On September 30 2014 17:53 Big J wrote: I think playing around the reosurces you cqn eventually acquire is a very interedting strategy. In fact it is exactly what we see in other matchups as well. The prime example is TvZ where you oftwn as zerg do not attack to break the Terran, just to limit him to a certain amount of bases until he eventually does not have any money left - in thise scenario neither player even uses swarm hosts or ravena or templar etc. Or a s a Mech player against Zerg on a 5-6player map. You just try to live through the storm and eventually seeker him to death until he is out of resources.
What your analysis misses is that this kind of trading is nothing bound to special abilities and can be achieved by things like dropping and picking up easily as well. Or just having enough buffer for you glasscanons to wreck a whole army - colossi..
SHs obviously have an advantage over other units in this, however, cut them and then units that come second to SHs can suddenly apply such a strategy (e.g. tempests).
I see your point. I mean it makes sense - denying bases is 101 of outplaying your opponent and winning with a larger army.
But the difference between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about is that in the Swarm Host case, all the Zerg has to do is not die until the money on the map runs out. Granted, this is highly theoretical, but, we sometimes see it in games.
Because resources are finite, units should not have infinite value. Otherwise, there is incentive to only make THOSE units. A lot of other units have "revenue streams" (a certain number of storms etc.) but when you discount the value of the really uncertain 19th and 20th storm for example you have a finite value. A Templar is worth X storms. Unfortunately the Swarm Host breaks this equation and just incentivizes massing it.
Well, to be completely honest with you. I think the reason why Protoss players try to get a resource advantage over the Zerg is mainly because that strategy is a winning strategy on all (unsplittable) 3-4p maps and works quite well on 2p maps too. However, we have seen instances of mass Tempest strategies on splittable maps like Habitation Station or Heavy Rain, in which case the Protoss does not work with a resource advantage, but trades pop-for-pop with the Zerg. HasuObs vs Jaedong at IEM was such a case if you are looking for a specific game.
I think in theory, if you have a mothership cloaking your army, you keep track of the Zerg army with an oracle and use a combination of Colossi/Void Ray/Tempest/Templar you can go the distance. The Mothership makes you immune to SHs, the VR/Templar win every combat with whatever antiair the Zerg brings and the Templar prevent any abducts from happening. The rest is Tempests slowly whittling the Zerg down (granted, you need enough Tempests to one-shot targets so that queens cannot heal them and make it an eternal combat). The zerg would constantly have to sacrifice infestors/Overseers to get vision of you. I guess, theoretically, given enough resources, the Zerg could send 1000 Overseers, but even then I'm not sure if the damage done while having vision would justify that investment, since the Protoss has all the resources the Zerg spent still in the bank to rebuild any losses.
The counterpoint to "well, in theory SHs serve the purpose of...because otherwise tempests would just make it impossible for Zerg to win..." should not be that only one of the units requires close inspection. They both do.
Like I said in my earlier post, the Tempest actually works on the same principle as the swarm host. Cannons + tempests + a few storms are the most cost effective composition for Protoss. SH + mass static defense + a few vipers/corruptors is the most cost effective composition for Zerg. Do you see the parallel here? The argument for "the swarm host is a flawed unit because it relies on trading free units for resources, thereby undermining the economic nature of a finite resource game" cannot be stated without the mention of the tempest as well. They are both two halves to a greater whole of why PvZ late game is fucked because neither can exist independently without the game completely breaking.
The "glass cannon" argument is not a strong one. Although there are some slight imbalances in the way that "glass cannon" units like the colossus or the marine work, the bottom line is that you still have to trade resources for damage. Undoubtedly, this leads to a "deathball syndrome" of sorts, which only superior pathing, high ground advantage, and unit versatility tweaks can manage (we won't get into this), but the greater problem that no one wants to address is the underlying flaw of "free damage" in SC2. From the ghost snipe to the WoL infestor to tempests and SHs, the ever present problem is there, but we still keep running into walls with it without actually addressing it.
While mass Tempest, Raven and a few other units exhibit some of the signs of Swarm Host syndrome, in my view only the Swarm Host eliminates risk to such an extent that it is TOO favorable. The inherent issue with the Swarm Host vs. those other units is that it can do damage without ever exposing itself. Ravens can get feedbacked, Templar can get EMPd. Tempests get abducted. Swarm Hosts live practically forever.
My view is that to fix Swarm Hosts (and address the issues that I brought up, that in a theoretically even game the Protoss player must ouplay the Zerg to win) Blizzard should add more risk to using Swarm Hosts. 25 second Locust spawn times and 25 second Locus lifetime means there are always Locusts. You could shorten the lifespan of the Locusts so they can't travel as far BUT also shorten the respawn time of the Locusts. Essentially the only difference would be that the Swarm Hosts take more risk by being closer to the opponent.
This would force the Zerg to reposition them more often (exposing them to enemy fire) and demanding more of the Zerg player's attention (higher APM requirement). It also adds player risk (the Zerg player could fuck up and lose a lot of his Swarm Hosts if he isn't careful). In my view this would alleviate the issue of Protoss having to outplay a Swarm Hosting player (again, given a theoretically even game up to that point).
I think you're missing the point. With a shorter range, swarm host + static D + infestor/viper/corruptor is still the most cost effective thing a Zerg can do. Sure, it gives Protoss more options, and perhaps the map can be split better. But in the end, assuming that it doesn't somehow make SHs completely obsolete, the game will still come down to Tempests vs SHs. Giving a unit with a flawed design a bigger weakness or a harder counter does not fix the design flaw. Your argument in the OP is that "free damage" doesn't belong in an atmosphere that is inherently designed on finite resources (which is all games). It's true that SHs deal "more" "free damage" than tempests do, but why pretend that only SHs fall under this category when you can easily think of several situations in which massing a unit is the best strategy?
I have no problem with what you refer to as "free damage" as a concept because what I was trying to explain in my post is that it's not REALLY free. Because of the risk involved, only the first few uses of that unit actually factor into its value. You're going to get maybe 3 storms out of a HT, 2 seekers or a couple of PDDs out of a Raven etc. Because it's expected that at some point in time that unit will die.
Right now, a Swarm Host is something that you can expect to get, say 60 locust waves out of. Well, if you increase the risk involved in using it (perhaps by forcing the Swarm host to be physically closer to its target) that 60th locust wave is worth significantly less.
So the point is that if you increase the risk profile of the Swarm Host enough, to where it can be expected to die and need to be replaced more frequently, the unit no longer becomes "free damage." Rather you'll be able to say (like for other units) "I expect this unit to produce X locust waves" and then decide if that's worth the cost of producing it. Right now it's a no brainer. You're basically guaranteed lifetime locusts. For a unit that costs 200/100 and is available on Lair tech. THAT is what I have a problem with.
Another suggestion (and this is only slightly trolling) is to just have Swarm Hosts die of old age after a while. I know it sounds stupid, but all of a sudden it puts a quantifiable VALUE on the Swarm Host.
Ok perhaps that was mostly trolling.
EDIT - a totally NOT troll way to change them, though, would be to have locust waves require minerals (the same way that interceptors cost minerals). While this wouldn't change the risk profile of the Swarm Host, it would affect the risk/return equation, since your return would be less (since you're paying more).
On September 30 2014 17:53 Big J wrote: I think playing around the reosurces you cqn eventually acquire is a very interedting strategy. In fact it is exactly what we see in other matchups as well. The prime example is TvZ where you oftwn as zerg do not attack to break the Terran, just to limit him to a certain amount of bases until he eventually does not have any money left - in thise scenario neither player even uses swarm hosts or ravena or templar etc. Or a s a Mech player against Zerg on a 5-6player map. You just try to live through the storm and eventually seeker him to death until he is out of resources.
What your analysis misses is that this kind of trading is nothing bound to special abilities and can be achieved by things like dropping and picking up easily as well. Or just having enough buffer for you glasscanons to wreck a whole army - colossi..
SHs obviously have an advantage over other units in this, however, cut them and then units that come second to SHs can suddenly apply such a strategy (e.g. tempests).
I see your point. I mean it makes sense - denying bases is 101 of outplaying your opponent and winning with a larger army.
But the difference between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about is that in the Swarm Host case, all the Zerg has to do is not die until the money on the map runs out. Granted, this is highly theoretical, but, we sometimes see it in games.
Because resources are finite, units should not have infinite value. Otherwise, there is incentive to only make THOSE units. A lot of other units have "revenue streams" (a certain number of storms etc.) but when you discount the value of the really uncertain 19th and 20th storm for example you have a finite value. A Templar is worth X storms. Unfortunately the Swarm Host breaks this equation and just incentivizes massing it.
Well, to be completely honest with you. I think the reason why Protoss players try to get a resource advantage over the Zerg is mainly because that strategy is a winning strategy on all (unsplittable) 3-4p maps and works quite well on 2p maps too. However, we have seen instances of mass Tempest strategies on splittable maps like Habitation Station or Heavy Rain, in which case the Protoss does not work with a resource advantage, but trades pop-for-pop with the Zerg. HasuObs vs Jaedong at IEM was such a case if you are looking for a specific game.
I think in theory, if you have a mothership cloaking your army, you keep track of the Zerg army with an oracle and use a combination of Colossi/Void Ray/Tempest/Templar you can go the distance. The Mothership makes you immune to SHs, the VR/Templar win every combat with whatever antiair the Zerg brings and the Templar prevent any abducts from happening. The rest is Tempests slowly whittling the Zerg down (granted, you need enough Tempests to one-shot targets so that queens cannot heal them and make it an eternal combat). The zerg would constantly have to sacrifice infestors/Overseers to get vision of you. I guess, theoretically, given enough resources, the Zerg could send 1000 Overseers, but even then I'm not sure if the damage done while having vision would justify that investment, since the Protoss has all the resources the Zerg spent still in the bank to rebuild any losses.
The counterpoint to "well, in theory SHs serve the purpose of...because otherwise tempests would just make it impossible for Zerg to win..." should not be that only one of the units requires close inspection. They both do.
Like I said in my earlier post, the Tempest actually works on the same principle as the swarm host. Cannons + tempests + a few storms are the most cost effective composition for Protoss. SH + mass static defense + a few vipers/corruptors is the most cost effective composition for Zerg. Do you see the parallel here? The argument for "the swarm host is a flawed unit because it relies on trading free units for resources, thereby undermining the economic nature of a finite resource game" cannot be stated without the mention of the tempest as well. They are both two halves to a greater whole of why PvZ late game is fucked because neither can exist independently without the game completely breaking.
The "glass cannon" argument is not a strong one. Although there are some slight imbalances in the way that "glass cannon" units like the colossus or the marine work, the bottom line is that you still have to trade resources for damage. Undoubtedly, this leads to a "deathball syndrome" of sorts, which only superior pathing, high ground advantage, and unit versatility tweaks can manage (we won't get into this), but the greater problem that no one wants to address is the underlying flaw of "free damage" in SC2. From the ghost snipe to the WoL infestor to tempests and SHs, the ever present problem is there, but we still keep running into walls with it without actually addressing it.
While mass Tempest, Raven and a few other units exhibit some of the signs of Swarm Host syndrome, in my view only the Swarm Host eliminates risk to such an extent that it is TOO favorable. The inherent issue with the Swarm Host vs. those other units is that it can do damage without ever exposing itself. Ravens can get feedbacked, Templar can get EMPd. Tempests get abducted. Swarm Hosts live practically forever.
My view is that to fix Swarm Hosts (and address the issues that I brought up, that in a theoretically even game the Protoss player must ouplay the Zerg to win) Blizzard should add more risk to using Swarm Hosts. 25 second Locust spawn times and 25 second Locus lifetime means there are always Locusts. You could shorten the lifespan of the Locusts so they can't travel as far BUT also shorten the respawn time of the Locusts. Essentially the only difference would be that the Swarm Hosts take more risk by being closer to the opponent.
This would force the Zerg to reposition them more often (exposing them to enemy fire) and demanding more of the Zerg player's attention (higher APM requirement). It also adds player risk (the Zerg player could fuck up and lose a lot of his Swarm Hosts if he isn't careful). In my view this would alleviate the issue of Protoss having to outplay a Swarm Hosting player (again, given a theoretically even game up to that point).
I think you're missing the point. With a shorter range, swarm host + static D + infestor/viper/corruptor is still the most cost effective thing a Zerg can do. Sure, it gives Protoss more options, and perhaps the map can be split better. But in the end, assuming that it doesn't somehow make SHs completely obsolete, the game will still come down to Tempests vs SHs. Giving a unit with a flawed design a bigger weakness or a harder counter does not fix the design flaw. Your argument in the OP is that "free damage" doesn't belong in an atmosphere that is inherently designed on finite resources (which is all games). It's true that SHs deal "more" "free damage" than tempests do, but why pretend that only SHs fall under this category when you can easily think of several situations in which massing a unit is the best strategy?
I have no problem with what you refer to as "free damage" as a concept because what I was trying to explain in my post is that it's not REALLY free. Because of the risk involved, only the first few uses of that unit actually factor into its value. You're going to get maybe 3 storms out of a HT, 2 seekers or a couple of PDDs out of a Raven etc. Because it's expected that at some point in time that unit will die.
Right now, a Swarm Host is something that you can expect to get, say 60 locust waves out of. Well, if you increase the risk involved in using it (perhaps by forcing the Swarm host to be physically closer to its target) that 60th locust wave is worth significantly less.
So the point is that if you increase the risk profile of the Swarm Host enough, to where it can be expected to die and need to be replaced more frequently, the unit no longer becomes "free damage." Rather you'll be able to say (like for other units) "I expect this unit to produce X locust waves" and then decide if that's worth the cost of producing it. Right now it's a no brainer. You're basically guaranteed lifetime locusts. For a unit that costs 200/100 and is available on Lair tech. THAT is what I have a problem with.
Another suggestion (and this is only slightly trolling) is to just have Swarm Hosts die of old age after a while. I know it sounds stupid, but all of a sudden it puts a quantifiable VALUE on the Swarm Host.
Ok perhaps that was mostly trolling.
EDIT - a totally NOT troll way to change them, though, would be to have locust waves require minerals (the same way that interceptors cost minerals). While this wouldn't change the risk profile of the Swarm Host, it would affect the risk/return equation, since your return would be less (since you're paying more).
You can realistically get 60 or more shots out of a tempest and far more use out of a raven with PDD (as Ravens now generate energy faster than PDD dissipates). Along with SHs, these units pay for themselves over and over in damage, making it, for our purposes, "essentially free damage". (I don't lump in HT and I'm not sure why everyone seems to want to). The point that I'm trying to make is that, whether or not the SH is the biggest deal, it's not exclusive to the swarm host. We can use the swarm host as a case study, but the problem here is bigger than that and always has been. Do you see what I'm saying?
I'm not saying you're wrong at all, but I think we need to at least accept that there's a bigger problem going on here and search for answers, not by creating solutions to contain the design flaw or make it better or worse against other flawed units, but for solutions that will effectively pivot the design flaw (ghost snipe, although I don't fully agree with it, is a good example of a design flaw that was pivoted).
On September 30 2014 17:53 Big J wrote: I think playing around the reosurces you cqn eventually acquire is a very interedting strategy. In fact it is exactly what we see in other matchups as well. The prime example is TvZ where you oftwn as zerg do not attack to break the Terran, just to limit him to a certain amount of bases until he eventually does not have any money left - in thise scenario neither player even uses swarm hosts or ravena or templar etc. Or a s a Mech player against Zerg on a 5-6player map. You just try to live through the storm and eventually seeker him to death until he is out of resources.
What your analysis misses is that this kind of trading is nothing bound to special abilities and can be achieved by things like dropping and picking up easily as well. Or just having enough buffer for you glasscanons to wreck a whole army - colossi..
SHs obviously have an advantage over other units in this, however, cut them and then units that come second to SHs can suddenly apply such a strategy (e.g. tempests).
I see your point. I mean it makes sense - denying bases is 101 of outplaying your opponent and winning with a larger army.
But the difference between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about is that in the Swarm Host case, all the Zerg has to do is not die until the money on the map runs out. Granted, this is highly theoretical, but, we sometimes see it in games.
Because resources are finite, units should not have infinite value. Otherwise, there is incentive to only make THOSE units. A lot of other units have "revenue streams" (a certain number of storms etc.) but when you discount the value of the really uncertain 19th and 20th storm for example you have a finite value. A Templar is worth X storms. Unfortunately the Swarm Host breaks this equation and just incentivizes massing it.
Well, to be completely honest with you. I think the reason why Protoss players try to get a resource advantage over the Zerg is mainly because that strategy is a winning strategy on all (unsplittable) 3-4p maps and works quite well on 2p maps too. However, we have seen instances of mass Tempest strategies on splittable maps like Habitation Station or Heavy Rain, in which case the Protoss does not work with a resource advantage, but trades pop-for-pop with the Zerg. HasuObs vs Jaedong at IEM was such a case if you are looking for a specific game.
I think in theory, if you have a mothership cloaking your army, you keep track of the Zerg army with an oracle and use a combination of Colossi/Void Ray/Tempest/Templar you can go the distance. The Mothership makes you immune to SHs, the VR/Templar win every combat with whatever antiair the Zerg brings and the Templar prevent any abducts from happening. The rest is Tempests slowly whittling the Zerg down (granted, you need enough Tempests to one-shot targets so that queens cannot heal them and make it an eternal combat). The zerg would constantly have to sacrifice infestors/Overseers to get vision of you. I guess, theoretically, given enough resources, the Zerg could send 1000 Overseers, but even then I'm not sure if the damage done while having vision would justify that investment, since the Protoss has all the resources the Zerg spent still in the bank to rebuild any losses.
The counterpoint to "well, in theory SHs serve the purpose of...because otherwise tempests would just make it impossible for Zerg to win..." should not be that only one of the units requires close inspection. They both do.
Like I said in my earlier post, the Tempest actually works on the same principle as the swarm host. Cannons + tempests + a few storms are the most cost effective composition for Protoss. SH + mass static defense + a few vipers/corruptors is the most cost effective composition for Zerg. Do you see the parallel here? The argument for "the swarm host is a flawed unit because it relies on trading free units for resources, thereby undermining the economic nature of a finite resource game" cannot be stated without the mention of the tempest as well. They are both two halves to a greater whole of why PvZ late game is fucked because neither can exist independently without the game completely breaking.
The "glass cannon" argument is not a strong one. Although there are some slight imbalances in the way that "glass cannon" units like the colossus or the marine work, the bottom line is that you still have to trade resources for damage. Undoubtedly, this leads to a "deathball syndrome" of sorts, which only superior pathing, high ground advantage, and unit versatility tweaks can manage (we won't get into this), but the greater problem that no one wants to address is the underlying flaw of "free damage" in SC2. From the ghost snipe to the WoL infestor to tempests and SHs, the ever present problem is there, but we still keep running into walls with it without actually addressing it.
While mass Tempest, Raven and a few other units exhibit some of the signs of Swarm Host syndrome, in my view only the Swarm Host eliminates risk to such an extent that it is TOO favorable. The inherent issue with the Swarm Host vs. those other units is that it can do damage without ever exposing itself. Ravens can get feedbacked, Templar can get EMPd. Tempests get abducted. Swarm Hosts live practically forever.
My view is that to fix Swarm Hosts (and address the issues that I brought up, that in a theoretically even game the Protoss player must ouplay the Zerg to win) Blizzard should add more risk to using Swarm Hosts. 25 second Locust spawn times and 25 second Locus lifetime means there are always Locusts. You could shorten the lifespan of the Locusts so they can't travel as far BUT also shorten the respawn time of the Locusts. Essentially the only difference would be that the Swarm Hosts take more risk by being closer to the opponent.
This would force the Zerg to reposition them more often (exposing them to enemy fire) and demanding more of the Zerg player's attention (higher APM requirement). It also adds player risk (the Zerg player could fuck up and lose a lot of his Swarm Hosts if he isn't careful). In my view this would alleviate the issue of Protoss having to outplay a Swarm Hosting player (again, given a theoretically even game up to that point).
I think you're missing the point. With a shorter range, swarm host + static D + infestor/viper/corruptor is still the most cost effective thing a Zerg can do. Sure, it gives Protoss more options, and perhaps the map can be split better. But in the end, assuming that it doesn't somehow make SHs completely obsolete, the game will still come down to Tempests vs SHs. Giving a unit with a flawed design a bigger weakness or a harder counter does not fix the design flaw. Your argument in the OP is that "free damage" doesn't belong in an atmosphere that is inherently designed on finite resources (which is all games). It's true that SHs deal "more" "free damage" than tempests do, but why pretend that only SHs fall under this category when you can easily think of several situations in which massing a unit is the best strategy?
I have no problem with what you refer to as "free damage" as a concept because what I was trying to explain in my post is that it's not REALLY free. Because of the risk involved, only the first few uses of that unit actually factor into its value. You're going to get maybe 3 storms out of a HT, 2 seekers or a couple of PDDs out of a Raven etc. Because it's expected that at some point in time that unit will die.
Right now, a Swarm Host is something that you can expect to get, say 60 locust waves out of. Well, if you increase the risk involved in using it (perhaps by forcing the Swarm host to be physically closer to its target) that 60th locust wave is worth significantly less.
So the point is that if you increase the risk profile of the Swarm Host enough, to where it can be expected to die and need to be replaced more frequently, the unit no longer becomes "free damage." Rather you'll be able to say (like for other units) "I expect this unit to produce X locust waves" and then decide if that's worth the cost of producing it. Right now it's a no brainer. You're basically guaranteed lifetime locusts. For a unit that costs 200/100 and is available on Lair tech. THAT is what I have a problem with.
Another suggestion (and this is only slightly trolling) is to just have Swarm Hosts die of old age after a while. I know it sounds stupid, but all of a sudden it puts a quantifiable VALUE on the Swarm Host.
Ok perhaps that was mostly trolling.
EDIT - a totally NOT troll way to change them, though, would be to have locust waves require minerals (the same way that interceptors cost minerals). While this wouldn't change the risk profile of the Swarm Host, it would affect the risk/return equation, since your return would be less (since you're paying more).
You can realistically get 60 or more shots out of a tempest and far more use out of a raven with PDD (as Ravens now generate energy faster than PDD dissipates). Along with SHs, these units pay for themselves over and over in damage, making it, for our purposes, "essentially free damage". (I don't lump in HT and I'm not sure why everyone seems to want to). The point that I'm trying to make is that, whether or not the SH is the biggest deal, it's not exclusive to the swarm host. We can use the swarm host as a case study, but the problem here is bigger than that and always has been. Do you see what I'm saying?
I'm not saying you're wrong at all, but I think we need to at least accept that there's a bigger problem going on here and search for answers, not by creating solutions to contain the design flaw or make it better or worse against other flawed units, but for solutions that will effectively pivot the design flaw (ghost snipe, although I don't fully agree with it, is a good example of a design flaw that was pivoted).
I think mass Raven / PDD is a huge issue, very similar to the Swarm Host thing. I'll agree with you there. Tempests I'm not sure fall into quite the same category. They're a lot more vulnerable. But either way, we can say that Swarm Hosts are a tier 1 problem, Ravens a tier 2 problem (simply because of how vulnerable one can be while beginning to mass such a composition) and Tempests a tier 3 problem.
My view re: Tempests
1) They don't do that much DPS... so winning with them involves using other units to protect them for a long time while they chip away at the enemy.
2) Protecting them effectively requires the use of at least 4 other units (Oracles for revelation, High Templar for Storm, and observers for detection, and a mothership). So it's inherently a harder to ex ecute strategy than Swarm Hosts (and therefore more risk prone... there is always the risk that the user fucks up their control).
3) Low numbers of them don't do anything. With Swarm Hosts, 5-6 of them can delay a Protoss army enough to continue massing them. <5 Tempests are basically wasted supply since they do SUCH little DPS.
Compared to Swarm Hosts, they hit the field later and give the opponent a timing window where you're vulnerable. But Swarm Hosts can be added at Lair tech and the Zerg can add more and more as the opponent's army grows to keep matching him.
5-6 swaem hosts costs more than 3colossi. Just to put your "little investment" in relation. And 5-6 Tempest oneshot a viper. If correctly targeted, you kill 2-3 vipers anytime the zerg wants to pull you. People greatly undervalue them, because they let them shoot locusts since they rarely see the pros use them.
On October 01 2014 05:49 Big J wrote: 5-6 swaem hosts costs more than 3colossi. Just to put your "little investment" in relation. And 5-6 Tempest oneshot a viper. If correctly targeted, you kill 2-3 vipers anytime the zerg wants to pull you. People greatly undervalue them, because they let them shoot locusts since they rarely see the pros use them.
You have to admit though that it's a lot harder to correctly use Tempests/Mothership/Oracle/Templar than Swarm Hosts/Viper/Corruptor. Here's an example of what I mean:
3 games of Swarm Host vs. Tempest at the highest level of play.
Hero is everywhere on the map at once and controlling his army... really as well as anyone can be expected to... (you basically have to target fire every single Tempest shot or they will start shooting Locusts) But when you have to play against this kind of Swarm Host style it's just not feasible to make zero mistakes for that long. And eventually Snute just wins.
Snute played really well in that series, and he's one of the best at this style. But I think that the risk and skill involved in extracting value from Hero's composition are much higher.
OK, I watched all these games now. g1: herO attacked with 3Colossi around 150army supply into SHs, lost some units and then went back home to defend the counterattack. Never broke 150supply again against a constantly maxed Snute. At the end he attempted to go Tempest, but that's just not a good example, since he was far behind all the time right? g2: It's getting interesting. But at 25mins he completely derps, loses 50army supply by losing patience and attacking through that tiny choke point. No clue why he did that. Still, at the end of the day he wins it with the Tempest/Colossi combination but mainly with his harassment. No clue why he keeps on making Archons to go with his army, since they are just gas sacrifices to the Swarm Host gods of Snute.
g3: Two things. First of, herO is constantly far under max for no reason. Sure, you need a little bit of room for the warp-ins (if you want to do damage with harassment), but not ~40-50 supply. So his army is just less efficient than it should be all the time. He is fighting with around 100army supply against 140 or so all the time, hence, taking bad trades for the entirety of the game. Second of, he sacrificed thousands and thousands of resources (including quite some gas) into spore/spine that he knew was there. It was basically a herO that had kept 20workers more to afford harassment, and 40 supply empty to ensure harassment against against a 170 army supply Snute. If herO plays like that, he needs to win with the harassment, not with the army. Those two things combined result in herO burning through much more money than Snute does. At the end, herO with roughly 1more base mined goes broke at the same time Snute is broke. If he plays what he does more patiently, he should be maxed and with a bank at 45mins, while Snute is still broke the way he plays.
Note, nothing what I wrote here is a question of control and how it is harder for one player and that herO is simply losing more due to harder control.
On October 01 2014 15:26 Big J wrote: Note, nothing what I wrote here is a question of control and how it is harder for one player and that herO is simply losing more due to harder control.
That's a big part of why I think it's hard to be cost efficient against Swarm Hosts.. the ideal Protoss army to kill them is extremely hard to control and it's easy to make mistakes.
On October 01 2014 15:56 Xyik wrote: Thanks for the analysis, I enjoyed the read and agree that swarmhosts could be reworked.
EPT
