"Why are ghosts not used to lockdown BCs or carriers?"
"Why isn't bio/vessel used against Protoss?"
"Why isn't restoration used on vessels?"
"Why aren't valkyries used to kill interceptors?"
"Why aren't valkyries used to counter mutalisks?" (Commonly asked in the pre-2018 era!)
"Why isn't mech used against zerg?" (This was commonly asked before mech switch was popularized by Fantasy/Flash/others in 2008-2010!)
* * * Sometimes, there are fundamental reasons why a unit or strategy is bad. Other times, people think they know why X is bad, only to be shown by Fantasy, Ssak, Flash, Bisu, Effort, ... that X isn't actually bad.
Let's discuss: what commonly-asked-about units/strategies are *actually fundamentally bad*, in that they will never ever enter the meta in the next 10 years? And what might be simply a matter of figuring out the right way to use a unit or approach?
Example: "Ghosts can't be used TvT against battlecruisers because tanks often supplement battlecruisers, and tanks have much longer range than lockdown." (Fundamental reason)
or
"Corsairs aren't used against Terran beause Disruption web requires a fleet beacon, at which point carriers are a much better use of the money -- but it could have situaitonal use to stop sharp timing pushes, or supplement with carriers in cases where storm is infeasible (e.g. a vulture-heavy terran, or a semi-island map)." (Fundamental reason, but allows for exceptional cases)
or
"Restoration isn't used on vessels since APM issues, and medic energy is low when plague is out -- so most medics won't have enough energy to restore vessels which must be active on the map at all times. There could be meta shifts with fast medic energy upgrade + more medics are produced, and terran 3rd gas earlier, that make restoration feasible"
(Nuanced reason, opens up possibilities for use conditional on other meta shifts).
I made these reasons up and they're maybe totally wrong, but the first reason is "fundamnetal" whereas the last reason is "in the current meta, there isn't room, but perhaps with changes XYZ it could be feasible."
Let's not forget how many threads were devoted to why Dark archon isn't good vZ (until Best v Action), how mech isn't good vZ (until Flash/Fantasy/others popularized), how Valks weren't good vZ except for very narrow valkonic pushes (until Remastered bug fix and recent meta shifts), ....
Often times, things aren't good until they are. But some things are fundamentally bad. I'd like this thread to open up a discussion between which is which.
I object. If you have 0 air upgrades and have been playing ground toss, carriers are not a better use of your money than corsairs just because you have to build a fleet beacon. 0/0 carriers against 3/2 terran feels so bad. Disruption web on the other hand...
Why don't Protoss go for +1 armor first instead of +1 attack in PvZ? Armor upgrades usually benefit melee units more than attack upgrades when going against ranged units so it seems like the armor upgrade would be much better for zealots vs hydras. Additionally, later in the game Protoss puts out a lot of their damage through psi storm which isn't affected by attack upgrades.
I can see two main issues with going for armor before attack. First, the attack upgrade is very good for dragoons and delaying the first attack upgrade also delays +2 and +3 which seems like a big deal. Second, the +1 attack on zealots lets them two shot zerglings so zerg player could respond to armor first by building more zerglings than usual to fight the zealots head-on. I really have no idea how much better this would be over current standard play however.
I know that armor upgrades don't affect shields but even then the +1 armor seems very good against hydralisks. I vaguely recall some pros trying out +1 armor first but as far as I know it's still very uncommon. What made them decide that +1 armor was inferior to +1 attack first?
Why are dark archons not used more in PvZ - whenever they are used they seem to be insanely good and especially late game for feedback against defilers Maelstrom just seems to be an amazing spell against both hydras and mutas. Like if you're past the super early game and you have the templar archives anyway why not just make one?
On September 12 2023 19:33 Qikz wrote: Why are dark archons not used more in PvZ - whenever they are used they seem to be insanely good and especially late game for feedback against defilers Maelstrom just seems to be an amazing spell against both hydras and mutas. Like if you're past the super early game and you have the templar archives anyway why not just make one?
Their biggest drawbacks are how slow they are to ready and how much of a one and done unit they are. Pure casters are honestly just not very good and most casters have utility in addition to just casting spells for when they run out of energy (e.g. vessals detect, arbiters cloak, defilers can just consume and never be out of energy). Dark archons start off as useless red blobs, in most cases will cast only one spell in a fight, after which they are back to being fat useless red blobs that take up 4 supply. Their main competition for gas are high Templars whom you need anyway, become ready to cast spells much faster than darchons, and most importantly can morph into archons to be useful after casting rather than blobbing around.
They are really just sub-optimal in the most common midgame and the niche situations in which they are really good in are not very common. They're good vs mutas midgame, but again suffer from being slow to ready, hence you need to scout the mutas, for which you will probably need corsairs which makes making more corsairs is the more natural response. Against hydras you really would rather have more storms.If you went citadel first, they're a more natural response for mutas i guess but the problem there is going citadel first and having no scouting kind of blows.
Late game they are pretty good but requires the prerequisite of already having an army and again suffer from how slow they are to ready and how one and done they are. They are honestly best used with late game corsair carrier compositions, but semi-island and island maps are not really a thing so the situation is so niche that its barely worth mentioning.
On September 21 2023 03:43 PaxViaAtomi wrote: Why don't Terrans research Optical Flare in TvZ to blind the lurkers guarding the ramp of the 3rd base for ez wins?
Because blinding all Lurkers in a stack is an inferior non-possibility to irradiating all the Lurkers in a stack?
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)
On September 21 2023 03:43 PaxViaAtomi wrote: Why don't Terrans research Optical Flare in TvZ to blind the lurkers guarding the ramp of the 3rd base for ez wins?
Because blinding all Lurkers in a stack is an inferior non-possibility to irradiating all the Lurkers in a stack?
Optic Flare is much cheaper than irradiate (same mana cost but on a cheaper unit) and is available much sooner. It's a different timing that could work as a surprise play. Of course, if Zergs know to expect it, they can prepare in some basic ways, such as using drones or lings or mutas to spot for the lurkers. (Pre-stacking the lurkers isn't always viable because in many games, the Zerg only barely gets the lurkers in place in time and may even rely on a ramp egg to buy time as the high-ground lurkers morph.)
Optic Flare's crippling weakness is that it's all-or-nothing, since a single unit can spot for the rest of a group.
On September 21 2023 03:43 PaxViaAtomi wrote: Why don't Terrans research Optical Flare in TvZ to blind the lurkers guarding the ramp of the 3rd base for ez wins?
Because blinding all Lurkers in a stack is an inferior non-possibility to irradiating all the Lurkers in a stack?
In ZvP Kespa era (or even early remastered days) pros used to more often open up going sair/reaver but I feel like I almost NEVER see it any more unless it's like a totally surprise 1-off build in a BoX series in ASL or something.
I'm guessing it was just determined to be too risky compared to standard gateway army openings / too susceptible to ogre zerg (since at least gateway openings you can make goons/archons to support sairs)? Or am I missing something? Just miss that in the meta because those games were so fun to watch.
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?
One thing that has really surprised me is how not enough players are opening 3 hatch hydra in ZvP...and how outdated the "standard" 3 hatch -> spire play seems.
When I used to play on iccup, I would absolutely stomp just about every protoss using the following:
- Overpool/11hatch -> 3 hatch hydra.
- Make a few hydras to defend overlords, and pressure protoss into making cannons. Immediately drop down your 4th hatchery at a 4th base.
- Drone heavy, sim city by adding on evos and hatchery 5+6.
- Add sunkens (and spores if necessary to defend 2 star corsair). Defend with sunken/hydra/ling while getting upgrades and teching to hive ASAP (skip spire).
- Defilers w/ consume, upgrade adrenal glands for zerglings. Add on macro hatcheries as needed.
- Move out with your overwhelming (upgraded) hydra/ling/defiler army. Dark swarm protoss 3rd (and 4th if they're greedy), right click with lings.
If for whatever reason they are still in the game, add ultras and keep expanding. Your upgrades and early economic lead should be snowballing into an unstoppable army.
Why don't Players practice more instead of posting about theory crafting? :D
In all seriousness, Most of the reasons why people dont do X vs a particular race is because that race has a good enough counter vs X that "if" it is scouted, the chances of winning drop dramatically.
Like bio vs Toss (storm reaver).
My favorite example has always been dark archon vs zerg. In theory it is the perfect unit since it allows a storm to do its full damage.
In practice, while you are casting malestrom, you could be casting another storm. Yes, it is great vs muta sniping your HTs, but they can just snipe the DA with hydras before going in with the mutas. Or counters your main with mutas because you went DA instead of corsairs, while sniping the HTs coming out of the gates at that time.
It is something to note tho. The top players play the game so much taht have probably tried everything we can come up with at this point and found out its not "better".
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.
On October 21 2023 20:52 Peeano wrote: 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.
I do think that Arbiters to break through a zerg sim city is something that needs to be looked at more. I guess that Arbiters are slow and die easily to scourge, but if Zerg isn't prepared for it, one recall into the main can destroy all the tech and end the game as zerg has to try to reposition their entire defense with lurkers and swarm. While they're doing that, they're very exposed and you can easily storm while they try to come to you.
As a Protoss, attacking into Zerg feels awful. But zerg attacking you feels awful for a zerg if you have reavers/storm.
I still think Disruption Web is an underutilized ability for PvT in situations where P succeeds at trading for tanks at the 3rd, but won't be able to actually break the T and has enough bank to support the fleet beacon, upgrade, and 3 corsairs, but not enough to go straight carrier with air upgrades. Can bust the 4th or 5th with D webs when the T is trying to split the map, and can actually trade a little better when T hits 3/2.
I think we don't see it because the situations where using corsiars makes sense are very narrow, and P players don't want to practice moving corsairs around while also using templars, trying to storm things for the 1 in 50 games when it actually makes sense to do it.
On October 27 2023 05:56 ThunderJunk wrote: I still think Disruption Web is an underutilized ability for PvT in situations where P succeeds at trading for tanks at the 3rd, but won't be able to actually break the T and has enough bank to support the fleet beacon, upgrade, and 3 corsairs, but not enough to go straight carrier with air upgrades. Can bust the 4th or 5th with D webs when the T is trying to split the map, and can actually trade a little better when T hits 3/2.
I think we don't see it because the situations where using corsiars makes sense are very narrow, and P players don't want to practice moving corsairs around while also using templars, trying to storm things for the 1 in 50 games when it actually makes sense to do it.
Problem is stasis does the same job as d-web, and arbiters give you more utility than sairs, which are completely useless except for the d-web. Yes, arbiters are more expensive gas wise but only 100 energy vs 125 energy, and the units stasised are totally frozen whereas terran can try to reposition vs dweb. Plus if they just pull back from d-web, your units have to go through the d-web too now.
Tbh i think there are situations in pvz where p should get web. Not very common, but in games where p holds on to the first 6 sairs and z decides to hold mid game with sunken lurker rather than mass hydra, im 100% certain there exists an unmapped timing where swapping 2 templars and 2 goons for 6 webs will win you the game.
In ultra late game PvT, where P has gone Arbiters, why doesn't P switch into carriers?
I was watching this game and I don't understand why Bisu didn't tech switch, especially when light had so many tanks. Is it just too slow and supply-ineffective?
On November 08 2023 09:55 Monochromatic wrote: In ultra late game PvT, where P has gone Arbiters, why doesn't P switch into carriers?
I was watching this game and I don't understand why Bisu didn't tech switch, especially when light had so many tanks. Is it just too slow and supply-ineffective?
I think the key limitation is upgrades, if you upgrade air as you go and before the switch it makes sense otherwise 0-0-0 interceptors get shredded by 3-3 Goliaths But also yes it takes time
The carrier switch makes sense if you have a boatload of money to spare. But if it's late game with Terran having big upgrades and they're constantly pressuring you, you don't have time to drop stargates and have a lot of supply tied up to building carriers, you need regular units out ASAP to push back Terran.
I find that that carrier switch is mostly a "win more" play rather than zergs switching it up on the fly since their units take much less time to build.
On November 08 2023 09:55 Monochromatic wrote: In ultra late game PvT, where P has gone Arbiters, why doesn't P switch into carriers?
I was watching this game and I don't understand why Bisu didn't tech switch, especially when light had so many tanks. Is it just too slow and supply-ineffective?
I think the key limitation is upgrades, if you upgrade air as you go and before the switch it makes sense otherwise 0-0-0 interceptors get shredded by 3-3 Goliaths But also yes it takes time
Time, and locked up supply are the biggest things, even if you have the resources and upgrades. You need 3 stargates to build up carriers fast enough lategame, and then your army is ~1/8 smaller for ~3 minutes. 3 is mostly a drop defense or firefighting quantity, so really you need 2 cycles, so 6 minutes with 1/8 to 1/4 standing army size. It's a non-trivial transition when at that point Protoss normally is throwing armies at the Terran to keep the army sizes and composition manageable.
EPT
