|
On August 21 2012 19:34 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote + That post was a joy to read, due to having proper and fitting pictures interspersed with the text, videos showcasing important concepts etc.
Your post.. Is a wall of text.
I will always refuse to add any images or videos unless they are graphs that actually explain something that they explain better and concisely than text. Adding images for the sake of it is just a cheap trick to make your post appear like more than it really is, we all know what a brood lord or a vulture looks like, there's no need to add an image, you can easily google it if you're on one of the few people that doesn't. It's a cheap trick honestly, and one I will never use out of principle, it's presentation over content, looks over substance.
What a silly stance.
Almost no one is going to want to read a poorly written 3 page rant by some random scrub (you). Crippling yourself by deliberately misunderstanding why the 'forum format' works (pictures and videos to break up the text etc.) is not going to help you. If you don't understand how the pictures in the Defense of Mech post enhance not just readability but also understanding (there's a healthy medium between irrelevant funny pictures and dry graphs, for goodness' sake) then I'm not sure anyone can help you.
|
On August 21 2012 23:59 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 23:19 Zealos wrote:On August 21 2012 23:01 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 21 2012 22:53 Zealos wrote: If it's so easy why aren't you winning anything? Are personal attacks like this really necessary? He's still a better player than most of the people on this forum, though I agree he can have a some-what overinflated ego regarding his own level of play. It's not even so much a personal insult. It could be applied to literally anyone. No person wins everything, but if the game was "Easy" then someone would have figured it all out by now and have an 80% winrate in every matchup consistently. I hate seeing this argument used all the time by people. The term "the game is easy" is a misnomer that I too wish people would stop using. However, they are usually referring to the inability of a skilled player to separate himself from the masses. If a 1v1 game was actually easy (and balanced), nobody would hit 80% winrate, any competant player would hit 50% winrate against other competant players. That brings me to the soft skill cap. The soft skill cap is the level at which further gains have very minimal effect. If you looked at practice-effort on the X axis and skill on the Y axis of a graph, you'd see the graph take a parabolic shape. The soft skill cap is the point on the curve where the graph really levels off (though the exact point can't really be defined). For example, if you put in 40 hours at the start of your SC2 career and your clone put in 140 hours in the same training environment, your clone would be vastly superior to you. However, if you put 2000 hours into SC2 and your clone put 2100 hours into SC2 with the same training environment, the difference in skill between you two would be much smaller. The hard skill cap in SC2 is beyond human ability and will always allow a better player to differentiate himself slightly, but the soft skill cap seems to be (according to many TLers) considerably lower in SC2 than SCBW. This means that the super top players are very vulnerable to players who are weaker than them and their winrates converge towards 50%. Certain strategies are much easier to execute than others. Playing for a simple timing push has a reasonably low soft cap. You can always micro slightly better (getting into the hard cap), but executing the micro at a professional level is not extremely difficult (hitting the soft cap) and further micro gains will barely show up during actual games... winrates get too close to 50%. This is where people start to look at SC2 as an easy game. Taking a blob and using 1A is a low soft skill cap attack. You can always micro the blob better, but the basics of it are extremely easy. That is much different than a game of positional control using mech. When a higher soft skill cap strategy like positional mech play is defeated by (or on par with) lower skill cap strategies like deathballs, then you give good players no ability to differentiate themselves through skill. Thus, you have an "easy game". This post makes me very happy. I can fully agree with what is being said here, whether or not it applies to sc2 is debatable, but this is what people seem to refer to when they call it an "easy game"
|
This guy is totally right guys, don't know why he got such a low rating. We don't need mech or positional play what SC2 really needs right now is more 1a units cause right now there's just too much tactical and strategic stuff going on and its boring.
|
Only newbies plays mech defensively. Try that on any competent player and you'll be crushed when you move out with your 200/200 army. Any Protoss will have 6 bases around with 25+ Gateways pumping units and Zergs will simply Swarm you to death with cost efficient units.
Even though you end up killing maybe 1 or 2 expansions, your third will be busted and you won't be mining and the opposition will win by attrition.
Mech is positional play. Making sure that you cling on those key positions over the map to gain the maximum ground possible while expand your economy behind it.
In StarCraft 2, positions merely means hitting the opponent's troops at a certain arc while in Brood War it means to hold on to those high ground but also build Supply Depots (which I have NEVER seen StarCraft 2 players do) in front of the Tanks so that units won't splash the tanks.
You should be happy to see mech being used as Terran because that means the Terran is saying "Okay I'm taking this game to over 20 minutes long." and whoever loathe long hard fought macro games shouldn't be here in the first place if you just appreciate easy strategies.
|
On August 22 2012 00:49 L3gendary wrote: This guy is totally right guys, don't know why he got such a low rating. We don't need mech or positional play what SC2 really needs right now is more 1a units cause right now there's just too much tactical and strategic stuff going on and its boring. Thors, marines. Which is more A move? Medivac + MM drops, sieging tanks, which is more entertaining to watch? Slow, positional broodlords, or Ling muta, which makes better games?
Stop trying to manipulate what he is saying to make him seem stupid, because it just means anyone that actually reads what he is saying can see what an idiot you are in regards to your comment.
|
On August 22 2012 01:06 Xiphos wrote: Only newbies plays mech defensively. Try that on any competent player and you'll be crushed when you move out with your 200/200 army. Any Protoss will have 6 bases around with 25+ Gateways pumping units and Zergs will simply Swarm you to death with cost efficient units.
Even though you end up killing maybe 1 or 2 expansions, your third will be busted and you won't be mining and the opposition will win by attrition.
Mech is positional play. Making sure that you cling on those key positions over the map to gain the maximum ground possible while expand your economy behind it.
You just sum up everything I want to say in one sentence, and in a better way too.
|
On August 22 2012 01:24 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 00:49 L3gendary wrote: This guy is totally right guys, don't know why he got such a low rating. We don't need mech or positional play what SC2 really needs right now is more 1a units cause right now there's just too much tactical and strategic stuff going on and its boring. Thors, marines. Which is more A move? Medivac + MM drops, sieging tanks, which is more entertaining to watch? Slow, positional broodlords, or Ling muta, which makes better games? Stop trying to manipulate what he is saying to make him seem stupid, because it just means anyone that actually reads what he is saying can see what an idiot you are in regards to your comment.
1. Thors arent mech (like the other article explained) 2. Tank marine is the most entertaining because it forces both positonal play and offers ways to circumvent it. 3. Neither, ling defiler lurker is way better and its the tank marine that makes muta ling tvz mildly entertaining. Without tank marine u get zvp muta ling which is plain boring. Broodlords are offensive deathballs units, and not defensive/positional units u see sparced around the map in strategic positions.
|
On August 22 2012 01:06 Xiphos wrote: Only newbies plays mech defensively. Try that on any competent player and you'll be crushed when you move out with your 200/200 army. Any Protoss will have 6 bases around with 25+ Gateways pumping units and Zergs will simply Swarm you to death with cost efficient units.
Even though you end up killing maybe 1 or 2 expansions, your third will be busted and you won't be mining and the opposition will win by attrition.
Mech is positional play. Making sure that you cling on those key positions over the map to gain the maximum ground possible while expand your economy behind it.
- snip -
You should be happy to see mech being used as Terran because that means the Terran is saying "Okay I'm taking this game to over 20 minutes long." and whoever loathe long hard fought macro games shouldn't be here in the first place if you just appreciate easy strategies. Not to be rude, but I feel you haven't actually read it and only read a small part of it. Specifically the part of "true mech" and the fact that vultures, a unit which actually isn't that much mech, is the thing which enables aggression and moving out.
In StarCraft 2, positions merely means hitting the opponent's troops at a certain arc while in Brood War it means to hold on to those high ground but also build Supply Depots (which I have NEVER seen StarCraft 2 players do) in front of the Tanks so that units won't splash the tanks. This actually isn't true, things like this aswell as landing floating buildings to accomplish the same thing is quite common. I personally always make a supply depot maze around planetary fortresses to mess with the AI of melee units.
|
On August 21 2012 23:19 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 23:01 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 21 2012 22:53 Zealos wrote: If it's so easy why aren't you winning anything? Are personal attacks like this really necessary? He's still a better player than most of the people on this forum, though I agree he can have a some-what overinflated ego regarding his own level of play. It's not even so much a personal insult. It could be applied to literally anyone. No person wins everything, but if the game was "Easy" then someone would have figured it all out by now and have an 80% winrate in every matchup consistently. I hate seeing this argument used all the time by people.
Completely incorrect. The easier a game is, the HARDER it is for someone to get a high win percentage. A game being "easier" means that it has a lower skill ceiling, which means that the better players have a harder time standing out. Ever wonder why the most dominant players tend to be T? Probably because T has the highest skill ceiling.
As to the OP, I think you're completely off-base. You define some hypothetical mech that doesn't really exist and then claim that mech is purely defensive. First, this isn't true at all; you don't get to just arbitrarily define mech as you will when mech has always existed with units like the Goliath and Vulture (faster moving units). Yes, mech is characterized by immobility because its strength in opposing the opponent's army is in the Tank Line, but it's never been a purely defensive playstyle. Second, BW mech was incredibly exciting and made all three T matchups interesting to watch and usually the most popular. If you can't realize this, then I just can't take you seriously. Sure, if everyone could play mech and it was the ultimate trump strategy, it would be boring, but this isn't the case and never will be because your points are way off. Mech isn't purely defensive and it isn't the ultimate strategy when perfectly played.
|
On August 22 2012 01:24 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 00:49 L3gendary wrote: This guy is totally right guys, don't know why he got such a low rating. We don't need mech or positional play what SC2 really needs right now is more 1a units cause right now there's just too much tactical and strategic stuff going on and its boring. Thors, marines. Which is more A move? Medivac + MM drops, sieging tanks, which is more entertaining to watch? Slow, positional broodlords, or Ling muta, which makes better games? Stop trying to manipulate what he is saying to make him seem stupid, because it just means anyone that actually reads what he is saying can see what an idiot you are in regards to your comment.
Terrible points.
You don't ever just choose Thors OR Marines. That's not how the game works at all. Terrible comparison.
You also don't choose Medivac drops OR Siege Tanks. Fuck, two out of the three T matchups see M&M AND Tanks as the core of the army composition.
Broodlords are another terrible example. The Zerg race is built for cost inneficiency and high mobility. BL's make for boring games to watch because they are the exact opposite, making the Zerg army do the same thing as the T or P army; be slower but more cost efficient. This homogeneity in army styles between the races is what makes it boring. When properly designed, T mech would be the only army that could do a slow, positional push like that.
|
On August 22 2012 02:45 Stratos_speAr wrote: As to the OP, I think you're completely off-base. You define some hypothetical mech that doesn't really exist and then claim that mech is purely defensive. First, this isn't true at all; you don't get to just arbitrarily define mech as you will when mech has always existed with units like the Goliath and Vulture (faster moving units). I'm merely building on the definition of the other article, and you have to admit, vultures don't really feel that much mech like.
Yes, mech is characterized by immobility because its strength in opposing the opponent's army is in the Tank Line, but it's never been a purely defensive playstyle. And only so for the existence of vultures is my claim, which is why I think the new hots units are fine.
Second, BW mech was incredibly exciting and made all three T matchups interesting to watch and usually the most popular. If you can't realize this, then I just can't take you seriously. I'm terribly sorry for not being able to see subjective things?
Sure, if everyone could play mech and it was the ultimate trump strategy, it would be boring, but this isn't the case and never will be because your points are way off. Mech isn't purely defensive and it isn't the ultimate strategy when perfectly played. But it needs to be for pure mech to be viable, which is why pure hardcore true mech does not exist and isn't viable in either game, you can't just make tanks and expect to win.
On August 22 2012 02:53 Stratos_speAr wrote: Broodlords are another terrible example. The Zerg race is built for cost inneficiency and high mobility. BL's make for boring games to watch because they are the exact opposite, making the Zerg army do the same thing as the T or P army; be slower but more cost efficient. This homogeneity in army styles between the races is what makes it boring. When properly designed, T mech would be the only army that could do a slow, positional push like that. Then vultures aren't Terran, reavers aren't Protoss, ultralisks aren't Zerg, medics aren't Terran and so forth, races are less pidgeon holed into this categories than you might think, the exception tends to prove the rule. Each race, in both games, has several units that stand out.
|
On August 22 2012 02:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 01:06 Xiphos wrote: Only newbies plays mech defensively. Try that on any competent player and you'll be crushed when you move out with your 200/200 army. Any Protoss will have 6 bases around with 25+ Gateways pumping units and Zergs will simply Swarm you to death with cost efficient units.
Even though you end up killing maybe 1 or 2 expansions, your third will be busted and you won't be mining and the opposition will win by attrition.
Mech is positional play. Making sure that you cling on those key positions over the map to gain the maximum ground possible while expand your economy behind it.
- snip -
You should be happy to see mech being used as Terran because that means the Terran is saying "Okay I'm taking this game to over 20 minutes long." and whoever loathe long hard fought macro games shouldn't be here in the first place if you just appreciate easy strategies. Not to be rude, but I feel you haven't actually read it and only read a small part of it. Specifically the part of "true mech" and the fact that vultures, a unit which actually isn't that much mech, is the thing which enables aggression and moving out. Show nested quote +In StarCraft 2, positions merely means hitting the opponent's troops at a certain arc while in Brood War it means to hold on to those high ground but also build Supply Depots (which I have NEVER seen StarCraft 2 players do) in front of the Tanks so that units won't splash the tanks. This actually isn't true, things like this aswell as landing floating buildings to accomplish the same thing is quite common. I personally always make a supply depot maze around planetary fortresses to mess with the AI of melee units.
That's not what I was talking about but okay for the fundamental knowledge.
The thing I was talking about it to move out with the troops, set up a nice position while building Supple Depots after your tanks get siege in front of them. And then if by some off chance the opponent had some nice engagement and your Flame Vultures all got killed so you don't exactly have a buffer for unit for the siege tank but those nice Supply Depots you set up early on helped you to be that?
Yeah...
And oh I have seen many StarCraft 2 pro games and with the 30 or so TvTs I've watched, none did the above.
The problem is that Tanks are weak and Hellions are even weaker. So kids here is the lesson of the day, don't try mech!
Now bio on the other hand lol, you don't need to micro as much as in Brood War because the Medics are on the air so you don't need to position them in the front for the wall to happen.
Mech BW > Mech Sc2 Bio SC2 > Bio BW but because Medics are far less costly than a Medivac and thus you are able to heal more units and ergo stand longer in battles, BW Bio can be very effective and deadly at the proper pilot's hand.
|
On August 22 2012 03:04 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 02:45 Stratos_speAr wrote: As to the OP, I think you're completely off-base. You define some hypothetical mech that doesn't really exist and then claim that mech is purely defensive. First, this isn't true at all; you don't get to just arbitrarily define mech as you will when mech has always existed with units like the Goliath and Vulture (faster moving units). I'm merely building on the definition of the other article, and you have to admit, vultures don't really feel that much mech like.
Vultures feel mech-like because they fucking define mech as the SC community knows it. You need to stop relying on your arbitrary definition of mech that isn't widely accepted.
But it needs to be for pure mech to be viable, which is why pure hardcore true mech does not exist and isn't viable in either game, you can't just make tanks and expect to win.
No, it doesn't NEED to be for mech to be viable. Every strategy should have the ability to lose if played "perfectly" because if not, that strategy would simply be too powerful. And stop with your useless definition of mech.
Then vultures aren't Terran, reavers aren't Protoss, ultralisks aren't Zerg, medics aren't Terran and so forth, races are less pidgeon holed into this categories than you might think, the exception tends to prove the rule. Each race, in both games, has several units that stand out.
Again, you're missing the point. Guardians were fine for Zerg because they were a niche unit that wasn't the entire core of the army, and they were quite similar to Broodlords. Broodlords are not Zerg-like and a problem because they compose the core of the late game Zerg army. You didn't see balls of Zerglings, Ultras, and Defilers hovering under your Guardians at all times trying to defend them because they were the meat of your army. This is what you see in mech play and Broodlord/Infestor play and this is what creates that playstyle. The concepts that "pigeonhole" the races are concepts that apply to the fundamental playstyle of the race, not every tiny little aspect.
|
On August 22 2012 03:22 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 02:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 22 2012 01:06 Xiphos wrote: Only newbies plays mech defensively. Try that on any competent player and you'll be crushed when you move out with your 200/200 army. Any Protoss will have 6 bases around with 25+ Gateways pumping units and Zergs will simply Swarm you to death with cost efficient units.
Even though you end up killing maybe 1 or 2 expansions, your third will be busted and you won't be mining and the opposition will win by attrition.
Mech is positional play. Making sure that you cling on those key positions over the map to gain the maximum ground possible while expand your economy behind it.
- snip -
You should be happy to see mech being used as Terran because that means the Terran is saying "Okay I'm taking this game to over 20 minutes long." and whoever loathe long hard fought macro games shouldn't be here in the first place if you just appreciate easy strategies. Not to be rude, but I feel you haven't actually read it and only read a small part of it. Specifically the part of "true mech" and the fact that vultures, a unit which actually isn't that much mech, is the thing which enables aggression and moving out. In StarCraft 2, positions merely means hitting the opponent's troops at a certain arc while in Brood War it means to hold on to those high ground but also build Supply Depots (which I have NEVER seen StarCraft 2 players do) in front of the Tanks so that units won't splash the tanks. This actually isn't true, things like this aswell as landing floating buildings to accomplish the same thing is quite common. I personally always make a supply depot maze around planetary fortresses to mess with the AI of melee units. That's not what I was talking about but okay for the fundamental knowledge. The thing I was talking about it to move out with the troops, set up a nice position while building Supple Depots after your tanks get siege in front of them. And then if by some off chance the opponent had some nice engagement and your Flame Vultures all got killed so you don't exactly have a buffer for unit for the siege tank but those nice Supply Depots you set up early on helped you to be that? That's exaclty what I'm talking about, that happens in SC2 as well, as well as people landing floating buildings they take along to do that.
Yeah...
And oh I have seen many StarCraft 2 pro games and with the 30 or so TvTs I've watched, none did the above. That's not 'many'. It also barely happens in TvT, it's mainly good versus melee units. TvT in SC2 is mostly tank/marine versus tank/marine, though mech vs mech and mech vs MMM happens as well.
The problem is that Tanks are weak and Hellions are even weaker. So kids here is the lesson of the day, don't try mech!
Now bio on the other hand lol, you don't need to micro as much as in Brood War because the Medics are on the air so you don't need to position them in the front for the wall to happen.
Mech BW > Mech Sc2 Bio SC2 > Bio BW but because Medics are far less costly than a Medivac and thus you are able to heal more units and ergo stand longer in battles, BW Bio can be very effective and deadly at the proper pilot's hand. Listen, this isn't an WoL versus BW debate, I enjoy both games and I'm not going to discuss these kinds of things people who have an open disdain for one (and as usual when they do, a fundamental ignorance of one of both), both are great games in my opinion and maybe you should watch more than 30 or so games before you make an opinion.
On August 22 2012 03:28 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 03:04 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 22 2012 02:45 Stratos_speAr wrote: As to the OP, I think you're completely off-base. You define some hypothetical mech that doesn't really exist and then claim that mech is purely defensive. First, this isn't true at all; you don't get to just arbitrarily define mech as you will when mech has always existed with units like the Goliath and Vulture (faster moving units). I'm merely building on the definition of the other article, and you have to admit, vultures don't really feel that much mech like. Vultures feel mech-like because they fucking define mech as the SC community knows it. You need to stop relying on your arbitrary definition of mech that isn't widely accepted. I'm continuing on a certain article and I'm using its definitions to reason further with, wouldn't make much sense if I didn't.
No, it doesn't NEED to be for mech to be viable. Every strategy should have the ability to lose if played "perfectly" because if not, that strategy would simply be too powerful. And stop with your useless definition of mech. No one plays perfectly. Black in checkers is proven to have a winning advantage, if black plays correctly, white can never win. Doesn't make black overpowered however.
Again, you're missing the point. Guardians were fine for Zerg because they were a niche unit that wasn't the entire core of the army, and they were quite similar to Broodlords. Broodlords are not Zerg-like and a problem because they compose the core of the late game Zerg army. You didn't see balls of Zerglings, Ultras, and Defilers hovering under your Guardians at all times trying to defend them because they were the meat of your army. This is what you see in mech play and Broodlord/Infestor play and this is what creates that playstyle. The concepts that "pigeonhole" the races are concepts that apply to the fundamental playstyle of the race, not every tiny little aspect. Granted, Guardians are rare and broodlords are quite common. But you still failed to address the point about reavers, ultras, medics, vultures, all units which definitely feel out of place in their race but nontheless quite common.
|
On August 22 2012 03:04 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 02:45 Stratos_speAr wrote: As to the OP, I think you're completely off-base. You define some hypothetical mech that doesn't really exist and then claim that mech is purely defensive. First, this isn't true at all; you don't get to just arbitrarily define mech as you will when mech has always existed with units like the Goliath and Vulture (faster moving units). I'm merely building on the definition of the other article, and you have to admit, vultures don't really feel that much mech like. Show nested quote +Yes, mech is characterized by immobility because its strength in opposing the opponent's army is in the Tank Line, but it's never been a purely defensive playstyle. And only so for the existence of vultures is my claim, which is why I think the new hots units are fine. Show nested quote +Second, BW mech was incredibly exciting and made all three T matchups interesting to watch and usually the most popular. If you can't realize this, then I just can't take you seriously. I'm terribly sorry for not being able to see subjective things? Show nested quote +Sure, if everyone could play mech and it was the ultimate trump strategy, it would be boring, but this isn't the case and never will be because your points are way off. Mech isn't purely defensive and it isn't the ultimate strategy when perfectly played. But it needs to be for pure mech to be viable, which is why pure hardcore true mech does not exist and isn't viable in either game, you can't just make tanks and expect to win. Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 02:53 Stratos_speAr wrote: Broodlords are another terrible example. The Zerg race is built for cost inneficiency and high mobility. BL's make for boring games to watch because they are the exact opposite, making the Zerg army do the same thing as the T or P army; be slower but more cost efficient. This homogeneity in army styles between the races is what makes it boring. When properly designed, T mech would be the only army that could do a slow, positional push like that. Then vultures aren't Terran, reavers aren't Protoss, ultralisks aren't Zerg, medics aren't Terran and so forth, races are less pidgeon holed into this categories than you might think, the exception tends to prove the rule. Each race, in both games, has several units that stand out.
I have seen countless PvT games in BW where the terran harasses using vultures, trading them for probes while continuing to make tanks, and pushing out at 3-2 with 4 groups of tanks and 1 group of goliath/science vessels. Those games are quite entertaining to watch, and this "hardcore" true mech does work, and tanks melt everything in sight.
Also, the comment on the Broodlords was that they don't fit in, because most zergs units are mobile and fast while broodlords are slow. Your reply doesn't really make sense because ultralisks are fast and relatively mobile just like any other zerg unit. I don't see how vultures as a terran unit "stand out" either, because not all terran matchups involve a slow immobile army and so having a mobile unit amongst other mobile units isn't anything special. Protoss armies aren't known to be as mobile compared to the zerg, so reavers don't really "stand out" either.
|
On August 22 2012 03:32 renzy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 03:04 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 22 2012 02:45 Stratos_speAr wrote: As to the OP, I think you're completely off-base. You define some hypothetical mech that doesn't really exist and then claim that mech is purely defensive. First, this isn't true at all; you don't get to just arbitrarily define mech as you will when mech has always existed with units like the Goliath and Vulture (faster moving units). I'm merely building on the definition of the other article, and you have to admit, vultures don't really feel that much mech like. Yes, mech is characterized by immobility because its strength in opposing the opponent's army is in the Tank Line, but it's never been a purely defensive playstyle. And only so for the existence of vultures is my claim, which is why I think the new hots units are fine. Second, BW mech was incredibly exciting and made all three T matchups interesting to watch and usually the most popular. If you can't realize this, then I just can't take you seriously. I'm terribly sorry for not being able to see subjective things? Sure, if everyone could play mech and it was the ultimate trump strategy, it would be boring, but this isn't the case and never will be because your points are way off. Mech isn't purely defensive and it isn't the ultimate strategy when perfectly played. But it needs to be for pure mech to be viable, which is why pure hardcore true mech does not exist and isn't viable in either game, you can't just make tanks and expect to win. On August 22 2012 02:53 Stratos_speAr wrote: Broodlords are another terrible example. The Zerg race is built for cost inneficiency and high mobility. BL's make for boring games to watch because they are the exact opposite, making the Zerg army do the same thing as the T or P army; be slower but more cost efficient. This homogeneity in army styles between the races is what makes it boring. When properly designed, T mech would be the only army that could do a slow, positional push like that. Then vultures aren't Terran, reavers aren't Protoss, ultralisks aren't Zerg, medics aren't Terran and so forth, races are less pidgeon holed into this categories than you might think, the exception tends to prove the rule. Each race, in both games, has several units that stand out. I have seen countless PvT games in BW where the terran harasses using vultures, trading them for probes while continuing to make tanks, and pushing out at 3-2 with 4 groups of tanks and 1 group of goliath/science vessels. Those games are quite entertaining to watch, and this "hardcore" true mech does work, and tanks melt everything in sight. Hardcore mech only works because vultures set up this possibility, if vultures didn't exist T would have no threat of stopping P from essentially taking the entire map before T gets big enough to be able to move out and do something about it.
Also, the comment on the Broodlords was that they don't fit in, because most zergs units are mobile and fast while broodlords are slow. Your reply doesn't really make sense because ultralisks are fast and relatively mobile just like any other zerg unit. I don't see how vultures as a terran unit "stand out" either, because not all terran matchups involve a slow immobile army and so having a mobile unit amongst other mobile units isn't anything special. Protoss armies aren't known to be as mobile compared to the zerg, so reavers don't really "stand out" either. Ultralisk is the most expensive ground unit safe for the archon and the dark archon, it's not a cheap and swarmy unit at all. Vultures on the other hand are extremely fast and mobile and very swarmy and if they were mechanical and had different art they might as well be Zerg, another unit I for some reason forgot that is extremely unZergy is the Lurker. Reavers are waaaaaaaay too slow to really feel Protoss and completely stand out amongst protoss units which is usually in between of Z and T in terms of mobility.
|
On August 22 2012 03:37 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 03:32 renzy wrote:On August 22 2012 03:04 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 22 2012 02:45 Stratos_speAr wrote: As to the OP, I think you're completely off-base. You define some hypothetical mech that doesn't really exist and then claim that mech is purely defensive. First, this isn't true at all; you don't get to just arbitrarily define mech as you will when mech has always existed with units like the Goliath and Vulture (faster moving units). I'm merely building on the definition of the other article, and you have to admit, vultures don't really feel that much mech like. Yes, mech is characterized by immobility because its strength in opposing the opponent's army is in the Tank Line, but it's never been a purely defensive playstyle. And only so for the existence of vultures is my claim, which is why I think the new hots units are fine. Second, BW mech was incredibly exciting and made all three T matchups interesting to watch and usually the most popular. If you can't realize this, then I just can't take you seriously. I'm terribly sorry for not being able to see subjective things? Sure, if everyone could play mech and it was the ultimate trump strategy, it would be boring, but this isn't the case and never will be because your points are way off. Mech isn't purely defensive and it isn't the ultimate strategy when perfectly played. But it needs to be for pure mech to be viable, which is why pure hardcore true mech does not exist and isn't viable in either game, you can't just make tanks and expect to win. On August 22 2012 02:53 Stratos_speAr wrote: Broodlords are another terrible example. The Zerg race is built for cost inneficiency and high mobility. BL's make for boring games to watch because they are the exact opposite, making the Zerg army do the same thing as the T or P army; be slower but more cost efficient. This homogeneity in army styles between the races is what makes it boring. When properly designed, T mech would be the only army that could do a slow, positional push like that. Then vultures aren't Terran, reavers aren't Protoss, ultralisks aren't Zerg, medics aren't Terran and so forth, races are less pidgeon holed into this categories than you might think, the exception tends to prove the rule. Each race, in both games, has several units that stand out. I have seen countless PvT games in BW where the terran harasses using vultures, trading them for probes while continuing to make tanks, and pushing out at 3-2 with 4 groups of tanks and 1 group of goliath/science vessels. Those games are quite entertaining to watch, and this "hardcore" true mech does work, and tanks melt everything in sight. Hardcore mech only works because vultures set up this possibility, if vultures didn't exist T would have no threat of stopping P from essentially taking the entire map before T gets big enough to be able to move out and do something about it. Show nested quote +Also, the comment on the Broodlords was that they don't fit in, because most zergs units are mobile and fast while broodlords are slow. Your reply doesn't really make sense because ultralisks are fast and relatively mobile just like any other zerg unit. I don't see how vultures as a terran unit "stand out" either, because not all terran matchups involve a slow immobile army and so having a mobile unit amongst other mobile units isn't anything special. Protoss armies aren't known to be as mobile compared to the zerg, so reavers don't really "stand out" either. Ultralisk is the most expensive ground unit safe for the archon and the dark archon, it's not a cheap and swarmy unit at all. Vultures on the other hand are extremely fast and mobile and very swarmy and if they were mechanical and had different art they might as well be Zerg, another unit I for some reason forgot that is extremely unZergy is the Lurker. Reavers are waaaaaaaay too slow to really feel Protoss and completely stand out amongst protoss units which is usually in between of Z and T in terms of mobility.
Ultralisks are perfectly fine for Zerg. Are they expensive? Yes, but they are still cost inefficient alone and are also quite fast and swarm-able, fitting the Zerg philosophy just fine. Zerg is a borderline copyright-infringement copy of Tyranids from 40k, and the Ultralisk is basically a Carnifex. No one said that every unit has to have the same speed, cost, and efficiency in an army. You're just using bad logic.
Vultures are fast and mobile, but aren't very swarm-ish because they are big, clunky, take a relatively long time to produce, you can only produce one at a time per Factory, and they suck in an actual fight without Spider Mines. They're used as raiders/harassers, and their design, function, and story fit perfectly with the Terran race.
Reavers are Protoss-esque because they are a robotic unit, produce Scarabs and shoot them, and are extremely cost-efficient. Your arguments are just ridiculous and are relying purely on movement speed and cost, and those don't make much of a story by themselves.
Finally, none of these units form the core of their race's army. Vultures are a harassing unit that protect the core of the Terran mech army - TANKS. Reavers are used for harassment (in conjuction with Shuttles, actually making them one of the most mobile and deadly units in the game), defense in PvZ against timings, and as a backup for large Gateway armies in PvP. Ultralisks are used to tank damage so that Zerglings can do the damage and Defilers can cast Swarm; the Ultralisk isn't the core here, it's part of an even triangle between damage, tank, and utility. In contrast, mech is defined by and requires the core of the mech army; Tanks, which are immobile and required for this to work at all. Goliath/Vulture would be demolished by any number of combinations. Tanks give mech basically all of its strength and completely define the composition.
And of course your argument wouldn't make much sense without your ridiculous definition of mech; that's the point. Your arguments rely on a concept that doesn't actually exist and this shows that your entire OP was poorly thought-out and isn't applicable to the SC2 situation at all.
|
On August 22 2012 04:38 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 03:37 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 22 2012 03:32 renzy wrote:On August 22 2012 03:04 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 22 2012 02:45 Stratos_speAr wrote: As to the OP, I think you're completely off-base. You define some hypothetical mech that doesn't really exist and then claim that mech is purely defensive. First, this isn't true at all; you don't get to just arbitrarily define mech as you will when mech has always existed with units like the Goliath and Vulture (faster moving units). I'm merely building on the definition of the other article, and you have to admit, vultures don't really feel that much mech like. Yes, mech is characterized by immobility because its strength in opposing the opponent's army is in the Tank Line, but it's never been a purely defensive playstyle. And only so for the existence of vultures is my claim, which is why I think the new hots units are fine. Second, BW mech was incredibly exciting and made all three T matchups interesting to watch and usually the most popular. If you can't realize this, then I just can't take you seriously. I'm terribly sorry for not being able to see subjective things? Sure, if everyone could play mech and it was the ultimate trump strategy, it would be boring, but this isn't the case and never will be because your points are way off. Mech isn't purely defensive and it isn't the ultimate strategy when perfectly played. But it needs to be for pure mech to be viable, which is why pure hardcore true mech does not exist and isn't viable in either game, you can't just make tanks and expect to win. On August 22 2012 02:53 Stratos_speAr wrote: Broodlords are another terrible example. The Zerg race is built for cost inneficiency and high mobility. BL's make for boring games to watch because they are the exact opposite, making the Zerg army do the same thing as the T or P army; be slower but more cost efficient. This homogeneity in army styles between the races is what makes it boring. When properly designed, T mech would be the only army that could do a slow, positional push like that. Then vultures aren't Terran, reavers aren't Protoss, ultralisks aren't Zerg, medics aren't Terran and so forth, races are less pidgeon holed into this categories than you might think, the exception tends to prove the rule. Each race, in both games, has several units that stand out. I have seen countless PvT games in BW where the terran harasses using vultures, trading them for probes while continuing to make tanks, and pushing out at 3-2 with 4 groups of tanks and 1 group of goliath/science vessels. Those games are quite entertaining to watch, and this "hardcore" true mech does work, and tanks melt everything in sight. Hardcore mech only works because vultures set up this possibility, if vultures didn't exist T would have no threat of stopping P from essentially taking the entire map before T gets big enough to be able to move out and do something about it. Also, the comment on the Broodlords was that they don't fit in, because most zergs units are mobile and fast while broodlords are slow. Your reply doesn't really make sense because ultralisks are fast and relatively mobile just like any other zerg unit. I don't see how vultures as a terran unit "stand out" either, because not all terran matchups involve a slow immobile army and so having a mobile unit amongst other mobile units isn't anything special. Protoss armies aren't known to be as mobile compared to the zerg, so reavers don't really "stand out" either. Ultralisk is the most expensive ground unit safe for the archon and the dark archon, it's not a cheap and swarmy unit at all. Vultures on the other hand are extremely fast and mobile and very swarmy and if they were mechanical and had different art they might as well be Zerg, another unit I for some reason forgot that is extremely unZergy is the Lurker. Reavers are waaaaaaaay too slow to really feel Protoss and completely stand out amongst protoss units which is usually in between of Z and T in terms of mobility. Ultralisks are perfectly fine for Zerg. Are they expensive? Yes, but they are still cost inefficient alone and are also quite fast and swarm-able, fitting the Zerg philosophy just fine. A 4 supply 200/200 costing unit doesn't swarm, ever. You might as well call goons swarming then, which they are a lot more than ultralisks.
Zerg is a borderline copyright-infringement copy of Tyranids from 40k, and the Ultralisk is basically a Carnifex. No one said that every unit has to have the same speed, cost, and efficiency in an army. You're just using bad logic. No one ever said that a unit had to use similar range and movement speed. But I guess you get to arbitrarily decide that brood lords aren't Zergie, but Ultralisks are, which honestly, from your prior remarks, seems to have little more to do with the fact that Brood lords are a WoL units and ultralisks aren't.
Vultures are fast and mobile, but aren't very swarm-ish because they are big, clunky, take a relatively long time to produce, you can only produce one at a time per Factory, and they suck in an actual fight without Spider Mines. They're used as raiders/harassers, and their design, function, and story fit perfectly with the Terran race. Of all of that, ultralisks even more so but whatever.
Reavers are Protoss-esque because they are a robotic unit, produce Scarabs and shoot them, and are extremely cost-efficient. Your arguments are just ridiculous and are relying purely on movement speed and cost, and those don't make much of a story by themselves. Your arguments are completely arbitrary and as I said, seem to not have much more to do with being extremely biased towards BW and hating everything WoL.
Finally, none of these units form the core of their race's army. Vultures are a harassing unit that protect the core of the Terran mech army - TANKS. Reavers are used for harassment (in conjuction with Shuttles, actually making them one of the most mobile and deadly units in the game), defense in PvZ against timings, and as a backup for large Gateway armies in PvP. Ultralisks are used to tank damage so that Zerglings can do the damage and Defilers can cast Swarm; the Ultralisk isn't the core here, it's part of an even triangle between damage, tank, and utility. In contrast, mech is defined by and requires the core of the mech army; Tanks, which are immobile and required for this to work at all. Goliath/Vulture would be demolished by any number of combinations. Tanks give mech basically all of its strength and completely define the composition. Brood lords in that sense are also not the core of the Zerg army at all, their purpose is to force tanks to unsiege so lings and banelings can run in. Brood lords are actually fairly bad versus these new tank-less styles of TvZ where they don't rely on tanks but on marauders to deal with banelings.
And of course your argument wouldn't make much sense without your ridiculous definition of mech; that's the point. Your arguments rely on a concept that doesn't actually exist and this shows that your entire OP was poorly thought-out and isn't applicable to the SC2 situation at all. As I said, I'm using the definition of the other article to build upon, wouldn't make much sense to respond to it if I didn't use the definitions of the other article.
|
On August 22 2012 17:19 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2012 04:38 Stratos_speAr wrote:On August 22 2012 03:37 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 22 2012 03:32 renzy wrote:On August 22 2012 03:04 SiskosGoatee wrote:On August 22 2012 02:45 Stratos_speAr wrote: As to the OP, I think you're completely off-base. You define some hypothetical mech that doesn't really exist and then claim that mech is purely defensive. First, this isn't true at all; you don't get to just arbitrarily define mech as you will when mech has always existed with units like the Goliath and Vulture (faster moving units). I'm merely building on the definition of the other article, and you have to admit, vultures don't really feel that much mech like. Yes, mech is characterized by immobility because its strength in opposing the opponent's army is in the Tank Line, but it's never been a purely defensive playstyle. And only so for the existence of vultures is my claim, which is why I think the new hots units are fine. Second, BW mech was incredibly exciting and made all three T matchups interesting to watch and usually the most popular. If you can't realize this, then I just can't take you seriously. I'm terribly sorry for not being able to see subjective things? Sure, if everyone could play mech and it was the ultimate trump strategy, it would be boring, but this isn't the case and never will be because your points are way off. Mech isn't purely defensive and it isn't the ultimate strategy when perfectly played. But it needs to be for pure mech to be viable, which is why pure hardcore true mech does not exist and isn't viable in either game, you can't just make tanks and expect to win. On August 22 2012 02:53 Stratos_speAr wrote: Broodlords are another terrible example. The Zerg race is built for cost inneficiency and high mobility. BL's make for boring games to watch because they are the exact opposite, making the Zerg army do the same thing as the T or P army; be slower but more cost efficient. This homogeneity in army styles between the races is what makes it boring. When properly designed, T mech would be the only army that could do a slow, positional push like that. Then vultures aren't Terran, reavers aren't Protoss, ultralisks aren't Zerg, medics aren't Terran and so forth, races are less pidgeon holed into this categories than you might think, the exception tends to prove the rule. Each race, in both games, has several units that stand out. I have seen countless PvT games in BW where the terran harasses using vultures, trading them for probes while continuing to make tanks, and pushing out at 3-2 with 4 groups of tanks and 1 group of goliath/science vessels. Those games are quite entertaining to watch, and this "hardcore" true mech does work, and tanks melt everything in sight. Hardcore mech only works because vultures set up this possibility, if vultures didn't exist T would have no threat of stopping P from essentially taking the entire map before T gets big enough to be able to move out and do something about it. Also, the comment on the Broodlords was that they don't fit in, because most zergs units are mobile and fast while broodlords are slow. Your reply doesn't really make sense because ultralisks are fast and relatively mobile just like any other zerg unit. I don't see how vultures as a terran unit "stand out" either, because not all terran matchups involve a slow immobile army and so having a mobile unit amongst other mobile units isn't anything special. Protoss armies aren't known to be as mobile compared to the zerg, so reavers don't really "stand out" either. Ultralisk is the most expensive ground unit safe for the archon and the dark archon, it's not a cheap and swarmy unit at all. Vultures on the other hand are extremely fast and mobile and very swarmy and if they were mechanical and had different art they might as well be Zerg, another unit I for some reason forgot that is extremely unZergy is the Lurker. Reavers are waaaaaaaay too slow to really feel Protoss and completely stand out amongst protoss units which is usually in between of Z and T in terms of mobility. Ultralisks are perfectly fine for Zerg. Are they expensive? Yes, but they are still cost inefficient alone and are also quite fast and swarm-able, fitting the Zerg philosophy just fine. A 4 supply 200/200 costing unit doesn't swarm, ever. You might as well call goons swarming then, which they are a lot more than ultralisks. Show nested quote +Zerg is a borderline copyright-infringement copy of Tyranids from 40k, and the Ultralisk is basically a Carnifex. No one said that every unit has to have the same speed, cost, and efficiency in an army. You're just using bad logic. No one ever said that a unit had to use similar range and movement speed. But I guess you get to arbitrarily decide that brood lords aren't Zergie, but Ultralisks are, which honestly, from your prior remarks, seems to have little more to do with the fact that Brood lords are a WoL units and ultralisks aren't. Show nested quote +Vultures are fast and mobile, but aren't very swarm-ish because they are big, clunky, take a relatively long time to produce, you can only produce one at a time per Factory, and they suck in an actual fight without Spider Mines. They're used as raiders/harassers, and their design, function, and story fit perfectly with the Terran race. Of all of that, ultralisks even more so but whatever. Show nested quote +Reavers are Protoss-esque because they are a robotic unit, produce Scarabs and shoot them, and are extremely cost-efficient. Your arguments are just ridiculous and are relying purely on movement speed and cost, and those don't make much of a story by themselves. Your arguments are completely arbitrary and as I said, seem to not have much more to do with being extremely biased towards BW and hating everything WoL. Show nested quote +Finally, none of these units form the core of their race's army. Vultures are a harassing unit that protect the core of the Terran mech army - TANKS. Reavers are used for harassment (in conjuction with Shuttles, actually making them one of the most mobile and deadly units in the game), defense in PvZ against timings, and as a backup for large Gateway armies in PvP. Ultralisks are used to tank damage so that Zerglings can do the damage and Defilers can cast Swarm; the Ultralisk isn't the core here, it's part of an even triangle between damage, tank, and utility. In contrast, mech is defined by and requires the core of the mech army; Tanks, which are immobile and required for this to work at all. Goliath/Vulture would be demolished by any number of combinations. Tanks give mech basically all of its strength and completely define the composition. Brood lords in that sense are also not the core of the Zerg army at all, their purpose is to force tanks to unsiege so lings and banelings can run in. Brood lords are actually fairly bad versus these new tank-less styles of TvZ where they don't rely on tanks but on marauders to deal with banelings. Show nested quote +And of course your argument wouldn't make much sense without your ridiculous definition of mech; that's the point. Your arguments rely on a concept that doesn't actually exist and this shows that your entire OP was poorly thought-out and isn't applicable to the SC2 situation at all. As I said, I'm using the definition of the other article to build upon, wouldn't make much sense to respond to it if I didn't use the definitions of the other article.
No, you're not using the other articles definition because it includes mobile anti-air and a harassing unit.
How the hell can you possibly claim that Broodlords aren't the core of BL/Infestor/Corruptor? Broodlords literally do about 95% of the damage in that composition. Infestors are there to root units for the Broodlords to hit and Corruptors are there to protect the Broodlords from air. That is what makes BL/Infestor/Corruptor very un-Zergish and boring to watch; it's a composition that is similar to mech but isn't Terran (and is FAR less interesting and dynamic). Also, Ultralisks are perfectly Swarm-able. Watch some BW games and you'll see Zerg players bank up and pop out 10+ Ultralisks as soon as their tech hits. You can build them several at a time, and they are good vs. a number of units, whereas Vultures can only be built one at a time and are only good against Marines, Zealots, and Zerglings in a straight-up fight.
You're constantly shifting points and refusing to acknowledge basic facts (really? Saying that BL's aren't the core of BL/Infestor/Corruptor?). I never said that Broodlords weren't Zerg-ish, I said that the late game composition with Broodlords isn't. Your arguments are poorly designed and rely on a non-existent definition of mech. You should've read "In Defense of Mech" more thoroughly and actually understood what makes mech what it is.
|
Never seen such a long blog post based off of such absurd misundertandings.
|
|
|
|