|
As a protoss player I am excited about the changes in the upcoming patch and hope many of them go through. This initial excitement got me thinking about all the recent QQ about the 1/1/1 all in that Korean Terrans have been using to manhandle protoss with.
Let me preface this post by saying I am by no means an expert in strategy. I did not major in any math subject in undergrad, but I barely had to try to get through my Physics and Calculus, so I consider myself pretty proficient when it comes to discussing resource calculations in SC2. If I was an expert in SC2 strategy, I probably would either have figured this out, or would be able to put together enough of an analysis to start a [D] thread in the strat forum. But seeing how most of this would probably be termed theorycrafting, I left it in a blog.
With that out of the way, the 1/1/1 comes in many forms, but I based my calculations off of Puma's execution of it in Game 1 vs MC in IEM Cologne. The versatility that comes from the 1/1/1 is getting that "money mix" of units before the Protoss can have their "money mix" to deal with it. With mules, you can continue to send waves of units at the Protoss before they have a chance to push you back. Even MC could not withstand the second wave Puma sent in game 1.
Calculating Puma's expenditures on simply units and tech buildings, the 1/1/1 he employed used 3730 minerals and 1450 gas to achieve the unit mix of 3 seige tanks, 3 banshees with cloak, 1 raven, and the remainder in marines and SCVs. He used 1 reactor rax and a starport and factory with tech labs. He builds 2 more rax later for more marines but no reactor or tech lab on them.
I was thinking of a way that Protoss could develop their own 1/1/1 type of build to gain the versatility needed, but it's just too burdensome on the gas.
If you go 2 gate, robo, stargate and try for a mix of pheonix, zealot, sentry, immortal, you need about 400 more gas than the terran to get that "money mix".
If you do 3 gate, robo, TC, Templar Archives, there's just too much gas needed to tech to storm and charge. You could bypass storm until the 13 min mark, and simply get 1 HT for feedback on the raven or PDD, but you lose that HT and it would be gg. Even bypassing storm, you have to forfeit sentries to have the gas to tech to HT and get charge (which is essential without sentries against marines/tanks)
I know the changes in Patch 1.4 are going to help a lot against this build, specifically the bug fix to guardian shield and the increased range on immortals. I just wonder if it is too easy to tech multiple paths as terran, if it's too hard to tech multiple paths as protoss, or if these are intended racial variances. Zerg is such a unique race and benefits a lot from easier tech switches at the disadvantage of having to produce all tech from the same larvae. I guess I long for the day when I can have a GW/Robo/SG opening that is viable. If that day never comes, I'm okay with that too because this game is damn fun to play.
I'me guessing a 3 gate robo will be the ideal response to the 1/1/1 post patch with an emphasis on sentries and immortals with chargelots and a handful of stalkers. PDD only affects stalkers in that scenario, so it would seem wise to have less stalkers in the mix when chargelots would be effective with adequate FF's and Guardian Shields while the few stalkers you do have provide a buffer between the marines and immortals while the immortals target down the tanks...plus you need something to take out the banshees.
Glad I don't see hardly any 1/1/1 play in gold league, and remember, this is just a gold league protoss thinking out loud. I fully recognize that some of my analysis above may be missing the big picture, which would probably explain still being in gold league  I'd love to hear where my thought process is wrong in a constructive manner as it can only help my development as a SC2 player.
 
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
Hmm... some interesting thoughts in all. Let me help illustrate when I think you're trying to say by using a technical diagram/blueprint of the terran tech tree and protoss tech tree:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gkYt9.png)
As you can see in my technical diagram, the terran tech tree is linear and chopsticklike (rax -> fact -> port), whereas the protoss tech tree is shaped like a trident (gate -> core -> robo or TC or Stargate). This gives the protoss a lot of late game tech flexibility, but not as much early game tech flexibility. 1/1/1 tries to hit during the window when the chopstick is greater than the trident.
In the later game, the Terran player will strive to use the more trident-like and less chopsticklike by using buildings and tech that tech "sideways" instead of upwards, like making a reactor on his starport, tech labs for his raxes, and ghost academy for ghosts, and armory for +2, etc.
Hope this shed some light on the tech differences.
|
On August 30 2011 03:11 Blazinghand wrote:Hmm... some interesting thoughts in all. Let me help illustrate when I think you're trying to say by using a technical diagram/blueprint of the terran tech tree and protoss tech tree: + Show Spoiler +As you can see in my technical diagram, the terran tech tree is linear and chopsticklike (rax -> fact -> port), whereas the protoss tech tree is shaped like a trident (gate -> core -> robo or TC or Stargate). This gives the protoss a lot of late game tech flexibility, but not as much early game tech flexibility. 1/1/1 tries to hit during the window when the chopstick is greater than the trident. In the later game, the Terran player will strive to use the more trident-like and less chopsticklike by using buildings and tech that tech "sideways" instead of upwards, like making a reactor on his starport, tech labs for his raxes, and ghost academy for ghosts, and armory for +2, etc. Hope this shed some light on the tech differences.
I wonder if a Zerg tech-tree looks like a comb...
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On August 30 2011 03:19 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 03:11 Blazinghand wrote:Hmm... some interesting thoughts in all. Let me help illustrate when I think you're trying to say by using a technical diagram/blueprint of the terran tech tree and protoss tech tree: + Show Spoiler +As you can see in my technical diagram, the terran tech tree is linear and chopsticklike (rax -> fact -> port), whereas the protoss tech tree is shaped like a trident (gate -> core -> robo or TC or Stargate). This gives the protoss a lot of late game tech flexibility, but not as much early game tech flexibility. 1/1/1 tries to hit during the window when the chopstick is greater than the trident. In the later game, the Terran player will strive to use the more trident-like and less chopsticklike by using buildings and tech that tech "sideways" instead of upwards, like making a reactor on his starport, tech labs for his raxes, and ghost academy for ghosts, and armory for +2, etc. Hope this shed some light on the tech differences. I wonder if a Zerg tech-tree looks like a comb...
Yeah! It looks like this:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OyjSs.png)
This "comb" tech tree is because there's a basic tech progression (pool -> lair -> pit -> hive), but off of each step in the tech progression there are "branches" that increase your tech but don't let you move to the next level. At pool tech, this is Roach Warren and Baneling Nest. At Lair tech, this is Hydralisk Den, Spire, and Nydus Network. These all give you access to powerful units, but don't let you actually tech up to the next level.
|
On August 30 2011 03:19 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 03:11 Blazinghand wrote:Hmm... some interesting thoughts in all. Let me help illustrate when I think you're trying to say by using a technical diagram/blueprint of the terran tech tree and protoss tech tree: + Show Spoiler +As you can see in my technical diagram, the terran tech tree is linear and chopsticklike (rax -> fact -> port), whereas the protoss tech tree is shaped like a trident (gate -> core -> robo or TC or Stargate). This gives the protoss a lot of late game tech flexibility, but not as much early game tech flexibility. 1/1/1 tries to hit during the window when the chopstick is greater than the trident. In the later game, the Terran player will strive to use the more trident-like and less chopsticklike by using buildings and tech that tech "sideways" instead of upwards, like making a reactor on his starport, tech labs for his raxes, and ghost academy for ghosts, and armory for +2, etc. Hope this shed some light on the tech differences. I wonder if a Zerg tech-tree looks like a comb...
It's more like a magnetic field...you have so many paths but in the end, your production capabilities are only based on your hatcheries.
|
No problems with your observation skills here -- good post for someone only in gold league!
|
On August 30 2011 03:34 QTIP. wrote:
No problems with your observation skills here -- good post for someone only in gold league!
I'd hate to admit that I skimmed his post, and got more enjoyment out of the comments.
At a glance, you need to be more concise.
|
On August 30 2011 03:46 Bill Murray wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 03:34 QTIP. wrote:
No problems with your observation skills here -- good post for someone only in gold league! I'd hate to admit that I skimmed his post, and got more enjoyment out of the comments. At a glance, you need to be more concise.
Oh come on -- he's in gold league. I'd say the logic was pretty sound considering his skill level. Formatting etc. are other issues.
|
On August 30 2011 03:11 Blazinghand wrote:Hmm... some interesting thoughts in all. Let me help illustrate when I think you're trying to say by using a technical diagram/blueprint of the terran tech tree and protoss tech tree: As you can see in my technical diagram, the terran tech tree is linear and chopsticklike (rax -> fact -> port), whereas the protoss tech tree is shaped like a trident (gate -> core -> robo or TC or Stargate). This gives the protoss a lot of late game tech flexibility, but not as much early game tech flexibility. 1/1/1 tries to hit during the window when the chopstick is greater than the trident. In the later game, the Terran player will strive to use the more trident-like and less chopsticklike by using buildings and tech that tech "sideways" instead of upwards, like making a reactor on his starport, tech labs for his raxes, and ghost academy for ghosts, and armory for +2, etc. Hope this shed some light on the tech differences.
Lol totally awesome, and i totally agree.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On August 30 2011 03:11 Blazinghand wrote:Hmm... some interesting thoughts in all. Let me help illustrate when I think you're trying to say by using a technical diagram/blueprint of the terran tech tree and protoss tech tree: As you can see in my technical diagram, the terran tech tree is linear and chopsticklike (rax -> fact -> port), whereas the protoss tech tree is shaped like a trident (gate -> core -> robo or TC or Stargate). This gives the protoss a lot of late game tech flexibility, but not as much early game tech flexibility. 1/1/1 tries to hit during the window when the chopstick is greater than the trident. In the later game, the Terran player will strive to use the more trident-like and less chopsticklike by using buildings and tech that tech "sideways" instead of upwards, like making a reactor on his starport, tech labs for his raxes, and ghost academy for ghosts, and armory for +2, etc. Hope this shed some light on the tech differences.
Brilliant!
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On August 30 2011 06:37 TehTemplar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 03:11 Blazinghand wrote:Hmm... some interesting thoughts in all. Let me help illustrate when I think you're trying to say by using a technical diagram/blueprint of the terran tech tree and protoss tech tree: As you can see in my technical diagram, the terran tech tree is linear and chopsticklike (rax -> fact -> port), whereas the protoss tech tree is shaped like a trident (gate -> core -> robo or TC or Stargate). This gives the protoss a lot of late game tech flexibility, but not as much early game tech flexibility. 1/1/1 tries to hit during the window when the chopstick is greater than the trident. In the later game, the Terran player will strive to use the more trident-like and less chopsticklike by using buildings and tech that tech "sideways" instead of upwards, like making a reactor on his starport, tech labs for his raxes, and ghost academy for ghosts, and armory for +2, etc. Hope this shed some light on the tech differences. Brilliant!
I think I'm going to make a grand unified diagram when I get home-- and probably add more detail as well.
|
well put! That's always the way I have looked at it I just haven't been able to put it into those words. As a protoss player it's always been that strident tech structure that frustrates me, but I just don't like how vanilla Terran is and zerg requires more skill to play well than I have atm so I have stuck with protoss, which I played in SC1 as well.
The strident path hits at cybercore and then again at twilight council where you can opt for blink/charge, templates archive or dark shrine.
Haven't played in over 3 weeks due to my internship hours, so don't think I forgot about your previous invite blazinghand. Hoping to play again when internship finishes in 2 weeks. Then I have to find a job.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
