|
On February 18 2020 08:45 Moopower wrote:
DA need to be a regular part of the Protoss Army to feedback defilers and maelstroms are good alongside with storms. Protoss is the race with the most special abilities. So we should use our skills to our advantage, rather than try to compete purely in numbers. When my Corsairs survive or I have enough bank to rebuild a small fleet, I get fleet beacon and get d-web researched. You get energy upgrade first and then d-web because energy upgrade takes longer and you'll get d-web researched quickly anyways. D-web is very good for helping you take out sunk/spore/lurker stronghold bases. Your goons just destroy hatcheries from afar or if you can take them head on with the d-webs then you steamroll them while your zealots survive that much longer to deal with the speedlings.
1 D-web can take out a couple sunks at least since they are usually clumped up, maybe paired with a lurker,etc. Instead of suiciding a lot of your army to try to force your way through the turtle style, d-web gives your army more survivability, making you waste less money in the long run imo than having to reinforce more heavily and try to compete with Zerg in macro.
So why aren't pros doing these things regularly?
|
Norway28804 Posts
Because they're flawed, tbh. Feedback should be used at least pvp and pvz, protosses who keep their sair fleet should get dweb for busting sunken spore lurker fields pvz, and maelstrom should be used pvz. They also should get parasite almost every zvp, ensnare in certain scenarios zvt and a few scenarios zvp..
If you go 20 years back in time and look at 1v1, people were only using storm and irradiate all that regularly. The next couple years, some zergs started adding dark swarm, some terrans would occasionally use dmatrix, and protoss started implementing arbiters. Eventually, zergs started using plague against ground armies. But I think between 1998 and 2006, during which time I played thousands of games, also against progamers and top european and north american players, I virtually never ran into a zerg who plagued my ground armies.. Similarly, it took several years before terrans started using emp to counter arbiters, even though people always knew that EMP removes energy from spellcasters.. Further, some people argued that zergs should use ensnare in zvt back in 2003 - 17 years later, Soma is at it. Lockdown has some niche uses vs arbiter and carrier too, but it's hard to implement new stuff.
Brood war is incredibly mechanically demanding and deviating from your regular style of play means you can't rely on muscle memory to execute in the same way. This normally makes people play quite a bit worse in games where they try new strategies or try to implement new units, which makes them less willing or able to keep utilizing those strategies or units until they become part of their muscle memory. So it makes a lot of sense that people are uncomfortable trying new stuff, even that they abandon a failed strat or unit. But there's no reason to believe the current level of strategic evolution represents the pinnacle of brood war strategy. DAs are already used significantly more in pvz than they were 3 years ago - but people who argued that they should be used more frequently 3 years ago would be met by 'so why aren't pros using them more'? Emp as a counter to broodling has seemed like a kinda absurd theorycraft - but it's actually really good.
Like, don't get me wrong. I get your impulse - there are usually very valid reasons why progamers aren't doing x thingy that random poster y theorizes that they should be doing. But in this case, random poster y actually has a couple very valid suggestions. Feedback is great vs defilers and templars.
Likewise, getting dweb with your sairs pvz, it's like, there's a certain scenario where it seems absolutely obvious to me that this should be good and used more frequently - think about all the games you've seen where a protoss has 3 control groups of goon templar zealot with 6+ corsairs and zerg is waiting for defiler but barely holding on to their third and fourth behind 6 sunkens and 5 lurkers, which protoss can't fully engage, but at the same time, zerg absolutely cannot contest protoss' main army at this stage. It seems absolutely obvious to me that spending 500-400 on 6 dwebs with another 6 following shortly after is going to improve your army's ability to bust that natural base more than adding two templars two dragoons and two zealots would. Now, you can't reinvest in a sair fleet to do this, that doesn't work. But if you never lost it? There's no question that there are scenarios where it would be wise to do it, but where players don't do it because they just a) didn't think about it b) aren't used to doing it c) have't figured out how to time the transition. Add to it that the first times you do it you might experience miscontrol (spending time dwebbing where you should have been storming) and it really makes sense that people are way more static in their approach to the game than what they 'technically should be' from a strategically idealized perspective.
|
On February 18 2020 10:02 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Because they're flawed, tbh. Feedback should be used at least pvp and pvz, protosses who keep their sair fleet should get dweb for busting sunken spore lurker fields pvz, and maelstrom should be used pvz. They also should get parasite almost every zvp, ensnare in certain scenarios zvt and a few scenarios zvp..
If you go 20 years back in time and look at 1v1, people were only using storm and irradiate all that regularly. The next couple years, some zergs started adding dark swarm, some terrans would occasionally use dmatrix, and protoss started implementing arbiters. Eventually, zergs started using plague against ground armies. But I think between 1998 and 2006, during which time I played thousands of games, also against progamers and top european and north american players, I virtually never ran into a zerg who plagued my ground armies.. Similarly, it took several years before terrans started using emp to counter arbiters, even though people always knew that EMP removes energy from spellcasters.. Further, some people argued that zergs should use ensnare in zvt back in 2003 - 17 years later, Soma is at it. Lockdown has some niche uses vs arbiter and carrier too, but it's hard to implement new stuff.
Brood war is incredibly mechanically demanding and deviating from your regular style of play means you can't rely on muscle memory to execute in the same way. This normally makes people play quite a bit worse in games where they try new strategies or try to implement new units, which makes them less willing or able to keep utilizing those strategies or units until they become part of their muscle memory. So it makes a lot of sense that people are uncomfortable trying new stuff, even that they abandon a failed strat or unit. But there's no reason to believe the current level of strategic evolution represents the pinnacle of brood war strategy. DAs are already used significantly more in pvz than they were 3 years ago - but people who argued that they should be used more frequently 3 years ago would be met by 'so why aren't pros using them more'? Emp as a counter to broodling has seemed like a kinda absurd theorycraft - but it's actually really good.
Like, don't get me wrong. I get your impulse - there are usually very valid reasons why progamers aren't doing x thingy that random poster y theorizes that they should be doing. But in this case, random poster y actually has a couple very valid suggestions. Feedback is great vs defilers and templars.
Likewise, getting dweb with your sairs pvz, it's like, there's a certain scenario where it seems absolutely obvious to me that this should be good and used more frequently - think about all the games you've seen where a protoss has 3 control groups of goon templar zealot with 6+ corsairs and zerg is waiting for defiler but barely holding on to their third and fourth behind 6 sunkens and 5 lurkers, which protoss can't fully engage, but at the same time, zerg absolutely cannot contest protoss' main army at this stage. It seems absolutely obvious to me that spending 500-400 on 6 dwebs with another 6 following shortly after is going to improve your army's ability to bust that natural base more than adding two templars two dragoons and two zealots would. Now, you can't reinvest in a sair fleet to do this, that doesn't work. But if you never lost it? There's no question that there are scenarios where it would be wise to do it, but where players don't do it because they just a) didn't think about it b) aren't used to doing it c) have't figured out how to time the transition. Add to it that the first times you do it you might experience miscontrol (spending time dwebbing where you should have been storming) and it really makes sense that people are way more static in their approach to the game than what they 'technically should be' from a strategically idealized perspective.
"But there's no reason to believe the current level of strategic evolution represents the pinnacle of brood war strategy."
I don't think that there is nowhere left to go. However, I think progamers have already tried every possible combination of things that there is in the game over the 20+ years it has had a pro scene. I don't think that there is a future in which they collectively smack their foreheads and think, "How did we ever not see this coming?"
JangBi used maelstrom on HBR in what, 2010 or so? Boxer used lockdown on Arbiter, as did HiyA, around the same time. No revolution followed, and I think it is too cynical to write it off as stubbornness or an inability to develop the muscle memory when trying to win at the game was a legitimate full time job for them, with overtime. I think that the answer is likely something that we can't readily arrive at because we still to this day don't understand the game st a level that approaches what the pros know (to varying degrees of course, with all due respect).
The 3/3/07 revolution was borne from a gradual progression and combination of known tactics and strategies, and popularized by a massive success with a form of that strategy that worked at the top level. We don't have anything of that nature for the suggestions made above, and it isn't for lack of venue and history of use in pro matches.
|
Norway28804 Posts
Boxer used lockdown and Giyom used mass maelstrom back in like 2003 or whatever, too. Then very little until 2010, then very little between 2010 and 2017 or whatever, and now? I see it very frequently - I think something like one third of both zvp and pvz games I see and play (meaning it's not just me building them, but my opponents, too, and that includes the short ones) involve DA. Progamers were already much better in 2010 than I am today, yet strategic evolution seems to have happened for them anyway.
Dweb vs zerg is highly circumstantial, I don't think it's ever gonna be a stable strategy for pvz (and it might happen even less frequently as more protosses are abandoning corsairs for DA as anti-muta play), but I think playing strategically optimally, it'd be worth the investment in something like 5% of regular forge FE games. But if something is only optimal 5% of the time, it means even if you do the strategically optimal option every time, you will be sorely under-practiced, and the execution will be sub-optimal, which leads you to believe that it wasn't strategically optimal either. But I'm pretty convinced that it can be.
The best example of what I am talking about however, that most people are just too set in their ways to really evolve their play because deviating is difficult, is parasite vs protoss post-hive. There is no coherent argument from a 'cost effectiveness' or 'difficulty of adding this cost to your build order' to be made against building one queen instead of your 26th lurker so you can throw down parasite on some archons or shuttles or corsairs. It's really, really good, yet people virtually never do it. It should be done in 95% of pvz games going beyond 15 minutes, but being generous, it's more like 1%.
I mean I didn't see much queen hydra vs mech 2+ years ago and when I recommended that, some version of 'it sucks, pros aren't doing this for a reason' was a common refrain. Now I see it all the time - granted, they still open muta before getting there. And, during this period of strategic evolution, I have also seen a lot of players that are a lot better than me in general fail because they're not used to using queens the way I am, leading to them for example not knowing how far away from a tank group they should have their queens before initiating broodling clone, leading to them sending 8 queens and only getting off 4 broodlings, shit like that. The thing is that game is so incredibly deep that there is still a lot of option for improvement. The first 9 minutes are pretty damn fleshed out, but play post that stage is still so chaotic nearly everybody is still highly flawed.
|
I think a common mistake at lower levels is that you have to push into Zerg's defense lategame like a Terran would in TvP. It helps a lot to change your focus to just trading efficiently- storm lurkers/lings, force a few swarms, and go pressure another base while expanding and harassing their economy. Bleeding zerg out is more effective than just trying to kill them in a one punch attack especially after hive.
|
Russian Federation121 Posts
Is psi storm alone good enough for PvT late games? I am look for alternative to arbiter.
|
The only alternative "alone" to arbiter is carriers. But you still need a healthy ground army to support that because going for carriers does not automatically wins you the game. Instead it throws the terran player into having to balance his ground force and his goliath count to match your ground force + carriers combo. Too few goliaths your carriers will wipe his army, too many goliaths and your ground forces will overwhelm because of not enough splash damage. This is your only real alternative, but I'd argue that carrier play is actually trickier than arbiter play since you really need to know what upgrades to go for and when since you usually do not have the luxury to just get +3 weaps as fast as you might be used to. But my honest advice would be keep trying to make arb play work, it is probably not a problem with the arbiter control but your macro/earlier game decisions that lead to the fights that you feel overwhelmed.
tldr;
No, storm alone is not good enough. You could try to mix carriers with your ground forces but that is harder imo than arb play. Keep going with the arbs, maybe submit a few replays showing why you want to find an alternative to arb play and what does not work for you and I'm sure way better Ps and Ts than me will give you pointers on what to improve. Spolier: it is most likely not the arbiters' fault.
|
On February 24 2020 22:35 MisterBoba wrote:
Is psi storm alone good enough for PvT late games? I am look for alternative to arbiter.
I hope I can speak for y2k if I say that the "no" to "storm only" in lategame is a soft "no", or theoretical "no", depending on your level especially.
Storm can definitelly win you lategames, shorter lategames that is or such in which Terran struggles to deal with the HTs. The AoE-damage is just so much that it can always turn the tide, maybe a bit more coin-flippy than arbiters, but still.
Especially if you're B rank or lower or something where Terrans struggle to execute everything correctly. A lot of stuff that "shouldn't work" can work there. (But don't forget Jangbi...).
If you're good at setting up engagements, then a few good storms on clustered (hastily sieged) tanks can win you a big battle, as long as your army overall can stand up to the terran's. And winning one engagement is oftentimes all it takes to gain a massive lead in TvP lategame. You stop the Terran's first big push in its tracks, expand twice, build 10 more gates, etc.
Next time he/she comes, he/she will be on one mining base and you will have more than enough resources to throw one or two armies at the push.
Quick definition: I consider TvP lategame the time when both players are maxed, Terran on 3 bases, Protoss on 4-5 bases, Terran has +2/+1 upgrades, Protoss has lategame-tech up, Terran makes a big push and tries to secure a 4h base.
If Terran managed to take additional bases and Protoss has the rest of the map and starts to switch to carriers/mass recall, then I'd call that super-lategame.
edit: Templars are great for harrassment (storm-drops) and base-defense (storm down the ramp), too.
One problem with them if you want to use them for big battles in the lategame is that they're so fragile, easily sniped with vultures, or EMPd of course. You'd have to shuttle them in.
|
Yes, with highgamer's definition of late game PvT I'm willing to change my answer to a "maybe". I often resort to storm and no arbiters as a counter for a terran that I scout is going for a very early push and my arbs are either not going to be out in time or will not have stasis nrj. In such cases getting storm is fine since HTs build faster, and require less energy to cast their ability, and teching into storm takes less time. In those cases having storm can really turn the tide of the battle and in some rare cases there might be an opening for you to finish the game right then and there. So if you consider that late game, sure. But in the more common cases if that happens and you hold you're ahead and going for the throat might be the best way to throw away your advantage. Instead, getting more ahead (by teching into arbs, for example, and expanding more) is more forgiving to some mistakes that you might make. ( I do stupid shit all the time. But once are able to evaluate that what you did was stupid I'd say is a step in the correct direction.)
|
exactly what minute does mutas pop at 3 hatch muta vs terran?
|
On February 26 2020 01:34 LfunkGG wrote:
exactly what minute does mutas pop at 3 hatch muta vs terran?
usually somewhere between 6:30-6:40.
|
Russian Federation121 Posts
When I am to play PvT, Terran will do 3 base 1-2 timing attack. I have 5 base and 25+ gateway. But they kill my max army, is normal from a max T army. But then they siege outside my main base and kill me. I have large bank but they trade so efficient. 20+ tank.
What is the good way to play against 1-2 3 base (all-in)? I get storm and usually am to have 1-2 stasis ready. Recall is meh vs this.
Before, I try attack as soon as I max but on certain map like FS this is not possible because bridge.
|
On February 27 2020 06:39 MisterBoba wrote:
When I am to play PvT, Terran will do 3 base 1-2 timing attack. I have 5 base and 25+ gateway. But they kill my max army, is normal from a max T army. But then they siege outside my main base and kill me. I have large bank but they trade so efficient. 20+ tank.
What is the good way to play against 1-2 3 base (all-in)? I get storm and usually am to have 1-2 stasis ready. Recall is meh vs this.
Before, I try attack as soon as I max but on certain map like FS this is not possible because bridge.
It must be something with the way you engage or with your decision-making. Provide a replay for better help.
If Terran's push went really well and reached your natural with 20+ tanks:
Don't waste your units in consecutive frontal attacks on Terran's fully entrenched maxed army.
Counter-attack their 3rd, 4th and main-base. Recall is not "meh" against this if you don't overdo it.
Make it as costly as possible for them to get up into your mainbase if they choose to do so (with storms, stasis, just gateway-units on top of the ramp).
If you have to, rebuild your base (tech, pylon, gates) at another main and take more expansions.
Also: Generally people say "2/1 timing attack" because it's common to name the attack-upgrades first. And 3base 2/1-upgrade TvP is not an all-in.
|
Does anyone know if Flash will participate in ASL 9? I checked liquipedia and it shows him seeded in the round of 16 so I'm not sure if he has officially forfeited yet. I know he said ASL 8 would be his last tournament but I'm curious..
|
|
|
Russian Federation121 Posts
Is viable to get 80-90 Probe in PvT and just constantly attack when you max, do recalls, etc? Many gateway and probe, just gogo with eco?
|
no, absolute max is 70 but when you're on 5 bases you should aim to have 1 probe per patch at all your bases
personally i like to stop at around 60-65, i usually stop making probes after my 4th is up
|
South Africa381 Posts
Is there a way to currently create two instances of Starcraft Remastered? I would like to watch replays while waiting in the matchmaker queue if possible.
Alternatively, is there a way of viewing current Starcraft Remastered replays through an older version of Starcraft using Chaos plugins / ICCup Launchers?
|
Russian Federation121 Posts
On March 02 2020 21:12 Hoender wrote:
Is there a way to currently create two instances of Starcraft Remastered? I would like to watch replays while waiting in the matchmaker queue if possible.
Alternatively, is there a way of viewing current Starcraft Remastered replays through an older version of Starcraft using Chaos plugins / ICCup Launchers?
You can always use Sandboxie https://download.cnet.com/Sandboxie/3000-2144_4-10371434.html
install, then right click run with sandboxie on starcraft.
|
Russian Federation121 Posts
On March 02 2020 16:00 TT1 wrote:
no, absolute max is 70 but when you're on 5 bases you should aim to have 1 probe per patch at all your bases
personally i like to stop at around 60-65, i usually stop making probes after my 4th is up
Sorry but why is not viable? “A weaker max army” is the common explanation but make no sense here because you will always attack as soon as you max, preferably keeping T at around 160 supply range.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
