On October 05 2023 04:37 SwordM13X24 wrote: Why don't Zerg use more Queens even if it's against SK Terran?
My main theory in mind is for Parasites and faster Command Center take downs. There's no other further tech investments to research the other upgrades nor is it out of the way if a Zerg goes for Hive anyways. The niches of the 2 other functions still has some value.
My first guess would be the APM limitations, but is that really it?
parasite is useless because T can just restore. you won’t infest CC really unless you go hydra late game, because T will just lift CC vs ultra/ling. ensnare is so weak compared to plague, and plagued MM sometimes beats Z armies anyways
best use for queens is vs mech, or ultra+ensnare if you use soma’s crazy zerg style
On September 21 2023 14:32 Kar98 wrote: What's the reason for why ghosts can't be used to shutdown arbiter recalls? Countering with vessels seems really inconsistent due to EMPs long cast time. Less supply and slightly cheaper too (although you need to tech into an extra line)
Probably because of positioning, mobility and vision: arbiters and vessels move and see over cliffs, ghosts and other ground units do not.
Edit: btw OP maybe it would make sense to use a "hard counter / soft counter" vocabulary instead of somehing "fundamental reason", which sounds like an incredibly muddy term.
Why don't we see way more vessels in TvT mid-late game? If you get just 2 or 3 d-matrix in tank battles per vessel, they've probably paid their gas cost back in tank efficiency, and leave you with 200 extra minerals for whatever. Plus the vision, detection, and forcing the opponent to make AA, and it's not unbelievable to get more than 3 effective d-matrix.
Most TvT go to late game anyway, so it should be ok to sacrifice the tempo for efficiency. And d-matrix shines best in mitigating the opponents defender's advantage. In an aggressive push, a matrix on the front tank can soak 4 tank shots, basically worth 2 extra tanks by itself, because you would have otherwise lost 2 tanks before any of your tanks could shoot.
And it's not like vessels are fragile, so the opponent would need a serious AA investment to punish you and stop you from eventually getting your 2-3 matrix per vessel.
On October 08 2023 00:55 jrkirby wrote: Why don't we see way more vessels in TvT mid-late game? If you get just 2 or 3 d-matrix in tank battles per vessel, they've probably paid their gas cost back in tank efficiency, and leave you with 200 extra minerals for whatever. Plus the vision, detection, and forcing the opponent to make AA, and it's not unbelievable to get more than 3 effective d-matrix.
Most TvT go to late game anyway, so it should be ok to sacrifice the tempo for efficiency. And d-matrix shines best in mitigating the opponents defender's advantage. In an aggressive push, a matrix on the front tank can soak 4 tank shots, basically worth 2 extra tanks by itself, because you would have otherwise lost 2 tanks before any of your tanks could shoot.
And it's not like vessels are fragile, so the opponent would need a serious AA investment to punish you and stop you from eventually getting your 2-3 matrix per vessel.
I suspect that if you have extra gas to invest in air units, maybe battle cruisers or a wraith transition is more effective.
On October 05 2023 04:37 SwordM13X24 wrote: Why don't Zerg use more Queens even if it's against SK Terran?
My main theory in mind is for Parasites and faster Command Center take downs. There's no other further tech investments to research the other upgrades nor is it out of the way if a Zerg goes for Hive anyways. The niches of the 2 other functions still has some value.
My first guess would be the APM limitations, but is that really it?
The real answer is they're not familiar with using them and it's a distracting limitation until you are. If someone starts experimenting with queens vs bio they'll experience that when you should get them isn't fully mapped out, so they have to figure that out themselves, you need to have your queens hotkeyed for them to really be useable, and otherwise they'll spend 3 seconds looking for them when they need them and then miss out on some other important action - > and then the queens end up backfiring. Myself though I've probably built more queens than defilers zvt, and while I'd never argue that the queen is as good as the defiler is, I've maintained - for about 20 years now - that it's the most underutilized unit in brood war.
In zvt, ensnare is very good vs sk terran, and if you always make a queen, you'll notice that it happens somewhat regularly that you're able to take a cc that otherwise got floated. Hydra lurker queen is a bit tricky to get to (need competitive upgrades), but if you get there, it's competitive vs everything terran can throw at you. Ensnared marines get slaughtered by hydra lurker, tanks are broodlingable, and ensnared vessels actually get picked off. But - admittingly, it's very hard to get there from a muta opening. But when you see some game where a zerg is doing hydra lurker defiler from 3-4 gas, there's no question that, if he's a competent queen user, he'd benefit from making 2 queens just for ensnare.
Parasite isn't really worth it though. It's worth it vs mech for a single cloned broodling attack, but generally the first parasite results in restore being researched and then it doesn't do anything after.
Parasite is, however, a criminally underused spell in ZvP. Parasite two archons and you'll have perfect view of protoss' army movement. Protoss doesn't actually have a counter. Technically they can put parasited units in shuttles but if you make protoss have to unload archons at the start of battles instead of casting storms, that's a pretty big win for you. Additionally, queens are fantastic in the post-dragoon stage, when p is fighting with archon templar zealot. Zergs adding queens here, for parasiting archons and shuttles, broodlinging templars and ensnaring everything is imo the single area where brood war still has most room for strategical evolution.
Why don't Protoss add more reavers into their late-game armies vs Zerg? It feels like Protoss rely too much on storm with gateway unit support which seem to fight poorly against lurkers with dark swarm and hydra/crackling support. Even more-so when Zerg sets up defensive positions with chokes, sim cities, static defense, lurkers, dark swarms and nydus canals for quick reinforcements. Once the game is at a point where Zerg has secured 4+ bases with Hive tech, it seems like reavers are the obvious choice to attack into expansions and prevent the Zerg from overpowering Protoss with 10+ hatcheries, endless plagues, and waves of cheap, cost-effective units. I suppose preventing Zerg from ever reaching that point could be better strategically and it's very difficult to micro both HT and reavers, but trying to bust Zerg defensive positions with the standard storm + gateway units seems like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
On October 16 2023 11:34 PaxViaAtomi wrote: Why don't Protoss add more reavers into their late-game armies vs Zerg? It feels like Protoss rely too much on storm with gateway unit support which seem to fight poorly against lurkers with dark swarm and hydra/crackling support. Even more-so when Zerg sets up defensive positions with chokes, sim cities, static defense, lurkers, dark swarms and nydus canals for quick reinforcements. Once the game is at a point where Zerg has secured 4+ bases with Hive tech, it seems like reavers are the obvious choice to attack into expansions and prevent the Zerg from overpowering Protoss with 10+ hatcheries, endless plagues, and waves of cheap, cost-effective units. I suppose preventing Zerg from ever reaching that point could be better strategically and it's very difficult to micro both HT and reavers, but trying to bust Zerg defensive positions with the standard storm + gateway units seems like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Reaver is common vs hive Zerg. The issue is it s really hard to tech into it without your 3rd and 4th gas running so you can't easily add it to a 2 base move out. Late late game it s actually more or less standard to place a robo at any new expansion and have reavers there.
Eri btw, love your detailed post on queen usage vs bio.
In that situation, what is your queen upgrade path? Energy-ensnare-broodling?
Getting your ht broodlinged as P is "the woooooorst", i m glad it s not used often. Had some crazy games devolve into da + feedback vs queen + broodling while all the rest was going on.
I'll get early energi when missing queens vs much, but vs bio i don't make that many. Normally ensnare then broodling, sometimes broodling then ensnare if I'm getting them as anti-tank.
I feel like Queens might be more useful late game against Protoss.
Unlike ZvT where you might run Queens to counter mech, in PvZ the Protoss player is forced to go HT as it is a mandatory unit. Also late game they might go Reaver as well. Both of which can be sniped by Spawn Broodling.
Now one could instead invest in a group of mutas or more hydralisks to perform the same role but I feel that would cost even more resources since the Protoss player will try to defend their HTs and they would simply end up sacrificing a bunch of units. Using Queens instead guarantees that the HTs will die and if Protoss has no HTs to cast storm then they just lose. As such one could make only a couple Queens with the sole purpose of taking out HTs and maybe ensaring the opposing army which could be just as deadly as a plague. Since a slowed army means it can't run away.
The additional benefits this has is that it would force the Protoss player to invest more into Corsairs and maybe even Dark Archons. Which the Zerg player should have no issues with and the latter of which is a big positive as Dark Archons aren't that useful outside of casting Feedback.
Reavers can't be broodlinged. But killing templars, parasiting a few expensive units and potentially ensnare on archon groups are all massively useful.
Dark archons do counter queens quite handily. There's a possibility that real mass queen is less of an option than I like to think it is because of the power of feedback. But even if that is the case, getting 1-2 queens for parasite is most definitely a viable option. (And tbh I think if you have parasite, then a cloned broodling attack is going to be an option, too.)
The mid game stage is too frantic btw, this is only something I recommend, but which I've done myself with great success, in the late game stage where protoss has transitioned out of mass goon into zealot templar archon reaver. In that scenario, broodling+ensnare are better options than what plague is. (Not that you necessarily have to choose - part of the benefit of parasite is that plague becomes much easier to get off)
On October 05 2023 04:37 SwordM13X24 wrote: Why don't Zerg use more Queens even if it's against SK Terran?
My main theory in mind is for Parasites and faster Command Center take downs. There's no other further tech investments to research the other upgrades nor is it out of the way if a Zerg goes for Hive anyways. The niches of the 2 other functions still has some value.
My first guess would be the APM limitations, but is that really it?
This is a famous game where queen + ensnare is used against bionic.
Also this is the interview after the game where Jaedong was asked about queens tl.net His answer was that one reason they aren't used as much is that they require a lot of attention which might throw off a player but can be good when used at the right timing.
I honestly question Dark Archons ability to counter Queens.
On paper their feedback allows them to easily kill Queens before they are able to Spawn Broodlings on targets. However, as a whole I view it as a win for Zerg as Dark Archons are expensive to make, take time to make and take up 4 pop. This allows Zerg to have a bigger army than Protoss that's more versatile due to Dark Archons taking up space.
On top of that Dark Archons use outside of countering Queens is niche. While Queens are more accessible and counter Protoss's HT which is a key unit in a Protoss army. Meaning a Queen taking out a HT can heavily sway a battle in Zergs favor. Meanwhile if a DA takes out a Queen then it's not that big of a deal. The risk/reward for Dark Archon v Queens seems to be heavily favored for Zerg even if it is a counter.
I'd probably try to make 2-3 Queens which should be the amount of HTs Protoss will generally have in their army comp around mid game. Mass Queens are something I don't think will ever be viable for PvZ.
On October 16 2023 11:34 PaxViaAtomi wrote: Why don't Protoss add more reavers into their late-game armies vs Zerg? It feels like Protoss rely too much on storm with gateway unit support which seem to fight poorly against lurkers with dark swarm and hydra/crackling support. Even more-so when Zerg sets up defensive positions with chokes, sim cities, static defense, lurkers, dark swarms and nydus canals for quick reinforcements. Once the game is at a point where Zerg has secured 4+ bases with Hive tech, it seems like reavers are the obvious choice to attack into expansions and prevent the Zerg from overpowering Protoss with 10+ hatcheries, endless plagues, and waves of cheap, cost-effective units. I suppose preventing Zerg from ever reaching that point could be better strategically and it's very difficult to micro both HT and reavers, but trying to bust Zerg defensive positions with the standard storm + gateway units seems like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Reaver is common vs hive Zerg. The issue is it s really hard to tech into it without your 3rd and 4th gas running so you can't easily add it to a 2 base move out. Late late game it s actually more or less standard to place a robo at any new expansion and have reavers there.
Right, it's very common to make reavers to help defend expansions. However I don't really see the top Korean players using reavers as part of their attacks even past the 3 and 4 gas economies. Is this partly due to reavers being needed for defense, so it takes a really long time to ramp up your reaver count to start adding them into the main army? Or perhaps I just haven't watched enough high level PvZ's to notice this? I've seen high level foreign players using reavers to attack a decent amount but not Korean players, which was surprising to me.
On October 16 2023 11:34 PaxViaAtomi wrote: Why don't Protoss add more reavers into their late-game armies vs Zerg? It feels like Protoss rely too much on storm with gateway unit support which seem to fight poorly against lurkers with dark swarm and hydra/crackling support. Even more-so when Zerg sets up defensive positions with chokes, sim cities, static defense, lurkers, dark swarms and nydus canals for quick reinforcements. Once the game is at a point where Zerg has secured 4+ bases with Hive tech, it seems like reavers are the obvious choice to attack into expansions and prevent the Zerg from overpowering Protoss with 10+ hatcheries, endless plagues, and waves of cheap, cost-effective units. I suppose preventing Zerg from ever reaching that point could be better strategically and it's very difficult to micro both HT and reavers, but trying to bust Zerg defensive positions with the standard storm + gateway units seems like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Reaver is common vs hive Zerg. The issue is it s really hard to tech into it without your 3rd and 4th gas running so you can't easily add it to a 2 base move out. Late late game it s actually more or less standard to place a robo at any new expansion and have reavers there.
Right, it's very common to make reavers to help defend expansions. However I don't really see the top Korean players using reavers as part of their attacks even past the 3 and 4 gas economies. Is this partly due to reavers being needed for defense, so it takes a really long time to ramp up your reaver count to start adding them into the main army? Or perhaps I just haven't watched enough high level PvZ's to notice this? I've seen high level foreign players using reavers to attack a decent amount but not Korean players, which was surprising to me.
Maybe not enough games seen yeah, I mean it happened in + Show Spoiler +
The risk, offensively, is possibly scourges and/or the map layout, so that may be why on some maps you see it more than others. Could also be a style/personal choice. A bit like pure sk terran vs MM tank.
On October 16 2023 11:34 PaxViaAtomi wrote: Why don't Protoss add more reavers into their late-game armies vs Zerg? It feels like Protoss rely too much on storm with gateway unit support which seem to fight poorly against lurkers with dark swarm and hydra/crackling support. Even more-so when Zerg sets up defensive positions with chokes, sim cities, static defense, lurkers, dark swarms and nydus canals for quick reinforcements. Once the game is at a point where Zerg has secured 4+ bases with Hive tech, it seems like reavers are the obvious choice to attack into expansions and prevent the Zerg from overpowering Protoss with 10+ hatcheries, endless plagues, and waves of cheap, cost-effective units. I suppose preventing Zerg from ever reaching that point could be better strategically and it's very difficult to micro both HT and reavers, but trying to bust Zerg defensive positions with the standard storm + gateway units seems like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Reaver is common vs hive Zerg. The issue is it s really hard to tech into it without your 3rd and 4th gas running so you can't easily add it to a 2 base move out. Late late game it s actually more or less standard to place a robo at any new expansion and have reavers there.
Right, it's very common to make reavers to help defend expansions. However I don't really see the top Korean players using reavers as part of their attacks even past the 3 and 4 gas economies. Is this partly due to reavers being needed for defense, so it takes a really long time to ramp up your reaver count to start adding them into the main army? Or perhaps I just haven't watched enough high level PvZ's to notice this? I've seen high level foreign players using reavers to attack a decent amount but not Korean players, which was surprising to me.
Maybe not enough games seen yeah, I mean it happened in + Show Spoiler +
The risk, offensively, is possibly scourges and/or the map layout, so that may be why on some maps you see it more than others. Could also be a style/personal choice. A bit like pure sk terran vs MM tank.
It's also a mobility and multitasking issue. You need Shuttles to make them mobile, Shuttles are susceptible to Scourge, otherwise the Reavers can be easily avoided by more mobile Zerg armies (and are vulnerable to Muta). However, besides these examples, you can also see:
Issue with reavers is that having 6 reavers in your army isn't much better than having 2. The other 4 often end up just serving as a backup for when the first 2 get killed off, or protecting flanks, etc.
In defense, reavers are great - they fire on their own, that's how you survive getting attacked on three screens at once, where you couldn't storm everything before getting swarmed/HTs sniped...reavers auto-fire splash damage.
On offence or when sieging bases, reavers need constant babysitting because it doesn't take much hydra/lurker fire to kill a plagued reaver. If pushing into lurker/sunken field, you can't really put anything in front of reavers to body block, meaning you have to use shuttle micro and snipe things one at a time(or lose reavers when they are jumped on).
Managing reavers while casting storms when hydras move forward to snipe them, while reinforcing HTs & so on, consumes pretty much entirety of your attention, leaving the zerg to take bases & so on. It is great for situations when the game is already slowed down, all/most bases are already taken, everything is secure and you can lay a slow siege. Even then, zerg might half mine out the base by simply trading and replacing lurker/sunk as fast as you're clearing it, so long as they attempt a surround every now and then. It is entirely possible to fight for 3 minutes straight, have zerg throw 50 supply at you from 3 sides with some plague, force a small step back, and by the time that's handled, they re-took entire area.
So reavers are great for defense and effective trading, they demand a ton of attention and they also are slow at pushing through things. In that sense, in terms of kill speed and effort required, they aren't much better than trying to kill the zerg by storming every lurker to death with reinforcing HTs merging into archons after (aside from being able to also range sunkens).
Offensive moves with a lot of reavers are more things like doom drops or recalls, where the ground is not secure, enemy army is not in position, there's natural barriers like minerals and plenty of targets to shoot at. This is a bit harder to pull off these days as a lot of expansions became these small pockets that are relatively easy to secure with sunken/spore/lurkers (dweb/reaver drops obviously still viable but has its own problems).
For early late game when both are maxed with all the tech, on maps that are rich in bases, with plenty more to take, I'd honestly recommend to spend attention on securing bases and storm drops, as opposed to trying to break a base with reavers. You may do it but the zerg will take three others in the time it takes you to do so.
There is a great late game PvZ played between Snow and Soma a 2-4 days ago on Major Proleague. You guys should watch that to get some answers on reaver usage PvZ.
we can learn how essential it is to cast the plagues on reavers. We can also see it in Snow vs Soma
I hope to see some maelstrom again in PvZ late game. I believe that is key in keeping reavers alive longer and actually push a base. The problem is Archon/DA/goon/rvr are all big and clunky where as ling/hydra/scourge all move quick and with ease. In Snow vs Soma you can see you can't really stop a Zerg from sniping your plagued reaver/shuttle. Both storm and scarabs can be dodged long enough to make a snipe on the reaver, which then completely shuts down the push. If you can somehow save up 250 energy on a DA, mindcontrolling lone lurkers can be a great counter to ling/dra (you want to use other 100 energy for a maelstrom). Tbf mind control already sounds too situational and not practical where as in BGH/fmp it's rather easy to achieve. Imho you can easily tell when a pro hardly ever played money maps and ums when it comes to late game and proper army compositions and movement.
Throwing in 1 Arbiter could also help with protection even though it could be fairly easily sniped. It can mean your rvr will survive that little bit longer again to push.
EPT
