improve its always better to create solutions to balance problems by buffing something rather than nerfing it.
If Raven turtle is too efficient give zerg a better way to engage or harass (buffing the corrupter?), don't just nerf the raven.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On January 07 2014 07:46 wptlzkwjd wrote:
Back in BW, it was so awe inspiring to watch Nada target with the Yamato cannon at lightning speed because it had to be done individually. Or when Jangbi mass storms on a terran mech army that stretches across the map. Or Boxer's mass lockdown on carriers. Now it's like, so what? My grandma can mass storm and EMP as well as anyone.
ya seeing all those storms one after another or the lockdowns on carriers then having goliaths swope in and take out 5-6 of them before leaving was always interesting to watch. The bolded part was lol worthy 
|
On January 07 2014 08:03 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 07:47 SC2Toastie wrote:On January 07 2014 07:31 DinoMight wrote:On January 07 2014 07:22 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 07 2014 07:16 DinoMight wrote: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:
[quote]
A bit offtopic
The latest bw balance patch changed these two relevant things:
vulture 100->75
dragoon 150/50->125/50
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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, so unless I can have positive confirmation of that, we can only really say that we're 1/4 on the way to solving 1/2 of the problem. Oh sorry I didn't see your comment about positional play. I rarely cheese or allin etc. So I end up playing a lot of big macro games vs. Mech. This obviously allows me to experience a late game terran mech army because I think mech's weakness is in the early-mid game. Let's see. I have a few friends who like to mech so I play against this style a lot. I also run into it on the ladder occasionally. It works kind of the same way you'd do it TvT I guess. Usually they will show up witha big army of Tank/Blue flame Hellbat/Vikings and then siege up my 4th if I have it, or prevent me from taking a 4th. Positioning is important because they have to prevent my army from walking across the map and going to kill their base but at the same time they have to be in a position that they can deny expansions. When they're well positioned it's quite hard to fight because if you attack into it you die almost 100% of the time. To attack directly into a Terran army like this you need Tempests and High Templar with some immortal/Blink Stalker support. So it gets expensive. And if he is parked outside your base denying your 4th, you have to engage really well because jsut trading armies puts you at a disadvantage. So yes, I'd say it rewards positional play. I think if Blizzard can give Terrans something to help them get to that late game army that helps in the early game but doesn't change late game too much, then it might be viable to mech at the pro level. But even then I think you can do it all the way up to Masters on ladder and win. I play Terran as my offrace and I've taken a few ladder games just dicking around with mech.. it's fun. You have to be prepared to turtle for a while though. Vs. Zerg I end up massing BattleCruisers, Thors and Ravens after turtling on Tanks and Hellbats for a long time. Vs. Protoss I get a whole bunch of Tanks, Blue Flame Hellbats, Vikings, and Ravens. If I need I add a couple of ghosts (iftney're templar/immortal heavy) Widow mines are great with this compisition too because Raven/Viking denies them detection. based on the beginning of this post I'd state that you are overestimating the strenght of mech because you go for macrogames (probably you mean passive turtle games) and don't abuse me h - giving yourself a big disadvantage and not hindering the mech player in getting his composition. If you engage it af it's strongest without abusing your own advantages, guess what, it gets hard. What people mean with 'positional play' is not sieging at a good location - it is spreading your tank line so you can handle attacks from all angles, which is impossible because you just lose stuff for free if you spread out. Well, one could say you are underestimating the strength of mech because you get cheesed a lot. I've never said "mech is viable at a pro level." I'm just arguing for why I think it isn't viable. It's not viable because it's hard to get 4 bases. The units themselves are strong I think.
I played mech mid masters;
Mech is strong if the opponent misreads/is inexperienced. You kinda die if he doesn't/isn't.
Also, endgame mech is marginally stronger than endgame toss, but the aftermath of the huge engagement is what matters.
|
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
The reason mech needs 4 bases to work in the first place is because its not cost efficient.
Mech should only need 2/3 bases to work pretty much all the way to late game. Extra bases should be needed for attrition based play, mech is positional, it makes no sense to need 4 bases to even start playing a positional game.
|
On January 07 2014 07:12 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The biggest difference between mech and infestor/BL is that one is based on positional play and the other is straight up deathballing.
So yes while the result is pretty much identical, one is a game of chess and the other is just plain derp and a-move.
I had been doing mech against Masters/GM's for a long time (edit: before HotS, never bought HotS), it really isn't what you say. You are basically playing with a handicap, every single time I could have just played Bio but I didn't because it was boring. It had nothing to do with not getting 4 bases, it had everything to do with the fact that I needed so many units just to fortify a position.
|
On January 07 2014 06:35 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Right, it was different. not impossible like everyone says. You get used to a different system. People adapt, it is why life is the way it is. It wasn't as difficult as everyone says. Any C- player in BW, which was thousands of people, could do it.
|
On January 07 2014 07:32 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 07:26 FFW_Rude wrote:On January 07 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote: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. But mech does not needs to be fix for being viable in every match up... That's what i'm saying. And don't say they are clueless.. They more capable than any of us in doing those things. They're so capable that they have absolutely no idea what the "next step for Terran mech" is??? Ookay then. If you enjoy watching deathballs duke it out for 4 years in a row, all the more power to you. I think it's stupid. There's almost no chance of Blizzard making Protoss a solid race at this point, but if they can make positional mech work in TvP maybe that will force the P to play in an interesting way to fight back. At the very least the Terran side will be more interesting to watch than the toned down, micro-lite MMM variant Terrans use in TvP.
Stop bashing this game. You don't enjoy it ? Don't play it. but stop that...
Anyway i'm out of here. This is so stupid.
|
all who write here about if mech works or not... go subscribe HTOMARIO stream .. he plays only mech and its aweeesome (good GM player)
On January 07 2014 16:25 FFW_Rude wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 07:32 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 07 2014 07:26 FFW_Rude wrote:On January 07 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote: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. But mech does not needs to be fix for being viable in every match up... That's what i'm saying. And don't say they are clueless.. They more capable than any of us in doing those things. They're so capable that they have absolutely no idea what the "next step for Terran mech" is??? Ookay then. If you enjoy watching deathballs duke it out for 4 years in a row, all the more power to you. I think it's stupid. There's almost no chance of Blizzard making Protoss a solid race at this point, but if they can make positional mech work in TvP maybe that will force the P to play in an interesting way to fight back. At the very least the Terran side will be more interesting to watch than the toned down, micro-lite MMM variant Terrans use in TvP. Stop bashing this game. You don't enjoy it ? Don't play it. but stop that... Anyway i'm out of here. This is so stupid.
yep in the start of sc2, players who whine like bitches got insta banned, now its like 80% of all posts are whine ... i start feeling teamliquid is going to be battle.net forum 2.0 and you guys know how bad 2.0 always is xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
