|
In protoss versus zerg, the industry standard is the Forge Fast Expand.
Zerg is race built upon the concept of everything being produced from the hatchery. Specifically, everything (aside from the queen) is spawned from larva. Drones, fighting units, casters, buildings--they all start as larva. Because of this, the zerg has choices about what to make, at each turn of the game: does he make drones, or does he make something else?
In an ideal setting for the zerg, he doesn't have to build anything but drones and more hatcheries. Why build zerglings or roaches when you could just build drones? Why build extractors and tech structures when you could just build drones? Why build base defense when you could just build drones? Drones, drones, drones, drones, drones...why build anything else, if you don't have to?
Because of this, the zerg's opponent should always be trying to screw with the zerg; to force him into making non-drone units, or to kill drones directly if he has too many of those and not enough other stuff. The fact of the matter is: whether a drone is literally killed or it is instead turned into a fighting unit or a structure, it doesn't make a difference to the opponent. One less drone is one less drone.
And yet, the industry standard for protoss is to build a cannon at home. Really? You're going to build a cannon and just let the zerg go nuts with droning? Don't even force early zergling speed, or spine crawlers, or more zerglings? Don't even make him work for that third base?
Sure, there are reasons for building a cannon at home. A cannon makes you safe. Zerg doesn't have to build drones, after all--zerg can always potentially build a bunch of units and attack. But a cannon can't move. A cannon can't attack--not unless it's built across the map where it can't be used for defense. But you still get that cannon, don't you, protoss player? You still get it because you're so afraid of a bunch of lings and roaches attacking you in the early game.
You know what can both defend and attack? Gateway units. You know what can save you from early attacks, but also go across the map and kill drones? Gateway units. You know what can force the zerg to get ling speed a couple minutes earlier and kill a couple drones building an extractor, lings, and/or spine crawlers? Gateway units.
And yet, the industry standard is still the FFE.
What are we afraid of, so early in the game? Most of the time, the zerg just drones. But if he doesn't drone, what else can he do? Let's look at the timings:
1. A 6-pool is the earliest possible attack. Pretty simple: build just a pool and rally 6 lings to the protoss base.
2. Then, there are other variations of slightly later pools--7, 8, 9, 10, 11 extractor trick. They're all kind of the same, except the timing is a little later, and the follow-up to those first 6 lings varies.
3. A standard pool timing is 14-15, for pool first. This is the zerg playing economically, and usually doesn't lead to more than 2 or 4 lings for scouting and chasing down that scouting probe. Even if it is 6 lings and more following that, the timing is too late to be worried about.
4. Then, lastly, there is the gas/pool opening; usually on 14/14 supply. This branches out into a number of different speedling, baneling, and/or roach timings and then the occasional weird lightning-fast lair tech.
For the first 2 situations, a FFE is forced to build a pylon in his main base and put a cannon in his mineral line. Then the protoss loses his low ground pylon, usually loses the forge, and has to start over with gateway and core before he can take his natural. In this case, it would be better to just open 13 gate, scout the early lings, boost a zealot or two, make a stalker, and completely have command of the game. Sure, the FFE can survive against early pools, but a 13 gate 15 gas straight-up hard-counters it. If maphack was legal, protosses would always open 13 gate against a 6 pool. It's just strictly better, in this case.
For situation number 3, a stalker comes out in time to answer the initial few zerglings. Then, a second stalker comes out, and even 6 initial lings can't handle 2 stalkers. Then, those same stalkers can chase the lings across the map, and start doing damage to the zerg's economy. Sure, maybe it's just a hatch cancel at the third, or it's 2-4 drones, or maybe one queen...but that's damage done for free. Those stalkers played defense, defended potential early rushes, and then killed stuff for free, and then they even got to go home before ling speed. This is way stronger than building a cannon at home, just in case. Terran players wouldn't build a Turret 5 minutes into a typical TvZ, would they? Hell no. So why are we building a cannon this early, instead of building units?
So ultimately, why do protosses use the FFE? Because of situation #4: gas/pool openings. That's what we're all afraid of? Speedlings? Roaches? Banelings? All of those can be handled by walling off the low ground with extra gates, warping in stalkers and sentries, and then getting a stargate. Sure, a lower level player might have problems with this, but why would high Masters players, GMs, and professionals have trouble with defending that stuff? It's possible to consistently do it with good micro and practice. If it's possible, it's repeatable. If it's repeatable, it could become the standard. For every other opening the zerg could use, 13 gate 15 gas is a better start than the FFE. If the 14/14 can be handled by 13 gate 15 gas, then there is no excuse for using a FFE.
And yet, the industry standard is still--you guessed it--opening with a cannon at home.
The only excuse for this is laziness. A Stalker expand is fundamentally stronger than a FFE in every respect except for handling gas/pool openings...in which case, the two openings are equal.
Every time I watch a FFE in a professional or semi-professional match, I die a little bit inside. Please, high level protoss players, stop killing me. I would greatly appreciate it.
  
|
The reasoning behind a FFE is not in defensive potential. It's to change the amount a protoss invests in units for attacking/harassing/expanding.
Harass off a gate opening can be reactively shut down by a zerg. Attacking off a gate opening puts the necessarily high gas investment at risk and if the zerg appropriately scouts and prepares for it, then the attack will be unsuccessful. Due to the movement speed disparity and benefit of creep spread, zergs can crush failed attacks.
This means any attack you make becomes an allin and any harass will be unsuccessful.
However, off a FFE, the quantity of units for each of the three choices: attack, harass, expand become larger and cannot be countered by one round of larva injects and instead require more units from the zerg (read: why casters are almost guaranteed to say: "He needs to buy more time!")
I think your approach is misguided.
|
On January 12 2013 06:53 Eifer wrote:
The reasoning behind a FFE is not in defensive potential. It's to change the amount a protoss invests in units for attacking/harassing/expanding.
Harass off a gate opening can be reactively shut down by a zerg. Attacking off a gate opening puts the necessarily high gas investment at risk and if the zerg appropriately scouts and prepares for it, then the attack will be unsuccessful. Due to the movement speed disparity and benefit of creep spread, zergs can crush failed attacks.
This means any attack you make becomes an allin and any harass will be unsuccessful.
However, off a FFE, the quantity of units for each of the three choices: attack, harass, expand become larger and cannot be countered by one round of larva injects and instead require more units from the zerg (read: why casters are almost guaranteed to say: "He needs to buy more time!")
I think your approach is misguided.
None of this makes sense; the entirety of the pressure is 2-3 stalkers chasing out the initial lings, walking across the map, poking around the zerg's base, and then returning home before ling speed finishes. If you're committing to an attack on creep, you're doing something else. If you don't know the ling speed timing, you're doing it wrong.
The FFE gives the illusion that it's more economical because it gets a faster Nexus, but by opening with pressure you end up with a worker lead for a full minute or two longer in the early stage of the game. Total worker count is completely unimportant; the discrepancy between the probe count and drone count is what matters. Tack on the fact that tech is always faster, and the gateway opener just dominates by comparison to the FFE.
|
On January 12 2013 07:17 ineversmile wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 06:53 Eifer wrote:
The reasoning behind a FFE is not in defensive potential. It's to change the amount a protoss invests in units for attacking/harassing/expanding.
Harass off a gate opening can be reactively shut down by a zerg. Attacking off a gate opening puts the necessarily high gas investment at risk and if the zerg appropriately scouts and prepares for it, then the attack will be unsuccessful. Due to the movement speed disparity and benefit of creep spread, zergs can crush failed attacks.
This means any attack you make becomes an allin and any harass will be unsuccessful.
However, off a FFE, the quantity of units for each of the three choices: attack, harass, expand become larger and cannot be countered by one round of larva injects and instead require more units from the zerg (read: why casters are almost guaranteed to say: "He needs to buy more time!")
I think your approach is misguided. None of this makes sense; the entirety of the pressure is 2-3 stalkers chasing out the initial lings, walking across the map, poking around the zerg's base, and then returning home before ling speed finishes. If you're committing to an attack on creep, you're doing something else. If you don't know the ling speed timing, you're doing it wrong. The FFE gives the illusion that it's more economical because it gets a faster Nexus, but by opening with pressure you end up with a worker lead for a full minute or two longer in the early stage of the game. Total worker count is completely unimportant; the discrepancy between the probe count and drone count is what matters. Tack on the fact that tech is always faster, and the gateway opener just dominates by comparison to the FFE.
And then all your temporary lead is gone to larva inject, and I laugh as I took a 3rd even without speed because your pitiful stalkers cannot kill the hatchery.
I mean, going gate gas is by no means auto suicide, but it tends to put you down more so than FFE does, unless you want to make the assumption I will not just take a 3rd but still all in the fuck out of you right away. And assuming I don't do that, then you can be less behind and maybe even try a fast 2 base all in, and that may be easier to do on larger maps where my all in if I do it will take longer to arrive, but none of those maps happen to be ladder maps.
Also your worker lead is not very important when I happen to be able to get optimal saturation on 2 base vs your oversaturation on 1 base. And then I larva inject and leave your silly worker production in the dust.
From both the protoss and zerg perspective as I've played it at least, FFE feels more menacing to play against on most maps, and stronger. Now, gasless gateway expand on some maps are quite strong, and quite useable. You can also fit in a gate gas greedy play on some large GSL maps, but it's nothing I would feel safe doing 100% of the time, even on the maps they are suited for.
But yea, forcing a zerg to get fast speed and making me utterly blind to his drone count kind of is scary, especially since he could hit with a 3 base low drone all in before I can scout it. Care to flip the coin and guess?
p.s. I like to 15 hatch if the probe happens to have not scouted me on time (yay 4 player maps)
|
Hmmmm who should I trust more, a Masters player on the NA server or all the Korean pros whose jobs are to find the best strategies to win games? No brainer.
|
FFE -> pylon block -> cannon at home -> easily maintainable worker lead of about 10 for a good period of time, without the possibility of being killed by 6 lings and with the ability to expand quickly.
Gateway, Gas, Core, 2 Stalkers before expanding -> Stalkers go to opponents base -> kill 2-3 lings and a couple of drones -> spine finishes -> 15 workers behind and die to zergling pressure.
The comparison seems really in favour of the Forge Fast Expand. Zerg is too resilient to pressure in the early game and a handful of units won't cut it for aggression. The much better option is to hit zerg when they're weakest: just before they start making units.
For this reason, protoss players have been powering their economies and hitting three main timings: (1) just before roaches start being produced (Warp prism harass, 4gate +1, etc.), (2) just before infestors get out (Immortal pressure, blink, etc.) (3) just before brood lords can get out (Colossus, Seed-style big stalker plays, etc.)
|
OP, it sounds like you are looking for something like the YufFE.
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
Was about to post "nonsense as fuck" then realized you're talking about the worse Starcraft.
Might want to label with [SC2] if it's a blog, because you know, in BW there's PvZ as well.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 12 2013 08:58 iNfeRnaL wrote:
Was about to post "nonsense as fuck" then realized you're talking about the worse Starcraft.
Might want to label with [SC2] if it's a blog, because you know, in BW there's PvZ as well.
Well he IS talking about the "alive and not dead" starcraft
User was warned for this post
|
Essentially, Ineversmile, what you are suggesting is that almost every top-tier professional Protoss does the inferior opening out of laziness. Why on earth would they do that? Yes, individual pros are not to be treated as gods (Life, for example, uses an inferior opening often, with an extractor trick, and he's an incredible player) but if there is an overwhelming consensus, you can bet it's the best option. It's like scientists. If a scientist tells you something, it might not be right, but if there is a consensus among scientists that X is true, it almost certainly is.
You may win a lot of games in PvZ with gateway openings, because at your level it may actually be more effective than an FFE because people are clueless about how to fight them these days. Perhaps you're right at your level, and the pros are right at theirs. But if nearly every pro is doing something, and you're calling them wrong, you must think you know something they don't. What is it that you know that professionals don't, and why don't they know it? How can you trust your own opinion over the consensus of pros?
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
On January 12 2013 09:53 Nightshade_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 08:58 iNfeRnaL wrote:
Was about to post "nonsense as fuck" then realized you're talking about the worse Starcraft.
Might want to label with [SC2] if it's a blog, because you know, in BW there's PvZ as well. Well he IS talking about the "alive and not dead" starcraft
It's not dead, yea, not as alive as SC2 but still a lot more fun to play.
Also I'm quite sure SC2 will be a lot less alive even after half of BW's "lenght", so show some respect.
|
Northern Ireland27248 Posts
Stalker expands are good for the reasons that you list, but also bad for a number of other reasons.
Stalkers for one require a gas investment, which, albeit small will slow your tech when compared to an FFE. In addition, they have pathetic DPS in low numbers/without blink, so in reality there's really not much actual pressure you can do with them.
In the days of 3 range Queens I used to love Gate expands with a Zealot/2 Stalker pressure, but as you can't even kite Queens anymore effectively even those kind of non-committal pressures lack any kind of damage potential. I'm not one to just defer to the professional players mindlessly, but I for one believe the FFE being so standard is for good reason.
Hopefully HoTS fixes the matchup, the inability to non-commitally pressure a Zerg is a massive fucking problem and has led to it being an incredibly bad matchup.
The reason these builds may work for yourself is that Zerg players at that level are actually pretty bad at reacting to anything non-standard as they are so used to dealing with the same builds game in, game out.
|
On January 12 2013 12:14 iNfeRnaL wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 09:53 Nightshade_ wrote:On January 12 2013 08:58 iNfeRnaL wrote:
Was about to post "nonsense as fuck" then realized you're talking about the worse Starcraft.
Might want to label with [SC2] if it's a blog, because you know, in BW there's PvZ as well. Well he IS talking about the "alive and not dead" starcraft It's not dead, yea, not as alive as SC2 but still a lot more fun to play. Also I'm quite sure SC2 will be a lot less alive even after half of BW's "lenght", so show some respect.
I'm not sure what your putting in quotes but I don't respect tunnel vision people.
|
On January 12 2013 13:37 Nightshade_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 12:14 iNfeRnaL wrote:On January 12 2013 09:53 Nightshade_ wrote:On January 12 2013 08:58 iNfeRnaL wrote:
Was about to post "nonsense as fuck" then realized you're talking about the worse Starcraft.
Might want to label with [SC2] if it's a blog, because you know, in BW there's PvZ as well. Well he IS talking about the "alive and not dead" starcraft It's not dead, yea, not as alive as SC2 but still a lot more fun to play. Also I'm quite sure SC2 will be a lot less alive even after half of BW's "lenght", so show some respect. I'm not sure what your putting in quotes but I don't respect tunnel vision people.
We can all at least agree on the more fun to play part
|
On January 12 2013 08:58 iNfeRnaL wrote:
Was about to post "nonsense as fuck" then realized you're talking about the worse Starcraft.
Might want to label with [SC2] if it's a blog, because you know, in BW there's PvZ as well.
I didn't see other threads labeling as [SC2] in the first several pages of the blogs section. I'm also well aware that KeSPA has moved on to SC2, and the BW scene officially a small minority of hardcore players/fans. I have nothing against BW or its scene, but if you want to spout your ridiculously intrusive opinions about game preference, go write your own blog. Don't derail mine.
On January 12 2013 08:40 Yonnua wrote:
FFE -> pylon block -> cannon at home -> easily maintainable worker lead of about 10 for a good period of time, without the possibility of being killed by 6 lings and with the ability to expand quickly.
Gateway, Gas, Core, 2 Stalkers before expanding -> Stalkers go to opponents base -> kill 2-3 lings and a couple of drones -> spine finishes -> 15 workers behind and die to zergling pressure.
None of this math is true. The zerg will just go take his third; if you block that, he will take his forth. You can't stop zerg from building a hatchery at some expansion.
You have the build order wrong, too. It's gate, gas, core, stalker-->23 Nexus-->Stalker, pylon, gas, resume probe production and boost it. Even if you do 0 damage with stalkers, it is mathematically impossible to be 15 workers behind. I'm getting the impression that you don't actually know much about gateway expansions, from what you've written.
On January 12 2013 08:13 Whatson wrote:
Hmmmm who should I trust more, a Masters player on the NA server or all the Korean pros whose jobs are to find the best strategies to win games? No brainer.
Korean pros are pros because they have good mechanics, they have good micro, they can make snap decisions, and they can play under a lot of pressure in a televised tournament environment. That doesn't mean that they all make their own builds, or that they are doing the math right.
On January 12 2013 10:30 Salivanth wrote:
Essentially, Ineversmile, what you are suggesting is that almost every top-tier professional Protoss does the inferior opening out of laziness. Why on earth would they do that? Yes, individual pros are not to be treated as gods (Life, for example, uses an inferior opening often, with an extractor trick, and he's an incredible player) but if there is an overwhelming consensus, you can bet it's the best option. It's like scientists. If a scientist tells you something, it might not be right, but if there is a consensus among scientists that X is true, it almost certainly is.
That's exactly my point, though! Life uses an inferior opening so often, and then wins because he's a fantastic player...even though he's shooting himself in the foot with that 10 overlord gas-trick.
I don't think that the top-tier protosses are lazy, but I do think they are stubborn. They keep using the FFE because they have been using it over and over and over again, and because everyone else does it. It's just what people do in PvZ. I'm not saying the top-tier protosses are lazy or stupid or bad, or anything else ridiculous like that. I do, however, think that they are wrong for sticking to an opening that is fundamentally inferior to opening with just a gateway.
You may win a lot of games in PvZ with gateway openings, because at your level it may actually be more effective than an FFE because people are clueless about how to fight them these days. Perhaps you're right at your level, and the pros are right at theirs. But if nearly every pro is doing something, and you're calling them wrong, you must think you know something they don't. What is it that you know that professionals don't, and why don't they know it? How can you trust your own opinion over the consensus of pros?
It has nothing to do with my play level. It has to do with the fact that one opening builds a useless cannon at the start of the game, whereas the other one instead builds mobile units that can both attack and defend. Since both builds can survive through early game aggression, the one with mobile units is fundamentally superior to the one without static defense. I'm not even talking about doing significant, crippling damage to the zerg in the early game--I'm talking about forcing gas 2-3 minutes earlier and forcing a couple other non-drone units/buildings to be made. Not even cancelling the third or killing a queen; just slowing the droning down. Even if the zerg reacts perfectly, he still has to cut a couple of drones by making that earlier gas/spine/extra lings.
My point is that, even if the zerg reacts perfectly, the gateway opener is better. It's better against standard hatch/pool or pool/hatch from the zerg, it's better against early pools, and it's on even footing with the FFE against gas/pool. Your transition could be anything; the whole point is that a 13 gate is logically a better opening in all the cases in which it is not directly equal to opening with a cannon.
---------
I'm not afraid to say that the vast majority of people are wrong about something. Remember when people figured out that 2 probes on 2 gases gives more income than a 3/1 split? What about when people figured out how to hold against a 12 minute roach max? People are wrong all the time--it's not necessarily because they're lazy or stupid; sometimes changes haven't happened yet. I believe that to be the case with people who are still using the FFE instead of 13 gate.
|
Don't you think that if gate expand wad really more economical and better, better players would use them? I'm sorry, I don't trust the judgement of a NA masters player who probably doesn't even train in a team house. I'll trust the judgement of those players whose jobs are to win games, because they're always at the forefront in terms of strategy and builds.
Is it a coincidence that the 2-2 gas split and defense of the roach max all originated from pros and not a NA masters? I think not.
|
What makes you think GM players don't gate expand? Do you not watch streams? Anyway, I think the answer is simple. Greedier opening = stronger 2 base play
|
On January 12 2013 07:17 ineversmile wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 06:53 Eifer wrote:
The reasoning behind a FFE is not in defensive potential. It's to change the amount a protoss invests in units for attacking/harassing/expanding.
Harass off a gate opening can be reactively shut down by a zerg. Attacking off a gate opening puts the necessarily high gas investment at risk and if the zerg appropriately scouts and prepares for it, then the attack will be unsuccessful. Due to the movement speed disparity and benefit of creep spread, zergs can crush failed attacks.
This means any attack you make becomes an allin and any harass will be unsuccessful.
However, off a FFE, the quantity of units for each of the three choices: attack, harass, expand become larger and cannot be countered by one round of larva injects and instead require more units from the zerg (read: why casters are almost guaranteed to say: "He needs to buy more time!")
I think your approach is misguided. None of this makes sense; the entirety of the pressure is 2-3 stalkers chasing out the initial lings, walking across the map, poking around the zerg's base, and then returning home before ling speed finishes. If you're committing to an attack on creep, you're doing something else. If you don't know the ling speed timing, you're doing it wrong. The FFE gives the illusion that it's more economical because it gets a faster Nexus, but by opening with pressure you end up with a worker lead for a full minute or two longer in the early stage of the game. Total worker count is completely unimportant; the discrepancy between the probe count and drone count is what matters. Tack on the fact that tech is always faster, and the gateway opener just dominates by comparison to the FFE.
It's my understanding of the game that i've drawn from 5000+ games at masters/grandmasters level. If we have a different perspective, it's ok - but understand that you didn't respond to the reasoning I gave and from the contents of this thread, don't have very much game experience with the concepts you're proposing.
|
On January 14 2013 11:59 Eifer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 07:17 ineversmile wrote:On January 12 2013 06:53 Eifer wrote:
The reasoning behind a FFE is not in defensive potential. It's to change the amount a protoss invests in units for attacking/harassing/expanding.
Harass off a gate opening can be reactively shut down by a zerg. Attacking off a gate opening puts the necessarily high gas investment at risk and if the zerg appropriately scouts and prepares for it, then the attack will be unsuccessful. Due to the movement speed disparity and benefit of creep spread, zergs can crush failed attacks.
This means any attack you make becomes an allin and any harass will be unsuccessful.
However, off a FFE, the quantity of units for each of the three choices: attack, harass, expand become larger and cannot be countered by one round of larva injects and instead require more units from the zerg (read: why casters are almost guaranteed to say: "He needs to buy more time!")
I think your approach is misguided. None of this makes sense; the entirety of the pressure is 2-3 stalkers chasing out the initial lings, walking across the map, poking around the zerg's base, and then returning home before ling speed finishes. If you're committing to an attack on creep, you're doing something else. If you don't know the ling speed timing, you're doing it wrong. The FFE gives the illusion that it's more economical because it gets a faster Nexus, but by opening with pressure you end up with a worker lead for a full minute or two longer in the early stage of the game. Total worker count is completely unimportant; the discrepancy between the probe count and drone count is what matters. Tack on the fact that tech is always faster, and the gateway opener just dominates by comparison to the FFE. It's my understanding of the game that i've drawn from 5000+ games at masters/grandmasters level. If we have a different perspective, it's ok - but understand that you didn't respond to the reasoning I gave and from the contents of this thread, don't have very much game experience with the concepts you're proposing.
Hey Eifer, I have a fun way to summarize the anti-ineversmile. ZoohairZ style ~
|
I knew this was a SC2 blog the second I saw no screenshots 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
