|
On May 26 2013 02:42 headnut wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 21:39 Sissors wrote:Why not remove terran from the game while you are at it? If terran had to go mech vs toss all the time, then only way I would see to win is to do an SCV rush. Not saying right now you cant win with mech, but if he knows you are going mech and has some experience with it there is no way he should ever lose. On May 25 2013 20:27 Lyyna wrote:On May 25 2013 19:33 Sissors wrote:On May 25 2013 10:41 PureEvil wrote:
-Contrary to popular belief, skyterran>>>skytoss, mostly because by doing this style you'll be probably be up in upgrades.
Maybe it is popular believe because it is a fact? Just had mech vs toss who wasnt an idiot, he want voids, and I lost horribly without a chance in hell to defeat them. Sure I cranked out vikings, and sure vikings against pure voids could kite them all day long, but you add support, tempests and other stuff that is simply not going to happen if you dont have extremely good micro. And then you arrive at the point where the terran primary air to air unit, the vikings, is cost effectively countered by phoenix, voids and carriers. Only tempests are countered, but with their range it means you need to do your countering right on top of the enemy army, which means they still die horribly. Sure if you are way ahead in upgrades you probably beat him, but why should a toss ever let that happen with chrono boosts? He's talking about skyterran, you're talking about vikings. Both aren't the same... Honestly, the new thor and the new raven allows you to beat an insane amount of VR with lot less units than him, and in lategame situations, ghost/raven/viking/BC can just put the opponent in a situation where he has to choose between running away from you, still getting hit by yamato's and vikings, or staying and fight, and getting SM'd to death Vikings are horrible in direct fights vs VR and carriers. Vikings and Ravens beat any VR and/or tempest based army, and can trade decently with carriers. Vikings/Ravens/BC can handle any air composition from the protoss, and i'm not theorycrafting here . . . I struggled a bit at the start of the extension to fight the new VR and tempest, but now, i realised it's totally fine, using ravens/vikings to fight "early" air, and still doing the BC transition in lategame. The new missile is the key of fighting air toss now, and since most T thinks mech is a no-caster composition (so they can whine about HT,archon, immortal, he...), they of course ends up using the viking which is a terrible unit alone Thors aren't really part of skyterran, and they aren't better against voids, they are worse due to their new upgrade. Against reasonable number of voids there is really no reason to change their anti air mode, the splash is better than no splash but bit more base damage. By far the best counter to voids/air is simply to not have mech but have bio. Honestly I think your best bet as mech when your opponent transitions to air is to go to bio. But that raises the question why not to start with bio in the first place. Also a toss doesn't have to let the seeker missiles kill all his voids. There is a significant delay on seeker missiles. If the toss has an army that doesn't need much micro, he can use all his attention to pull back those voids that are flashing red. Or pull them forward and let the seekers explode over the terran army. I tried BC transition myself also in HotS often, and yes with plenty of raven/viking support. But they are simply raped by tempests so hard, that the only thing you can do is bring some lube. HT feedback/storm will really hurt your air army, taking out PDDs also isn't exactly hard. HTs hardcounter ravens. If they both cast at max range, than all ravens will at least be out of energy and many will be dead, and all HTs should be fine by just moving a little bit back. And those HTs will also make PDDs/BCs fairly useless and storm vikings to death. Another issue that late game air/mech has is that it is pretty much impossible to hurt his infrastructure outside the frontal assault. Sure you can kill his probes, but for killing his buildings small groups of bio are so much better. Edit: Guess I am going to try hellbat/thor/bio again. That at least gives me bio lategame as option. I just don't see mech working if you haven't beaten him by midgame, and I also have no faith whatsoever in terran air beating a toss army. Both standard deathball and air. Only way I see it happening is if the toss allows for lots of seekers fully hitting a clumped up army. And even then tempests kill battlecruisers so fast unless he leaves a bunch of PDDs intact with energy. you realize that pdd hardcounters tempest? i cant believe how close minded and biased most of the people in this thread are.
Funny you call people biased.
In an empty field PDDs will hardcounter tempests yes, but in a real game it is a bit different.
You have several possibilities. One is that his tempests are happily firing at you from long range, with his army near his tempests. Then yes PDDs block his shots, but that isn't more than a very short term solution, he will simply keep shooting until your ravens + PDDs run out of energy. So then the only thing you achieved is buying some time but losing seeker missiles. Not exactly what I call a hardcounter.
So I guess we still have to attack into his army, not the favourite position for a mech army, which rather has the other one attacking. Then we throw down some PDDs now. Always nice since they also soak up stalker shots, but that is immediatly the problem: those stalker shots will quickly drain energy of PDDs.
But the toss has no stalkers, then I guess he has an air army. His HTs can feedback them, and he can also take them down in no time with some voids. But if that doesn't happen, then yes PDDs hardcounter tempests.
But to say in general PDDs hardcounter tempests means you are only looking at a one on one basis, which is close minded and biased.
|
On May 24 2013 03:37 Qikz wrote:
If Mech is so bad, why would people like Kop and Strelok play it against Toss? Why would there have been lots of Terrans playing Mech vs Toss in the initial WCS Europe Qualifiers against Toss?
Why was Noblesse still playing 2-bases timings into third at the end of WoL? Why is GuMiho still playing 2-bases gimmicks in TvZ? You ask them. They have their reasons. They believe in their builds. This is what they have prepared. They think their opponent won't have the answers, or that they will prevail anyway due to the experience asymmetry. Etc.
I am not pro, but I went mech in the last game of my bo3 against dignitasDreAm at the WCS Challenger League qualifier despite thinking mech is bad in TvP. Why? Honestly, I barely know myself. I used a build that I fully knew was a complete gimmick into another gimmick and it ended up working (because of luck). Just like GuMiho's 2-bases gimmicks worked in some games at Code S level against HyuN and LosirA.
Another little anecdote to illustrate my point. At the beginning of the last season, I was playing mech quite frequently against Protoss. I ran into a barcode Protoss that I won convincingly. After the game, I checked his rank and saw he was #1 Master P in Europe (i. e. of all the Protoss Masters in Europe, he was the first; not just his division). Yet his reactions to my mech play had been abysmal. The day after, I was watching ForGG's stream. He was playing standard bio against some Protoss and ended up being stomped. I checked who his opponent was, and lo, it was the very barcode who had lost against me the day before. He had totally crumbled when facing something unusual, yet obviously knew his affair when it came to standard play. Moral of the story: iffy, unorthodox stuff sometimes wins while standard play wouldn't. Doesn't mean that gimmicks are better; most likely that opponents were simply thrown off balance, reacted poorly and thus got rolled.
I know very well that some EU pros use mech in TvP. I'm top50 GM this season and I myself used mech several times against P, including vs pros such as Bling or Feast. And all my wins, without exception, obeyed to one or several of the following laws:
1. Massive econ advantage through build orders or harass (or both);
2. Protoss having poor reactions, e. g. sticking to horrible stuff like Stalkers/Colossi (e. g. Strelok vs finale, Daybreak);
3. Particular case of the above point, Protoss not scouting a 2-bases timing/all-in and a) taking third + teching 5 different things at once, then not having enough when a mech army with twice the size arrives or b) suiciding their own 2-bases timing/all-in into you, such as my game against dDreAm.
I really don't know how you can say that mech armies trade well against Protoss ground. The last game I saw mech winning against P at high level was Bunny vs Jogginghose on Whirlwind for the WCS Challenger League RO40. Bunny had decimated Jogginghose's economy with Hellbat drops (see the first law), was like max against 135 supply and still struggled to win the first main engagement. Actually he was technically defeated despite probably having +20-30 supply in the fight. In my experience this is what always happens. There's also a ByuN vs puCK (?) ladder game on Newkirk Precinct that illustrates the same thing. ByuN is convincingly ahead the whole game yet still fails to trade properly against mass Immortals and ends up losing while he would probably win 25-0 effortlessly with bio against the same opponent. There are countless examples of this. Strelok vs finale (unsure) on Newkirk Precinct was the same story. Tanks are fine/good against the following Protoss ground units: Sentries, Stalkers, Colossi and Templars. What do Protoss play? Mostly Zealots/Archons/Immortals, i. e. the units against which the Tank is complete garbage. Want to know why Tanks are bad against Protoss? Look no further:
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/706119Tanks.jpg)
Shots required for a x/3 Tank to kill ground units, rounded down or up (i. e. if it technically takes 1.02 shots to kill the unit, such as a x/3 Tank against a stimmed Marine with CS, I noted 1, because realistically the splash damage from the other Tanks will finish the unit anyway).
Conclusion:
On March 29 2013 07:19 TheDwf wrote:
Mech still seems in the gutter in TvP. Hellbats are nice, Mines are nice, having valid openings is nice, but in the end none of this is enough because the problem is always the same: Tanks just lack firepower against Protoss. The primitive trade of mech is "mobility vs firepower," and with Tanks against Protoss you just give up the former without having the latter in return. Protoss barely raise their eyebrow when thinking about 30 Tanks, while even Ultralisks will anxiously look at each other to determine who should charge first against such a critical mass.
Mech is viable in TvT and TvZ because Tanks, past a certain point, completely dominate other ground units in those match-ups. Even Ultralisks, even Swarmhosts lose to critical mass of Tanks. As such, there is that accumulation dynamics which forces your Terran opponent into either "as many Tanks" or an air transition, and your Zerg opponent into Vipers or broods. So both in TvT and TvZ, Tanks → Tanks + Vikings/Ravens (and Battlecruisers in the end) is valid against whichever lategame transition your opponent is playing to deal with your Tank army.
But there is no such thing in TvP, not only because the first phase of the plan – get mass Tanks* and threaten to roll everything – doesn't work, but because the last phase i. e. (ghost)mech + air is still completely stomped by air/Templars. Again I have no idea how you can say that Vikings/Ravens beats air/Templars: Vikings are horribly frail for their expensive cost and have severe overkill issues when shift focusing individual units. Tempests massively outrange them (+6!) so dropping pdds wouldn't help since they would simply move away, or fire until all pdds run out of energy.
*Naturally you can replace Tanks with Thors in TvP, or mix both, or use more varied compositions, including whatever you want, add Ghosts, etc., it will come down the same.
Tanks + Vikings/Ravens could compete to some extent against broods/infests at the end of WoL, particularly post-IT nerfs, because you had the upper hand in the range war: Tanks outranged infestors (13 vs 9 + radius) while Vikings' range was roughly similar to broodlords (9 vs 9.5). In HotS, the 15 range nonsense bashes everything, especially as Terran doesn't have free units generators to initiate a cold war or Vipers to draw Tempests in the range of your units. Tanks are outranged, Vikings are outranged, Ravens are outranged, Battlecruisers (Yamato) are outranged, Ghosts (EMP) are outranged. You're bound to slowly crumble against his continuous siege.
On May 24 2013 08:12 Qikz wrote:
The thing I don't understand about with this, is surely if there's people playing mech only, that proves that it is somewhat viable to do the strat against toss? I wouldn't play mech only if I lost more than I won.
At the end of WoL, I was watching Taeja's stream and he was playing Sickness (a Protoss korean pro) on Ohana. Taeja went 3-bases Battlecruisers out of a few Marines and Tanks. And when I say 3-bases Battlecruisers, I mean he only built Battlecruisers after the few defensive early game units. Sickness kept playing according to his anti-bio autopilot and found himself very surprised when his zeals/archons/stalks/colossi attack on the fourth met 10 upgraded Battlecruisers. Taeja won easily.
Still, no one would claim that "only Battlecruisers" is a viable strategy in TvP. You can win lots of game, even at high levels, with iffy plans and builds, because your opponents don't scout and thus don't react, or react badly, or simply make severe mistakes that make them lose even if they were adapting correctly in the first place. To determine the viability of something, you have to examine what happens when your opponent knows the correct answers and execute them at least decently.
On May 24 2013 08:22 Pookie Monster wrote:
Thinking you should be able to counter all that with just factory units is silly and if the protoss were able to counter your entire entire army composition with just robo units, terrans would call this game broken.
Except robo tech was always conceived as a support tech for gate units, while fact tech is supposed to be relatively autonomous (and is even more so in HotS compared to WoL, though Starport support is still needed in most cases).
About the kOp vs Oz game.
First, the very fact you all use this single example for top Korean play should make you feel uneasy: when you have only one example to back up your claims on hundreds of TvPs, you should ask yourself questions.
Second, this game is no exception to the aforementioned laws; it completely falls under the 3b one, i. e. Protoss going agressive play against a 2-bases timing, subsequently failing because—assuming no huge disparity in army size—there is no way to break a defensive mech position without bypassing terrain through Prism(s), and thus giving the Terran a massive advantage to comfortably prevail with his original plan. To add insult to injury, Oz wasted even more gas in a useless dark shrine (since kOp had a Raven, and then a Turret at the front) and DTs. Oz had his first Immortal out at 11'45, when kOp had already 7 Tanks and was 25 supply ahead. kOp was 35 supply ahead when he reached Oz's natural, who had only 3 Immortals and no Archon at 14'. Sounds like a standard MechvP game to you?
Whenever you intend to play a 2-bases mech timing or all-in in TvP, you virtually auto-win against all 2-bases frontal attacks which commit because there is no way that Immortal busts, Zealots/Archons/Templars or Colossi all-in will break through (or simply trade efficiently against) a fortified mech position with Mines and sieged Tanks. Again, I know this from first-hand experience since numerous Protoss have suicided their timings/all-ins into my defensive position while I was preparing my own attack. In this game, kOp perfectly scouted and prepared for the Blink Stalker attack, so even if Oz didn't lose his army he still spent a lot of gas on suboptimal units (Stalkers) while lacking an extra anti-mech tech such as Archons, a second robo (which came in effect too late in the game since he started it at 12'30) or a Stargate; thus it is only natural he got stomped afterwards. Hence the game proves absolutely nothing about the viability of mech: it proves that throwing the dice sometimes turns out badly.
On May 24 2013 19:26 Lyyna wrote:
-The Mech Lover
Yeah, this is the problem with the emotional approach. One has to stay rational. When I am saying that mech isn't viable in TvP I am not saying this light-heartedly. I am not happy with that. I do love mech too and I came in HotS thinking I would play mech 100% of the time thanks to the new tools. I was playing mech 100% of the time in TvT and TvZ at the end of WoL, so you see, I am not a mech hater.
No. You can't say it's not possible to mech at high lvl (on the ladder i mean)
Thing is, no one is saying that. Saying mech isn't viable doesn't mean you can never win with it.
-Mech may, or may not be viable as a mainstream strategy. I think it is, but it requires a tons of experience, and some people need to accept the fact thay even if in terms of raw skill/ranking/results they are superior to some "mech players" here, they aren't as qualified as these "inferior mech players" to talk about Mech. Myself, even if it might be considered as a cocky behavior, i wouldn't hesitate to argue with any pro about TvP mech, why ? Because i have nearly 3 years of Mech TvP experience, more than 2 of these being 90%+ of my games played with mech. Do i know everything about Mech? No. But i know far more that some people here who assume that because they are supposed to be "better" due to their rank on the ladder or anything like that, and these people should really realise that and think about it.
Do i mean that they should accept everything the experienced mech players say as fact? No. But these people should stop thinking they have the absolute knowledge of Mech TvP, able to theorycraft from scracth every single situation that may kill mech, and stuff like this, and understand that if some people practice mech since years, their advice might be slightly better that their "superior" theorycrafting. At least their advice should be heard instead of being dismissed and answered by some "i'm better than you and i know that mech doesn't work, you play only terrible players lolololol".
Is it a bit cocky to write this ? Maybe. But for me, the cocky behavior is the one used by people who thinks they are in the mind of koreans pro knowning their advices/pratice about mech TvP, and who thinks that because they are better in rank/result/reputation, what they say about something they don't know should be considered more valuable that what people experimented on the subject are saying.
Mech is hard to learn. Stop thinking that because you are GM and you play pro every day, your 1 month mech practice can show you everything about mech. After 3 years of mech i don't even consider myself close of a "solid mech player"... How can some people think they saw everything about mech in a few months/weeks/games?
This is where you're deluded. Sorry if I sound harsh in the following but any Terran GM will instinctively have better mech TvP than you with better builds, better micro, better macro, better positioning, better everything basically. The fact you play mech since 3 years doesn't make you "more qualified" at all to talk about mech than someone with higher skill but less games. You certainly played more TvP mech than me, yet I'm ready to bet you would have nothing to teach me at all.
Isn't there always this guy, from time to time, who arises from the shadows to teach us the ways of "sky Terran" with his revolutionary PF on natural into 4-port banshees? What would you answer him if he tells you "I play sky Terran since 3 years, I know I'm only Diamond but I'm more qualified than you to discuss this!" after you criticize his gimmicks and label them as such? Obviously mech in TvP is not as bad as this, but you see my point.
You say we are not in the minds of Korean pros. Admittedly, telepathy is still to be invented. But what? Again the conspiracy, again the secret no one ever found? Where's the sanctuary? You think KeSPA Terrans wouldn't even try mech after coming from BW? You think they wouldn't try their best to make it work? You think people are happy playing bio 24/7 in TvP? No. People try mech, with various builds and compositions, see that they often struggle horribly to win even with an economic advantage, get regularly bashed by inferior players doing simplistic 1a and must acknowledge that the mythical "hidden potential" of the thing just doesn't exist.
You have an easy time saying the thing "isn't fully explored". It's true that the island isn't fully explored, but for good reasons: people accosted, saw the searing crater at the center of the island and quickly understood they couldn't live here, so only hardcore islanders remain, fascinated by the beauty of the landscape. "Exploring" mech vs P is like "exploring" a desert always hoping for an oasis, yet all you find after months and months is sand, sand and more sand.
On May 26 2013 02:42 headnut wrote:
you realize that pdd hardcounters tempest?
Your statement makes as little sense as saying FFs "hardcounter" Roaches.
|
My opinion for why mech isn't used as often is because of the lack of synergy with medivacs, which are key to harassment and drops in TvP. Drop play is bigger than ever with buffed medivacs(which got put in at the same time as the mech buffs), and bio has the best synergy with medivacs for drops, so that's what people are using.
If mech had been buffed without any change at all to medivacs, I'm betting we'd see more mech play.
|
Great post TheDwf! I agree with the notion that the main problem with mech is the Siege Tank; it basically does 35 dmg to most protoss units, units that have a much higher HP base then T/Z counterparts. Mech will remain a gimmick until something is done with the Tank, no matter how strong they make Hellbats or the WMs.
BTW, the quote in my sig is one of the first things Coach Park said about SC2.
|
On May 26 2013 04:30 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +-Mech may, or may not be viable as a mainstream strategy. I think it is, but it requires a tons of experience, and some people need to accept the fact thay even if in terms of raw skill/ranking/results they are superior to some "mech players" here, they aren't as qualified as these "inferior mech players" to talk about Mech. Myself, even if it might be considered as a cocky behavior, i wouldn't hesitate to argue with any pro about TvP mech, why ? Because i have nearly 3 years of Mech TvP experience, more than 2 of these being 90%+ of my games played with mech. Do i know everything about Mech? No. But i know far more that some people here who assume that because they are supposed to be "better" due to their rank on the ladder or anything like that, and these people should really realise that and think about it.
Do i mean that they should accept everything the experienced mech players say as fact? No. But these people should stop thinking they have the absolute knowledge of Mech TvP, able to theorycraft from scracth every single situation that may kill mech, and stuff like this, and understand that if some people practice mech since years, their advice might be slightly better that their "superior" theorycrafting. At least their advice should be heard instead of being dismissed and answered by some "i'm better than you and i know that mech doesn't work, you play only terrible players lolololol".
Is it a bit cocky to write this ? Maybe. But for me, the cocky behavior is the one used by people who thinks they are in the mind of koreans pro knowning their advices/pratice about mech TvP, and who thinks that because they are better in rank/result/reputation, what they say about something they don't know should be considered more valuable that what people experimented on the subject are saying.
Mech is hard to learn. Stop thinking that because you are GM and you play pro every day, your 1 month mech practice can show you everything about mech. After 3 years of mech i don't even consider myself close of a "solid mech player"... How can some people think they saw everything about mech in a few months/weeks/games? This is where you're deluded. Sorry if I sound harsh in the following but any Terran GM will instinctively have better mech TvP than you with better builds, better micro, better macro, better positioning, better everything basically. The fact you play mech since 3 years doesn't make you "more qualified" at all to talk about mech than someone with higher skill but less games. You certainly played more TvP mech than me, yet I'm ready to bet you would have nothing to teach me at all. Isn't there always this guy, from time to time, who arises from the shadows to teach us the ways of "sky Terran" with his revolutionary PF on natural into 4-port banshees? What would you answer him if he tells you "I play sky Terran since 3 years, I know I'm only Diamond but I'm more qualified than you to discuss this!" after you criticize his gimmicks and label them as such? Obviously mech in TvP is not as bad as this, but you see my point. You say we are not in the minds of Korean pros. Admittedly, telepathy is still to be invented. But what? Again the conspiracy, again the secret no one ever found? Where's the sanctuary? You think KeSPA Terrans wouldn't even try mech after coming from BW? You think they wouldn't try their best to make it work? You think people are happy playing bio 24/7 in TvP? No. People try mech, with various builds and compositions, see that they often struggle horribly to win even with an economic advantage, get regularly bashed by inferior players doing simplistic 1a and must acknowledge that the mythical "hidden potential" of the thing just doesn't exist. You have an easy time saying the thing "isn't fully explored". It's true that the island isn't fully explored, but for good reasons: people accosted, saw the searing crater at the center of the island and quickly understood they couldn't live here, so only hardcore islanders remain, fascinated by the beauty of the landscape. "Exploring" mech vs P is like "exploring" a desert always hoping for an oasis, yet all you find after months and months is sand, sand and more sand.
My goal wasn't much to say 'i'm better with mech than you since i practice it since long', the main purpose of my post was adressed to some people here who thinks they can talk about mech while their own experience with mech is only theorycraft or a few games of totally random build/composition. And (without wanting to sound cocky, or anything like this : just want to be clear) i think that a few people (including myself) can still teach a lot ot other players, for the simple reason that these few players are able to win with mech, with show there is a difference between the few mech players and the others.
I see your point here, but the fact is that you'll often find out that even after a few weeks/months, that genius who came with that PFexpo into 4 port will stop playing his own strategy after finding unavoidable flaws, while the kind of players i targeted with my statements are the ones who are basically playing the same style for years and have great experience of most aspect of this one.
Hm, i don't want to talk about a conspiracy or anything , i just want to point the fact that TvT mech was in the same state of "totally unviable strat played only by a few fools" before becoming one of a mainstream ones (and that happened like 3 times in WoL..), and that we don't have any advice from koreans about it : maybe they find it unviable, maybe they find it viable but inferior to bio, maybe they find it almost viable besides a few flaws that make it unusable in pro games, etc. But saying "koreans don't use mech tvp so it's 100%trash" as a lot of people do is silly.
Just to add, on a personal note, i don't really care about these discussions - i always play like i want to play, regardless of what is considered viable or not, and i lost the will to endlessly fight for fight - i make my guides for whoever want to read it, i post replays for whoever wants to watch my play, i record vods for whoever want to hear my FP insight on TvP mech, but i don't want to go into that "is mech viable or not" fight (which of course i have to at, at least partly, when posting in these discussions), i have my opinion and don't see the point to argue (i don't mind arguing - i love that, but that get tiresome) with everyone. The main point of my posts is to point the silly attitude of some people, as i described in the first one, which basically mean any "mech tvp" discussion die quickly because both mech lovers and haters, mech-experienced and unexperienced people, master and bronze, will just camp on their position and make this pointless...
I don't want to make a map of that unexplored island : i just explored a part of it, enjoyed what i saw, settled here, and don't mind showing it to whoever is interesting, nothing more
|
On May 26 2013 04:30 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 03:37 Qikz wrote:
If Mech is so bad, why would people like Kop and Strelok play it against Toss? Why would there have been lots of Terrans playing Mech vs Toss in the initial WCS Europe Qualifiers against Toss? Why was Noblesse still playing 2-bases timings into third at the end of WoL? Why is GuMiho still playing 2-bases gimmicks in TvZ? You ask them. They have their reasons. They believe in their builds. This is what they have prepared. They think their opponent won't have the answers, or that they will prevail anyway due to the experience asymmetry. Etc. I am not pro, but I went mech in the last game of my bo3 against dignitasDreAm at the WCS Challenger League qualifier despite thinking mech is bad in TvP. Why? Honestly, I barely know myself. I used a build that I fully knew was a complete gimmick into another gimmick and it ended up working (because of luck). Just like GuMiho's 2-bases gimmicks worked in some games at Code S level against HyuN and LosirA. Another little anecdote to illustrate my point. At the beginning of the last season, I was playing mech quite frequently against Protoss. I ran into a barcode Protoss that I won convincingly. After the game, I checked his rank and saw he was #1 Master P in Europe (i. e. of all the Protoss Masters in Europe, he was the first; not just his division). Yet his reactions to my mech play had been abysmal. The day after, I was watching ForGG's stream. He was playing standard bio against some Protoss and ended up being stomped. I checked who his opponent was, and lo, it was the very barcode who had lost against me the day before. He had totally crumbled when facing something unusual, yet obviously knew his affair when it came to standard play. Moral of the story: iffy, unorthodox stuff sometimes wins while standard play wouldn't. Doesn't mean that gimmicks are better; most likely that opponents were simply thrown off balance, reacted poorly and thus got rolled. I know very well that some EU pros use mech in TvP. I'm top50 GM this season and I myself used mech several times against P, including vs pros such as Bling or Feast. And all my wins, without exception, obeyed to one or several of the following laws: 1. Massive econ advantage through build orders or harass (or both); 2. Protoss having poor reactions, e. g. sticking to horrible stuff like Stalkers/Colossi (e. g. Strelok vs finale, Daybreak); 3. Particular case of the above point, Protoss not scouting a 2-bases timing/all-in and a) taking third + teching 5 different things at once, then not having enough when a mech army with twice the size arrives or b) suiciding their own 2-bases timing/all-in into you, such as my game against dDreAm. I really don't know how you can say that mech armies trade well against Protoss ground. The last game I saw mech winning against P at high level was Bunny vs Jogginghose on Whirlwind for the WCS Challenger League RO40. Bunny had decimated Jogginghose's economy with Hellbat drops (see the first law), was like max against 135 supply and still struggled to win the first main engagement. Actually he was technically defeated despite probably having +20-30 supply in the fight. In my experience this is what always happens. There's also a ByuN vs puCK (?) ladder game on Newkirk Precinct that illustrates the same thing. ByuN is convincingly ahead the whole game yet still fails to trade properly against mass Immortals and ends up losing while he would probably win 25-0 effortlessly with bio against the same opponent. There are countless examples of this. Strelok vs finale (unsure) on Newkirk Precinct was the same story. Tanks are fine/good against the following Protoss ground units: Sentries, Stalkers, Colossi and Templars. What do Protoss play? Mostly Zealots/Archons/Immortals, i. e. the units against which the Tank is complete garbage. Want to know why Tanks are bad against Protoss? Look no further: Shots required for a x/3 Tank to kill ground units, rounded down or up (i. e. if it technically takes 1.02 shots to kill the unit, such as a x/3 Tank against a stimmed Marine with CS, I noted 1, because realistically the splash damage from the other Tanks will finish the unit anyway). Conclusion: Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 07:19 TheDwf wrote:
Mech still seems in the gutter in TvP. Hellbats are nice, Mines are nice, having valid openings is nice, but in the end none of this is enough because the problem is always the same: Tanks just lack firepower against Protoss. The primitive trade of mech is "mobility vs firepower," and with Tanks against Protoss you just give up the former without having the latter in return. Protoss barely raise their eyebrow when thinking about 30 Tanks, while even Ultralisks will anxiously look at each other to determine who should charge first against such a critical mass. Mech is viable in TvT and TvZ because Tanks, past a certain point, completely dominate other ground units in those match-ups. Even Ultralisks, even Swarmhosts lose to critical mass of Tanks. As such, there is that accumulation dynamics which forces your Terran opponent into either "as many Tanks" or an air transition, and your Zerg opponent into Vipers or broods. So both in TvT and TvZ, Tanks → Tanks + Vikings/Ravens (and Battlecruisers in the end) is valid against whichever lategame transition your opponent is playing to deal with your Tank army. But there is no such thing in TvP, not only because the first phase of the plan – get mass Tanks* and threaten to roll everything – doesn't work, but because the last phase i. e. (ghost)mech + air is still completely stomped by air/Templars. Again I have no idea how you can say that Vikings/Ravens beats air/Templars: Vikings are horribly frail for their expensive cost and have severe overkill issues when shift focusing individual units. Tempests massively outrange them (+6!) so dropping pdds wouldn't help since they would simply move away, or fire until all pdds run out of energy. * Naturally you can replace Tanks with Thors in TvP, or mix both, or use more varied compositions, including whatever you want, add Ghosts, etc., it will come down the same. Tanks + Vikings/Ravens could compete to some extent against broods/infests at the end of WoL, particularly post-IT nerfs, because you had the upper hand in the range war: Tanks outranged infestors (13 vs 9 + radius) while Vikings' range was roughly similar to broodlords (9 vs 9.5). In HotS, the 15 range nonsense bashes everything, especially as Terran doesn't have free units generators to initiate a cold war or Vipers to draw Tempests in the range of your units. Tanks are outranged, Vikings are outranged, Ravens are outranged, Battlecruisers (Yamato) are outranged, Ghosts (EMP) are outranged. You're bound to slowly crumble against his continuous siege.
Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 08:12 Qikz wrote:
The thing I don't understand about with this, is surely if there's people playing mech only, that proves that it is somewhat viable to do the strat against toss? I wouldn't play mech only if I lost more than I won. At the end of WoL, I was watching Taeja's stream and he was playing Sickness (a Protoss korean pro) on Ohana. Taeja went 3-bases Battlecruisers out of a few Marines and Tanks. And when I say 3-bases Battlecruisers, I mean he only built Battlecruisers after the few defensive early game units. Sickness kept playing according to his anti-bio autopilot and found himself very surprised when his zeals/archons/stalks/colossi attack on the fourth met 10 upgraded Battlecruisers. Taeja won easily. Still, no one would claim that "only Battlecruisers" is a viable strategy in TvP. You can win lots of game, even at high levels, with iffy plans and builds, because your opponents don't scout and thus don't react, or react badly, or simply make severe mistakes that make them lose even if they were adapting correctly in the first place. To determine the viability of something, you have to examine what happens when your opponent knows the correct answers and execute them at least decently.
Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 08:22 Pookie Monster wrote:
Thinking you should be able to counter all that with just factory units is silly and if the protoss were able to counter your entire entire army composition with just robo units, terrans would call this game broken. Except robo tech was always conceived as a support tech for gate units, while fact tech is supposed to be relatively autonomous (and is even more so in HotS compared to WoL, though Starport support is still needed in most cases).
About the kOp vs Oz game. First, the very fact you all use this single example for top Korean play should make you feel uneasy: when you have only one example to back up your claims on hundreds of TvPs, you should ask yourself questions. Second, this game is no exception to the aforementioned laws; it completely falls under the 3b one, i. e. Protoss going agressive play against a 2-bases timing, subsequently failing because—assuming no huge disparity in army size—there is no way to break a defensive mech position without bypassing terrain through Prism(s), and thus giving the Terran a massive advantage to comfortably prevail with his original plan. To add insult to injury, Oz wasted even more gas in a useless dark shrine (since kOp had a Raven, and then a Turret at the front) and DTs. Oz had his first Immortal out at 11'45, when kOp had already 7 Tanks and was 25 supply ahead. kOp was 35 supply ahead when he reached Oz's natural, who had only 3 Immortals and no Archon at 14'. Sounds like a standard MechvP game to you? Whenever you intend to play a 2-bases mech timing or all-in in TvP, you virtually auto-win against all 2-bases frontal attacks which commit because there is no way that Immortal busts, Zealots/Archons/Templars or Colossi all-in will break through (or simply trade efficiently against) a fortified mech position with Mines and sieged Tanks. Again, I know this from first-hand experience since numerous Protoss have suicided their timings/all-ins into my defensive position while I was preparing my own attack. In this game, kOp perfectly scouted and prepared for the Blink Stalker attack, so even if Oz didn't lose his army he still spent a lot of gas on suboptimal units (Stalkers) while lacking an extra anti-mech tech such as Archons, a second robo (which came in effect too late in the game since he started it at 12'30) or a Stargate; thus it is only natural he got stomped afterwards. Hence the game proves absolutely nothing about the viability of mech: it proves that throwing the dice sometimes turns out badly.
Yeah, this is the problem with the emotional approach. One has to stay rational. When I am saying that mech isn't viable in TvP I am not saying this light-heartedly. I am not happy with that. I do love mech too and I came in HotS thinking I would play mech 100% of the time thanks to the new tools. I was playing mech 100% of the time in TvT and TvZ at the end of WoL, so you see, I am not a mech hater. Show nested quote +No. You can't say it's not possible to mech at high lvl (on the ladder i mean) Thing is, no one is saying that. Saying mech isn't viable doesn't mean you can never win with it. Show nested quote +-Mech may, or may not be viable as a mainstream strategy. I think it is, but it requires a tons of experience, and some people need to accept the fact thay even if in terms of raw skill/ranking/results they are superior to some "mech players" here, they aren't as qualified as these "inferior mech players" to talk about Mech. Myself, even if it might be considered as a cocky behavior, i wouldn't hesitate to argue with any pro about TvP mech, why ? Because i have nearly 3 years of Mech TvP experience, more than 2 of these being 90%+ of my games played with mech. Do i know everything about Mech? No. But i know far more that some people here who assume that because they are supposed to be "better" due to their rank on the ladder or anything like that, and these people should really realise that and think about it.
Do i mean that they should accept everything the experienced mech players say as fact? No. But these people should stop thinking they have the absolute knowledge of Mech TvP, able to theorycraft from scracth every single situation that may kill mech, and stuff like this, and understand that if some people practice mech since years, their advice might be slightly better that their "superior" theorycrafting. At least their advice should be heard instead of being dismissed and answered by some "i'm better than you and i know that mech doesn't work, you play only terrible players lolololol".
Is it a bit cocky to write this ? Maybe. But for me, the cocky behavior is the one used by people who thinks they are in the mind of koreans pro knowning their advices/pratice about mech TvP, and who thinks that because they are better in rank/result/reputation, what they say about something they don't know should be considered more valuable that what people experimented on the subject are saying.
Mech is hard to learn. Stop thinking that because you are GM and you play pro every day, your 1 month mech practice can show you everything about mech. After 3 years of mech i don't even consider myself close of a "solid mech player"... How can some people think they saw everything about mech in a few months/weeks/games? This is where you're deluded. Sorry if I sound harsh in the following but any Terran GM will instinctively have better mech TvP than you with better builds, better micro, better macro, better positioning, better everything basically. The fact you play mech since 3 years doesn't make you "more qualified" at all to talk about mech than someone with higher skill but less games. You certainly played more TvP mech than me, yet I'm ready to bet you would have nothing to teach me at all. Isn't there always this guy, from time to time, who arises from the shadows to teach us the ways of "sky Terran" with his revolutionary PF on natural into 4-port banshees? What would you answer him if he tells you "I play sky Terran since 3 years, I know I'm only Diamond but I'm more qualified than you to discuss this!" after you criticize his gimmicks and label them as such? Obviously mech in TvP is not as bad as this, but you see my point. You say we are not in the minds of Korean pros. Admittedly, telepathy is still to be invented. But what? Again the conspiracy, again the secret no one ever found? Where's the sanctuary? You think KeSPA Terrans wouldn't even try mech after coming from BW? You think they wouldn't try their best to make it work? You think people are happy playing bio 24/7 in TvP? No. People try mech, with various builds and compositions, see that they often struggle horribly to win even with an economic advantage, get regularly bashed by inferior players doing simplistic 1a and must acknowledge that the mythical "hidden potential" of the thing just doesn't exist. You have an easy time saying the thing "isn't fully explored". It's true that the island isn't fully explored, but for good reasons: people accosted, saw the searing crater at the center of the island and quickly understood they couldn't live here, so only hardcore islanders remain, fascinated by the beauty of the landscape. "Exploring" mech vs P is like "exploring" a desert always hoping for an oasis, yet all you find after months and months is sand, sand and more sand.
Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 02:42 headnut wrote:
you realize that pdd hardcounters tempest? Your statement makes as little sense as saying FFs "hardcounter" Roaches.
You seem to feel really strongly about this, such a wall of text. Mech vs Toss is not the same thing it was in BW, just like everything else in SC2, there may be similar things in BW but their not the same. The tank costs 25 more gas and a whole extra supply while protoss got a dragoon that does 50 damage to armored and warp in and 200 mineral arbiters.
Tanks are not what they were against Toss, Blizz has done this very purposefully, for whatever reason they looked at Mech vs P and decided to change everything.
So T in SC2, as designed very purposefully by Blizzard is meant to be the aggressor, the same is true even with mech in HotS. Hellbat drops, widow mine drops, a banshee here and there, just some kind of aggression is needed from T to capitalize on T's midgame advantage. You can' sit back and mass pure tanks anymore. Those tanks are 3 supply now, you can't even make the amount you'd need to make a P ground army disappear (well you could but like one Tempest...lol) need support, in the form of hellbats and mines and some odd starport units here and there.
Mech does not work in the same way it does in TvT and TvZ. Terran does not work in the same exact way it did in BW. The game has changed as well as the play. All that being said you're right that mech in the BW style is not viable, it never was and it never will be. But mech in the SC2 style is at the very least "unexplored" but in no way not viable. The beauty of Sc2 is that even if mech becomes popular enough vs protoss that they actually start to account for it you can simply switch to back to bio play and own a prepared anti mech protoss.
TL;DR BW and Sc2 are similar yet different games and mech works differently in both games but just because it is different does not make it not a viable way to play. Terran in Sc2 (as stated several times by Blizz) is the agressive race and that is true even with mech what with hellbat and or widow mines drops or whatever you want to make and attack with I guess.
|
brilliant post TheDwf. I was hoping Blizz would patch in some kind of cannon upgrade that gives tanks bonus damage to plasma shields.
|
Did amateur D+/ C+ rated people in BW come out with new strategies and claim they are "viable"? What happened in SC2 that if you are diamond+ people start to think they can actually invent new all round "viable" strategies?
I'm wandering what someone like Flash or Innovation would think about foreign posters that claim to have "solved" mech...They should learn English ASAP and get on reading all the guides, that GSL money has never been easier 
|
On May 26 2013 05:56 Sapphire.lux wrote:Did amateur D+/ C+ rated people in BW come out with new strategies and claim they are "viable"? What happened in SC2 that if you are diamond+ people start to think they can actually invent new all round "viable" strategies? I'm wandering what someone like Flash or Innovation would think about foreign posters that claim to have "solved" mech...They should learn English ASAP and get on reading all the guides, that GSL money has never been easier
While I think my opinion regarding TvP mech is clear, such posts are imo just really stupid. If we followed your logic we get even more what you already now see alot: many people only mindlessly following the strats used in Code S, because if it isn't used in Code S, how could it possibly be viable?
Just because it works for Flash, doesn't mean it works for you. And more important, just because it doesn't work for Flash, really doesn't mean it can't work for you. It is a strategy game, which means it isn't actually forbidden to think of your own strategy. And sure, the vast majority of the new 'strategies' invented by non-GM players are completely useless in GSL. But then those players don't play in GSL. And since at the same time many people share your mindset: only Code S players can make viable strategies, so I don't have to worry about countering anything that isn't written down in the BO, those strategies can work fine at levels of us mortals. Even though they are far less refined than what the opponent who is mindlessly copying a BO uses.
More ontopic, I do also agree that TheDwf has a very nice summary. One reason I can think of to do a midgame mech push after having gotten significantly ahead is that it is less volatile: against a competent toss I don't think you trade cost effectively, but at the same time you have less chance that two storms completely decimate your army when you weren't paying attention for a second.
|
Lynna, mechanical units =/= mech. mech will always be defined by positional-based play with siege tanks as the core unit.
|
On May 26 2013 06:10 SHODAN wrote:
Lynna, mechanical units =/= mech. mech will always be defined by positional-based play with siege tanks as the core unit.
Which is exactly what i do... i may not blindly mass tanks like some people would love to , but the way i play is still totally based on tanks and positionning... and i even think this is one of the reason i can decently with mech : because even if my play is tank/position-based, my army composition is based on the right units to support tank
|
On May 26 2013 06:04 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 05:56 Sapphire.lux wrote:Did amateur D+/ C+ rated people in BW come out with new strategies and claim they are "viable"? What happened in SC2 that if you are diamond+ people start to think they can actually invent new all round "viable" strategies? I'm wandering what someone like Flash or Innovation would think about foreign posters that claim to have "solved" mech...They should learn English ASAP and get on reading all the guides, that GSL money has never been easier While I think my opinion regarding TvP mech is clear, such posts are imo just really stupid. If we followed your logic we get even more what you already now see alot: many people only mindlessly following the strats used in Code S, because if it isn't used in Code S, how could it possibly be viable? Just because it works for Flash, doesn't mean it works for you. And more important, just because it doesn't work for Flash, really doesn't mean it can't work for you. It is a strategy game, which means it isn't actually forbidden to think of your own strategy. And sure, the vast majority of the new 'strategies' invented by non-GM players are completely useless in GSL. But then those players don't play in GSL. And since at the same time many people share your mindset: only Code S players can make viable strategies, so I don't have to worry about countering anything that isn't written down in the BO, those strategies can work fine at levels of us mortals. Even though they are far less refined than what the opponent who is mindlessly copying a BO uses.
They are stupid only if you have reading comprehension problems.
When we talk about a strategy being good or bad or viable or whatever, we talk about the highest level of play. What YOU do on the ladder is unimportant to the grand scheme of things and has no bearing whatsoever on how good strategies are. Bad play at non-pro levels makes almost any build/ strategy possible, should we talk about BC rushes to?
FYI, i've played mech exclusively in WOL from release, rated around diamond and masters depending on how much time i had to play. This of course has fuck all to do with how good or bad mech was, it was just me having fun and making mistakes against people that did the same, with the added advantage that my opponents (Protoss) did not have any experience against mech.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
Sapphire, that's all well and good, but the question asked didn't ever mention the pro level.
If it works up to GM level, which it does. It's viable for the majority of people to do., Anyone GM or less should be able to pull it off with good play and it works. if it works, that means it's viable. It may not work at WCS Korea Premier level, we can't say as nobody has ever tried it in a telivised game. I would say that less than 1% of the forums population are even pros, let alone play at that level so why would we even bother talking about what's viable for Flash and Innovation to do? Who would you be speaking at? He's asking the population of this forum, who vary from GM, Masters all the way to Bronze and there's been people like myself who have come out and said mech is weaker than bio in terms of versatility, but can still be used at our levels.
I'm going to stop talking about this subject now as it's infuriating to speak to a brick wall, but I like to think I've made my point.
|
Good post dwf. Pretty much says it all. Sad thing is blizzard fails to recognize all of that and beyond. The tempest being at 4 supply is essentially a big middle finger to all people that wanted mech tvp to be viable in HOTS.
Bio + hellbat is 20x better, you get the benefit of hellbat drops + the only Terran army that can actually attack Protoss in many places and be cost effective.
There's very easy ways that blizzard could make mech tvp viable guys. Don't think because people are saying it's not viable that it couldn't be. Just know that blizzard continually refuses to do anything about it purposely.
They said they wanted mech tvp viable, they completely went back on that word and essentially gave up on it/let it be a failure. This was very obvious to me during the beta when dkim had his brain set on making the hellbat a bio unit, and when they actually buffed the tempest to 4 supply and other things.
Can't say i didn't try guys, but there weren't many people championing the matter during the beta, especially on the blizz feedback forums that went directly to them =/ i wrote page long posts and basically gave them the blueprints on how to make mech tvp viable and it seems like they just ignored it all and said "NAAAAAAH, that'll never work, let's just put in the hellbat and call it a day."
The biggest mistake myself and the community made was getting blizzard to get rid of the warhound. Yes, it was the right call to remove it but we were all under the assumption they would actually replace it or compensate for it's removal and buff mech tvp to be more viable in some way, or tone down immortals or something.
Instead, they just removed it and let beta go on for another 3 months with no real improvements to mech tvp other than "drop dem hellbats."
|
On May 26 2013 06:27 Qikz wrote:
Sapphire, that's all well and good, but the question asked didn't ever mention the pro level.
If it works up to GM level, which it does. It's viable for the majority of people to do., Anyone GM or less should be able to pull it off with good play and it works. if it works, that means it's viable. It may not work at WCS Korea Premier level, we can't say as nobody has ever tried it in a telivised game. I would say that less than 1% of the forums population are even pros, let alone play at that level so why would we even bother talking about what's viable for Flash and Innovation to do? Who would you be speaking at? He's asking the population of this forum, who vary from GM, Masters all the way to Bronze and there's been people like myself who have come out and said mech is weaker than bio in terms of versatility, but can still be used at our levels.
I'm going to stop talking about this subject now as it's infuriating to speak to a brick wall, but I like to think I've made my point.
Finally a good point! Time to differentiate the "what i play" from the "what i watch".
You are right of course from a "playing the game" perspective. But then, mech was "viable" even in WOL to about master EU level, many have showed it and i know it to. If this is the point of the thread then great, mech is perfectly viable from bronze to master/ low GM (WOL and HOTS) and we have the vods and replays to show it. We also have some worker rush starts for bronze as an added bonus.
The impression i get though, is that people use their amateur play experiences to pass judgement on the state of mech at all levels, including top level pro. They talk about things like: the Koreans just don't explore it, they can't be bothered to try since bio is good, they are stubborn, solving mech, etc.
When Blizzard promised to make mech viable in HOTS, i'm fairly sure they were talking about the pro level. To make diversity in part for the players, but mostly for us as fans.
|
There is a lot of great conversations going on that I find picking the right ones to respond too might prove difficult. I wish to say that mech isn't even close to being fully explored. Through hundreds of games and facing top 16 gms and doing pretty good I see my style and their responses constantly changing and evolving.
The thing is that bio is much more practiced and refined. Until mech really gets the attention it deserves we can't accurately judge how good it can be.
|
HTOMario, do you think the Kespa teams have/ are exploring mech?
I find it impossible to believe that the BW teams have not tried long and hard to play mech, in house. I hope someone will ask the coaches about it.
|
On May 26 2013 05:56 Sapphire.lux wrote:Did amateur D+/ C+ rated people in BW come out with new strategies and claim they are "viable"? What happened in SC2 that if you are diamond+ people start to think they can actually invent new all round "viable" strategies? I'm wandering what someone like Flash or Innovation would think about foreign posters that claim to have "solved" mech...They should learn English ASAP and get on reading all the guides, that GSL money has never been easier
there have been plenty of times where I've seen pro players do things that are slightly unconventional - along the lines of what people who mess around with unorthodox builds on the ladder would do - but they actually won't have their builds as fleshed out as these lower level "scrubs" do. An example would be how pros never really utilized mass nuke play lategame tvz, like how Avilo talked about ages ago. It's such an obviously powerful strat that barely got implemented on the highest level of play.
|
On May 25 2013 10:08 apeiro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 12:41 SheaR619 wrote:On May 24 2013 12:14 apeiro wrote:
I don't understand why everyone wants mech to work in TvP so much. Why should every tech tree be viable in every matchup? cause if mech is viable, then it will lead to a more diverse match up in TvP. Mech is also a distinctively different style because of how immobile it is compare to bio which SHOULD lead protoss protoss respond differently to counter this style. This will lead to a more different game. Protoss complain about not seeing carrier at all, with mech viable then carrier automatically become more viable. This is just another example and protoss will also have the option of playing a more mobile style and mass expanding abusing the immobility of mech rather then just massing death ball. How is this not good for everyone and the game itself? Dont believe me just look at TvZ. Zerg respond differently to mech by going roach heavy mainly and then when dealing with bio they go ling mutas bane. I'll expand here to give context to my previous question. There are always tech trees that each race have as their premier composition against another just because of what units the enemy can produce. For example, when Protoss is playing against Terran, they will usually not opt to go full Stargate tech. Not to say that Stargate opening is not viable when played correctly, but Stargate mid-game just has a lot of downsides against a race who produces the counter to 4/5 Stargate units out of its base building.. This is why even after HoTS, Protoss still go Robo tech transition into HT or vise versa and Terran does not produce mech. They are both playing their strengths. There is a philosophical meta-game issue here. Strategically Mech is an attempt to get supply-efficiency out of high value units in order to form an immobile deathball and attain victory through crushing your enemy in the slow push. The problem is that this is the exact description of the entire Protoss race. It is the Terran playing on the Protoss' turf, but failing because they will simply never have that supply effectiveness to rival the Protoss. Protoss has this supply efficiency built into every single unit, not just one tech tree. With this in mind, the Terran comes out victorious in this matchup because they don't try to rival the Protoss at what they are good at. They instead exploit the Protoss' racial weaknesses with high maneuverability and tactical strikes on the Protoss economy. Much the same, this is something the Protoss can never truly rival the Terran at. They could try to go for multi-prong Warp Prism harass with a Zealot/Stalker/Sentry composition, but will they ever trade efficiently against a Terran who is doing multi-prong Medivac harass with Marine/Marauder/Widow Mine composition? No; the Protoss is not the race for base racing and this is not something that could be balanced back in without completely overhauling their racial philosophy.
Protoss can not go full stargate tech because it just lead to the same style that is a death ball style and is largely the same as every other protoss death ball style. There is basically no difference in style from stargate to the classic protoss death ball style and it largely 1-A. Terran mech and terran bio is VERY distinctively different to the point that they look like different races. Can you say the same about protoss stargate and classic protoss death ball style? Also, terran mech is ALMOST possible and terran is unique that they already have the option to go both mech and bio it just that mech sucks. The terran race is unique because mech can be buffed without buffing the power of bio and vice versa (minus hellbat which were made biological for no good reason). Buffing any form of stargate unit will be too powerful because it synergize well with gateway unit and also stargate tech dont have a cheap mineral fodder so it impossible to go PURE stargate and the same can be said for PURE robo etc etc.
Regarding protoss not being able to play a mobile style is something I dont agree with. Like I said before, mech and bio are completely different and can be pretty much considered different race because it basically impossible to transition back into one or the other once you have committed to the other without being severally punished by a good player. Protoss is not as mobile as the terran bio BUT mech is also more immobile than the protoss death ball. Considering how immobile mech is, protoss mobility (even though it not as good as bio) should be good enough to deal with mech. People claim that terran dont explore mech but it is even MORE true that protoss dont explore their mobility option. Yes protoss playing a mobile style might suck but the only time it might be viable is against mech.
|
I personally do not believe that mech is weaker than bio when done properly in TvP. That's like saying opening SG is weaker than opening Robo in PvZ. One is reliant on doing direct harass/indirect damage in order to be even, and one is very flexible and safe. Same thing with mech, it's very easy to do damage with hellbat drops, hellion runbys, banshees, ect.
In fact, I have yet to see a VOD or replay where a high-level mech player tries to harass but does almost no damage, and the protoss ends up rolling the mech player convincely with a perfect composition. Does anyone have one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
