EPTSimple Questions, Simple Answers - Page 363
| Forum Index > Brood War Strategy |
|
sheaRZerg
United States613 Posts
| ||
|
Moopower
128 Posts
the only time you would EVER consider getting dwebs to break through static defense is during the mid game when you are on 2/3 base and no where near 200 army. if youre already sitting on a 200/200 army with floating resources and you are only now trying to break through a zerg base then i have news for you...youve probably already lost the game. and what jealous just said about wanting to use the gas in other units still applies anyways. you need reavers AND ht in a late game pvz. heck you could even use the gas in dt for the dark archons also. what do you plan on doing with dwebs when zerg is gonna bust out of his base in no time with ultraling and defilers with 4/5 bases fully saturated because you sat back doing nothing? also 5 hatch hydra and 4 base turtling are only similar in the way they open the builds, which is what i was talking about. at the point you want to be making a decision on whether to go for dwebs or not you probably wont have a good enough idea of what exactly zerg intends to do (turtle or try to control the map). by the time you find out its either too late to get dwebs or you could have dwebs against a mobile zerg army[/QUOTE] You're making a lot of assumptions based on a lot of x variables, and examples of Rain vs Larva show that Rain was desperately trying to take down Larva with his agression even though Rain was ahead, and made several bad trades. So no, sitting on a maxed out army with floating resources and good map control does not mean you are losing, quite the contrary. It means you either turtle yourself expand and starve out zerg, or invest in dweb and some more sairs if you lost them. I'm specifically talking about situations where I clearly see Protoss players like Rain ramming a lot of units to try to break zerg bases and defenses. Rain basically wasted a whole bunch of resources an entire army SEVERAL times for a negative return on his decision to atk while Larva had the most efficient trades even though Rain's macro almost broke Larva. It wouldn't be a stretch for Rain to invest just some of that wasted resources of suicided units to dwebs on corsairs if he just saved them in a safe location or just kept control of them. Most protoss stop caring about corsairs during mid to later game and focus more on ground army bc they have a full group of goons. What are you really investing? a Fleet beacon and dweb research and energy perhaps later on. So total resources at least for the initial investment for corsairs you already bought is 300/200 for fleet beacon and 200/200 for dweb. I think protoss care spare those resources esp when it's not 700 minerals and 400 gas all at once, it's not like they are storing away that much resources that they could've done with something totally different. It is basically another bill in the protoss budget spaced out and inserted naturally and reap the rewards if they manage to crack sunk spore line defense. If in sair reaver corsairs are more heavily invested and they do dwebs why is it such a stretch to imagine protoss utilizing dweb in more standard games? Sair Reaver is the most mobile type of strategy that protoss does against zerg, so even if zerg becomes more mobile esp with burrowed hydras, why is it stretch to imagine the possibility of standard games including it? And again, this is not to say that protoss should just blindly build back up their corsairs if they lost them carelessly to scourge and they are also losing the ground fight. It isn't simply one thing or the other, it obviously depends on the situation. And a lot of situations I see that could be remedied by a sound investment of dweb research if the conditions are right just like most other strategies or tactics. Protoss has the most powerful spells in this game, I think it's time Protoss players utilize them to the fullest potential even if it means prioritizing their apm a little different to accomodate more spellcaster units. We saw some innovation with Fantasy with the valkyries and mech switch in TvZ and queen broodling tank snipes on the zerg end. Isn't it about time Protoss does some innovation with the several underutilized abilities that perhaps have more potential than we thought? | ||
|
Jealous
10209 Posts
The fact of the matter is, by now I truly believe that almost every possible combination of units and spells and timings has been tested heavily during the KeSPA period. Do you really thing that during the multiple years where the 4 base turtle Zerg strategy was active, not one progamer, coach, or practice partner suggested or tested Corsairs for breaking static defense? That your idea is some revolutionary genius that no one had thought of before? | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
| ||
|
craz3d
Bulgaria856 Posts
| ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8745 Posts
On November 20 2017 09:25 craz3d wrote: How do you guys play as Terran on BGH when you know you're gonna get piled on by at least 2 players? It seems very difficult to keep a wall up against a 9pool without pulling 6-7 scvs. Usually there isn't enough room for them to all repair the depot and if you're in a position where the rine spawns on the outside of the wall its almost impossible to hold. walling in as terran is not that good for 2v2. if you do you have to go mech but you and your teammate is forced to play 1v2 until your mech becomes strong enough. (couple of vultures minimum) standard terran in a 2v2 is to just simcity around your command and go m&m. a proper simcity easily blocks 9pool and can stall against 2 players for long enough that your teammate can do damage elsewhere or back you up. | ||
|
shall_burn
252 Posts
On November 20 2017 13:14 evilfatsh1t wrote: walling in as terran is not that good for 2v2. if you do you have to go mech but you and your teammate is forced to play 1v2 until your mech becomes strong enough. (couple of vultures minimum) standard terran in a 2v2 is to just simcity around your command and go m&m. a proper simcity easily blocks 9pool and can stall against 2 players for long enough that your teammate can do damage elsewhere or back you up. do you go mnm if there is 1 terran in their team too? | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8745 Posts
from what i know mech depends highly on starting positions, race matchups and proximity to allies and enemy bases. going mech in 2v2 means your main unit is vultures, not tanks. therefore you need good positions to lay mines and block reinforcements and ideally race advantage so that youre up against melee units at the start. if you dont have these things its pretty hard to pull off mech as generally it seems you are too behind if your first joint attack gets defended because in the mid game mech needs a sizable army + good composition to become effective and youve already lost so many units. | ||
|
Dead9
United States4725 Posts
mnm is not standard in any TXvTX mu | ||
|
Jealous
10209 Posts
On November 17 2017 17:32 sheaRZerg wrote: Does anyone have a build order worked out for the hybrid 3 hatch lurker-muta builds that a few zergs have been using against Terran in the ASL? The one where they get about 3-4 hydras out before mutas to try to preempt the terran denying their third, and then get slightly delayed mutas to contest the map? Is there any significant difference sfrom the "fake 3 hatch muta" in terms of the timing of the tech structures? Should the hydras be built before the 3 overlords when you are building up supply for the mutas, or do you wait and use some of the 9 larva you would typically be pooling for the mutas? You can see eonzerg performing a variant of it in this rep pack (game is vs. Scan on Jade). Included are some other reps he wanted to share with the public when we co-casted. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0CsxFgmdGrHMEhBZ2t2eFBva1k/view?usp=sharing If you are interested in the cast of the replay involved (starts at ~31:00) or some others in the pack (both me and eon commentating): | ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
1. When you play standard and just macro up, other than simply defending against whatever toss might do (reavers, dts, bulldog), what else are we supposed to do during this time? I feel kinda confused during this period since it sometimes feels like I am playing singleplayer. I take my 3 bases and churn out tanks while turretting up. And then I move out and hope I win in favorable engagements. But I'd like to be more proactive during this period, I'd like to be able to punish Protoss and stop him from cutting corners. Could you tell me about some of the things you do when you notice something and what strategies you employ under certain circumstances? 2. In TvP, is it more important to get engi bay first or academy? I understand that you NEED engi bay since reaver threat is real, but what about academy? Should I just get that as late as possible or is there a use for them early on? | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8745 Posts
On November 20 2017 18:56 Golgotha wrote: Question about Terran Vs. Protoss. 1. When you play standard and just macro up, other than simply defending against whatever toss might do (reavers, dts, bulldog), what else are we supposed to do during this time? I feel kinda confused during this period since it sometimes feels like I am playing singleplayer. I take my 3 bases and churn out tanks while turretting up. And then I move out and hope I win in favorable engagements. But I'd like to be more proactive during this period, I'd like to be able to punish Protoss and stop him from cutting corners. Could you tell me about some of the things you do when you notice something and what strategies you employ under certain circumstances? 2. In TvP, is it more important to get engi bay first or academy? I understand that you NEED engi bay since reaver threat is real, but what about academy? Should I just get that as late as possible or is there a use for them early on? theres nothing standard about the way terran has to play vs protoss. it looks fairly easy because you just hide behind mine fields and buildings with tanks and just sit until you hit 200/200 and 2-1 upgrades, but in reality everything youre doing is in reaction to what you see protoss is doing. firstly, you want to use your scans as effectively as possible. part of why flash is so god with terran is that scans give him free information and he knows exactly what to look for and when to look for it. some things you could be looking for are gateway timings, carrier tech, arbiter tech timings, expo timings and army movement. when and where to look for them is situational and comes from game sense. basically anything you do from this point is in response to what you see from your scans. if you see him focusing on gateways rather than taking an expo at the "expected" timing, you can assume he plans on hitting 200/200 and brute forcing you before you have a comparable army and upgrades up. if you see him getting carriers, obviously you start looking at goliaths. if you see greedy expansions, you can look to harass bases with vultures or look for probes in the middle of the map as they transfer bases. you can also be assured that your inevitable push with your upgrade timings are probably going to hit a little harder. it also really important that you dont waste resources on things like turrets for example when youre turtling. terran sits back until they have their big army with its upgrades but you have to be very efficient with your resources to get your 2-1 ASAP and 200/200 asap. even if protoss takes 5-6 bases they have to know theyre racing against the clock to get buildings and resources up before terran pushes out. bisu's 3rd? game against flash on fs is a great example of how much pressure falls on toss to do significant damage. no matter how fast toss is with expansions, if a terran is equally as good with resource management protoss doesnt actually have that much breathing room. tl;dr play in response to toss. hassle him where you can, cut corners yourself and just focus on cleaning up your own macro and base management as much as possible. thats plenty to do while you "simply defend" its also better to get academy first when possible rather than ebay. earlier scans are always better than static defence. against randoms its situational and often required to get one or the other fairly quickly (maybe even both) because you dont know what the opponent is going to do. if youre vsing someone you always vs though (like how pros vs each other all the time), you see a lot of terrans skip ebay for a while because they know the opponent is probably going to choose to play macro rather than get quick reaver/dt. | ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
This really changes my mindset about the matchup. What you said about hiding behind mines and buildings is exactly how I have been playing >_<. I'm gonna scan more from now on and play by reacting to the toss, instead of not caring wtf he is doing. I usually scan for expos, but I've rarely been scouting his main since I truly felt like it didn't matter what he was doing. Funny you mention that game, I was actually there live and I felt like Flash was playing singleplayer. Bisu had so many bases and a huge army, but once 200/200, Flash moved out and crushed bisu. Even the commentators mentioned that "Terran doesn't care what the protoss is doing, terran just focuses on getting what he needs and then hit the timing." Bisu couldn't do shit against flash taking the 3rd or getting good harass opportunities. Flash was like a castle in that game. unbreakable. thanks for your help man. | ||
|
shall_burn
252 Posts
I was watching a stream, and it made me think about it. Because it costs you 100$, more, if you decide to go for more manner pylons. Also, you actually lose 100/200/300 minerals in the end, but the opponent is only slightly prevented from mining, and his minerals are still there. You could've built more units for this money, in the end. So the picture is not clear for me. On the other hand, such thing exists, and people use it, it can't be without a reason! | ||
|
molotow[eef]
Germany81 Posts
But there are non-economic effects of manner pylons that can easily make up for that: - psychologic edge. - Forcing units. - binding units away from the ramp. - Scout on nexus/gas, units, (other buildings). - in case of rush build - creating a dilemma for the opponent. - Potential of fucking up opponents build. - vision to min line for delayed min-walk. | ||
|
james1024
118 Posts
ZvT:3 hatch muta into whatever I can eek out before he sunken busts me with tank and/or marine. ZvP: July build, 9pool speed into mass drone into improvised 30 hydra, into lurker lace pressure. ZvZ: Gosh, why is my Savior 12h in base strategy failing? I want to cry | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28701 Posts
You also picked the hardest race! | ||
|
Moopower
128 Posts
On November 20 2017 03:29 Jealous wrote: @Moopower at the end of the day, Sair/Reaver was only good on a small subset of maps and the Disruption Web was simply a tool to make that work. Note how it wasn't used for busting Zerg's front, as far as I can recall, even in games where Sair/Reaver were the focus for the entire game until Carrier switch. I invite you to give some substance to your claims by finding at least one progaming VOD which utilizes it (and no, the pppp Pimpest Play doesn't count), because right now it just feels like you are a low level player theorycrafting; while there is nothing wrong with that, if you're going to argue for so long, it becomes a matter of proof. If not progamer VODs, then perhaps your own VODs/reps? Or those of high level foreigners? Or maybe you can at least get some high level foreigners to try it, or at least weigh in on it? The onus of proof is on you. The fact of the matter is, by now I truly believe that almost every possible combination of units and spells and timings has been tested heavily during the KeSPA period. Do you really thing that during the multiple years where the 4 base turtle Zerg strategy was active, not one progamer, coach, or practice partner suggested or tested Corsairs for breaking static defense? That your idea is some revolutionary genius that no one had thought of before? Of course my position is to say that progamers aren't innovating enough, so by taking this position, I'm not going to find any VODs of progamers doing that said thing. So no the burden of proof is not on me, it is simply an observation and my opinion of what could be possible, based on math of resources and investing strategies, since it has not been shown to be tested at high level play it can't be proven wrong or right either way. You assume the position that during the kespa era that the coaches and players have tested several tactics and abilities/strats when you can't prove it unless you yourself have interviewed the coaches/players themselves or have VODs, so if you are going to assume that yourself ironically you'd have the burden of proof. I'd argue that the players/coaches would be more motivated in having the players win rather than try to experiment with something that may or may not work. It may take several attempts or testing periods to fully gain the benefits of such a strategy. If I remember correctly JD had said queens were good but took a lot of multitasking to an already taxing match up in ZvT. So who knows if JD would have continued the trend and path he could've gotten a more refined play out of it. So it can really go both ways, either the players/coaches can experiment to try to find an advantage that's easy to win with or could take time to perfect or they go with the way they know how to win to maximize their practices. ou expect to get a return of any sort of type of play whether it's aggression or economical play. I don't have to be a progamer to analyze a game, which is equivalent to saying to any sports fan they can't comprehend pro player's plays and their stats of how they could improve. The sport's fan own skill of how they could execute the play has no bearing on what they can analyze, same with coaches with any type of sport. If you were to remain consistent with your logic, by that standard, coaches who aren't as good as a progamer shouldn't be able to help them improve. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8745 Posts
On November 22 2017 09:15 Moopower wrote: Of course my position is to say that progamers aren't innovating enough, so by taking this position, I'm not going to find any VODs of progamers doing that said thing. So no the burden of proof is not on me, it is simply an observation and my opinion of what could be possible, based on math of resources and investing strategies, since it has not been shown to be tested at high level play it can't be proven wrong or right either way. You assume the position that during the kespa era that the coaches and players have tested several tactics and abilities/strats when you can't prove it unless you yourself have interviewed the coaches/players themselves or have VODs, so if you are going to assume that yourself ironically you'd have the burden of proof. I'd argue that the players/coaches would be more motivated in having the players win rather than try to experiment with something that may or may not work. It may take several attempts or testing periods to fully gain the benefits of such a strategy. If I remember correctly JD had said queens were good but took a lot of multitasking to an already taxing match up in ZvT. So who knows if JD would have continued the trend and path he could've gotten a more refined play out of it. So it can really go both ways, either the players/coaches can experiment to try to find an advantage that's easy to win with or could take time to perfect or they go with the way they know how to win to maximize their practices. ou expect to get a return of any sort of type of play whether it's aggression or economical play. I don't have to be a progamer to analyze a game, which is equivalent to saying to any sports fan they can't comprehend pro player's plays and their stats of how they could improve. The sport's fan own skill of how they could execute the play has no bearing on what they can analyze, same with coaches with any type of sport. If you were to remain consistent with your logic, by that standard, coaches who aren't as good as a progamer shouldn't be able to help them improve. dont fall into the common mistake of thinking you are good at a game and have thought of something revolutionary that others havent. what usually is the case in these scenarios is the amateur player is actually bad and simply refuses to accept that his theorycrafting has already been tried and tested and isnt being applied in games for perfectly legitimate reasons. do you really think up to 100+ pro starcraft players who spent 10+ hours playing starcraft EVERY day for years havent thought of every single combination of units and builds in order to get an advantage over their opponents? stop thinking youre a step ahead and start accepting that things are done for a reason and arent done for a reason. the game has been around long enough and the cumulative hours put into it from the professional playerbase is way too massive for you to say youre a prodigy and youve thought of something that others havent. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28701 Posts
There's no real good reason why zergs don't at least occasionally use parasite in zvp, for example. I mean, the real reason is that implementing it in your game takes a while to do and while you're transitioning into adding it, it makes you play worse because you're deviating from the pure muscle memory, so you end up spending time looking for your queen etc, and your first 50 games doing it, it might overall make you play worse.. But once that hurdle has been passed, building one queen after you start your hive just to parasite an archon to either make him kill an archon, put it in a shuttle or give you perfect overview over his army movement? It's obviously worth it. | ||
| ||
