|
Make sure you read the OP before asking a question. Asking a question already addressed in the OP will result in moderation action. Also, please put some effort into your questions. |
On December 07 2012 11:45 Natalya wrote:
And why does that strat works at mid master as you said? Maybe because at that stage there still can be serious differences in macro abilites among players. Maybe you are better macro wise than the average protoss of your mmr, and maybe you dont get higher because you dont use the right strat? Or a hundreds different explanations are possible. I think players in general should never speak of their own experience as if it was of any help to provide a valid answer (unless they are GM ofc.) I think we should all watch the pros and do what they do and not what we think is better, because they know their stuff and we dont. Please, I mean no offense, but I shall ask you to stop advicing players to go hydras against sentry immortal all in. You didnt answer my points about not going hydras (underpowered combat stats, possibility for the protoss to take a third and go collossus, because you are not going to attack cross map with hydras are you?). And yes I have read the thread you are talking about, I replied in it.
About Sen, check out his games at bwc. He held for the second known time in televised match the parting sentry immortal all in... with the build i described. If he's one of the only pro to have hold it, he must have figured something out, maybe?
And... maybe not. The same could be said to you; hundreds of different explanations are possible for why pros do NOT use it at their level. People didn't use BL/infestor 8 months-1 year ago; does that make it a bad composition? I apologize for not answering your concerns directly, but I've done it so many times and so thoroughly from a theorycrafting point of view, and then backed it up by replays, that it does get tiresome. For example, I address your point about taking a 3rd with reasoning and a replay in that thread.
As for Sen at BWC, did you choose to ignore the fact that he was significantly behind in that game after holding the allin and ultimately lost? And what about Suppy, the only person outside of GSL known to have stopped Parting's allin? He went a ton of spines into infestors and held, and actually won the game to boot, vs a superior opponent. Why don't you advocate that strategy instead of roach/ling?
Anyway, this really isn't the place to be debating this back and forth, but forgive me if I choose to ignore your advice about telling people not to use hydras vs this allin. There're a lot of people who use it at my level and below, and it helps them out a lot. Also, if you haven't tried it, and fine-tuned your build a little, please don't knock it just because pros don't use it. Just because you haven't seen a strategy at the pro level doesn't make it bad.
|
On December 07 2012 10:11 Noritzu wrote:Yeah i read your write up on zvp (which good work btw, been using that style myself for quite some time. mixed results toward the end if they take a fast third but we can save that for another topic). what you describe is basically how my mech games go toward the mid. i defend the early hellion/banshee with roach/spine, my roaches coax some tanks out, i pump out 12-15 muta. 2 base timing hits with 1-2 thors, roach/ling/muta cleans quite a bit up with minimal losses. mutas harass third, usually get quite a few SCV kills, he turrets up like a madman and turtles hard on 3 base. i move into infestor/corruptor/bl, and then im stumped. i get my maxed army, but with scans he scouts it i plenty of time to react with vikings and ravens, the muta switch already has him making more thors. and the at this point i can usually do some damage (deny a 4th or 5th either with muta still flying around or with my deathball). but inevitably i lose the army while he is still hulking toward my front door. with mech it seems one side demolishes the other, no close battles. so either i try to remax on bl/corruptor or do an ultra tech switch but its ever enough. seems like everywhere im looking for info on this matchup is basically telling me to put the terran down fast and hard or go down in flames soon after i miss my chance. some replays http://drop.sc/282006http://drop.sc/282307a reminder in case you missed it, i know part of the problem with my infestor/bl is the fact i have a terrible comp so my infestor control in those situations is awful. both games end up being late game. 5 base to 5 base. game one i lose a lot of festors at his 4th, manage to kill the 4th and remax. and die to being out of position with infestors. infestors take damage, so i try to pull back and as im pulling back two seeker missiles destroy my broodlord ball. game 2 i just lose my army outright (he pushes just as it is morphing so he hits his push at my base). does some solid damage but i manage to hold and destroy his army with the ultra switch, manage to knock him back to three bases, but again his army just regrows out of nowhere it seems, crushes my ultra/ling and now i have nothing again and hes knocking on my door.
Watched your replays. First of all, I think the T players in both games played pretty well; it's not like they just did random shit and won the game, it felt like they just did a lot of things right.
I'm not going to comment too much on infestor/BL vs this comp because I have little experience with it, but it felt like you had too many infestors and too little BL's, especially if you're not confident in your infestor control. I think you can kind of get away with less infestors vs mech because you don't really need to stop the units from getting in range (unlike marines), and go more heavy BL/corruptor. Also, you really need to spread out your units. In both games they had very good counters to your army, basically. I'm sure more experienced people could tell you more about what you did wrong with your BL/festor however in these games.
Personally I don't favor going the infestor/BL route at all vs mech. You say you go roach/roach drop vs this comp, but really at the point where I would choose to start dropping, you choose to go into BL, and they're delayed because you get so many infestors. I like to stay on T2 and continually be aggressive to trade off armies with him. For example in the first game when you harass with muta and he holds you off, doing a roach remax would help contain him to 3base and probably let you hit his 3rd pretty hard. You could also drop his production; if he has a lot of turrets, just send in some empty OL's first to tank the damage.
Also one factor that I think hurt you a lot was that your muta harass came really late in both games (like 12-14 min I think). Try to see if you can hone your timing more to make it earlier. By the time you got mutas out, he already had a decent army; this has more to do with your opening build than anything else.
Also just a remark on your analysis: in the second game you "cleaned up" with ultras, but I stopped watching because the game was essentially over. He had a 80 supply lead on you, mostly in mech. That game was basically unwinnable at that point.
|
On December 07 2012 12:28 RaAj wrote:
But what about Taeja he did what he always does to him and MVP? There is a reason he was able to beat him using his style and MVP can be considered the polar opposite of MKP. I honestly dont think its due to the styles. Also what zergs do when they drone and tech and make units in response to scouting information is not gimmicky as you are not relying on your opponent to make a mistake or overextension but rather your own ability. It IS gimmicky though if you make units to see if your opponents made a mistake that justify your preemptive creation of zerglings that are not nessecarily in response to an offensive attack to you THAT relies on your opponent ability and not yours thus it is much more gimmicky than actualy making drones and reaction to the opponent. So this brings us bal to my question, why does Life decide to make so many lungs if it is to try to see if your opponent made a mistake (which is not repiable)
You cant make the assumption that your opponent will never make mistakes. Starcraft simply does not work like that.
Sacrificing a little bit of drone count to be able to throw your opponent out of his comfort zone can not be underestimated. You lose an advantage in drones to get a mental advantage, a moral advantage. Players like MKP and Taeja have played five thousands times the same scenario where they walk cross map with their timings and the Z has exactly 5 infestors and 60 lings, and it means they know exactly how greedy was the Z up to that point, where are his upgrades, his tech, etc etc. They know what to do to follow it, they know what's the next move. Playing against someone really unpredictable as Life is not easy because all that past experience is a lot less usefull to you. Tasteless and Artosis talked here and there of the possibility to 6 pool versus Protoss because the 6 pooler can practice it two hundreds times in a row if he wants to, and he will know exactly if he is ahead/behind according to the amount of damage he dealt with it. While the Protoss might wonder "well, what's the next move now?". If you have to use your brain to think about your strat ingame, it's not good news. Your reactions should be like reflexes, your thinking should be done in between games when watching your own replays.
You are right that Taeja has a different playstyle. I dont really have answers, I would have to look again at the vods.
On December 07 2012 12:48 Defenestrator wrote:
And... maybe not. The same could be said to you; hundreds of different explanations are possible for why pros do NOT use it at their level. People didn't use BL/infestor 8 months-1 year ago; does that make it a bad composition? I apologize for not answering your concerns directly, but I've done it so many times and so thoroughly from a theorycrafting point of view, and then backed it up by replays, that it does get tiresome. For example, I address your point about taking a 3rd with reasoning and a replay in that thread.
Sen, in an interview at BWC, explicitly said his build was designed to counter the immortal all-in. So you cant say he thinks hydras are good against the immortal all-in since he designed his build to counter it and it doesnt include hydras.
How can you assume he didnt figure out an answer when he holded the all-in against the player that execute it better than anyone else? How can you make the assumption that he maybe didnt figure something out and that you figured it? Sen said, in the same interview, that he used to hold the all-in everytime on ladder, but that Parting had a little something that made it more special, more difficult to hold, that he was faster than anyone else with it.
You speak about theorycrafting. Nice. Guess what forcefield immortals are supposed to counter? Roaches. Guess what is supposed to counter that composition? Zerglings with equals upgrades. Forcefields are not nearly as good vs zerglings because you need a lot more of them to stop zerglings from attacking and because they move a ton faster so that the reaction on protoss part has to be that much faster. And no need to say that immortals cant deal their usual uncredible amount of damage versus lings. Now, hydras are still beatable with forcefield. They dont counter immortals. Test it, an equal cost of hydras lose to immortals. Forcefields are also usefull because you can forcefield half the hydras in, half the hydras out.
I could still enjoy listening to your justification of hydras on paper if you mind.
On December 07 2012 12:48 Defenestrator wrote:
As for Sen at BWC, did you choose to ignore the fact that he was significantly behind in that game after holding the allin and ultimately lost? And what about Suppy, the only person outside of GSL known to have stopped Parting's allin? He went a ton of spines into infestors and held, and actually won the game to boot, vs a superior opponent. Why don't you advocate that strategy instead of roach/ling?
About Sen, what happened after the all-in was hold is another discussion. I dont believe he was behind. Remember, he didnt suffer drone loss. He was still on 3 base fully mineral saturated (but with only 2 gas) vs 2 base. And the immortal all-in include some drone cut.
About Suppy, his game was very very interesting but so far seems like a one time thing. If more pros try and do the same with some success, ofcourse his build could be advised.
On December 07 2012 12:48 Defenestrator wrote:
Just because you haven't seen a strategy at the pro level doesn't make it bad.
So you are right and those tenths and hundreds of pros playing the game 24/7, making a living out of it, talking strategies with each other all the time, beating players you would never dream of beating at your actual level are wrong. If you simply refuse to consider that, I dont know what I can add. This thread is not supposed to be a discussion between our personal experiences, but between the builds the pro use.
I didnt say hydras were not viable at mid master. But that's exactly the point. We are not aiming at solving problems at a mid master level, because at that level every problem can be solved with superior macro. You can win a fight with an inferior unit composition if you simply have more of everything. It's less and less the case the higher you get into master league and beyond, because the macro is getting closer and closer to the point where it's optimal.
And about infestors bl, well, dont forget the infestor was highly buffed for once, and the queen buff allowed zergs to play more greedy in the early game, letting them get in the late game easier. That's for ZvT. For ZvP, until the roach max out style popped out, most games were 2 base all-in from the protoss. Games were decdided by the Zerg holding or not period. With the roach max style, protosses felt like their gate all-in were less and less potent. This build is a great tool to hold early all-ins. They started to try to take a third base while holding waves of roaches. Remember how Zerg had so much free-win back then. The Protoss builds were simply not refined enough yet. When they learned how to hold it, well, Zergs started exploring the vastly unexplored late game. Before that, they could kill their opponent with roach or muta based midgame play. Why would'nt they? Now that Zergs have learned how to use their bl-infestors composition, protosses feel like they have to go back to 2 base all-in with immortals in mind.
|
Bronze/Silver league player here.
My build normally is mass roach attack 10 minutes. Every time I play with zerg, my opponent go mass air, so I stay defensive until have a nice number of corruptors, if they attack me I send roach to counterattack and try to defender with just corruptors, am I doing raight?
What I supposed to do when I found they are going mass air?
|
Ideally you would want to scout it with your overlords. Your first overlord should be sent to their expansion to see if they fast expand. After you've seen this, and around 6/7 minutes, you should send your overlord to their main to scout what they are making. If you see a spire, 2 stargate or 2 starport, make spores and corruptors or mutalisks 
|
On December 08 2012 00:43 Natalya wrote:
You speak about theorycrafting. Nice. Guess what forcefield immortals are supposed to counter? Roaches. Guess what is supposed to counter that composition? Zerglings with equals upgrades. Forcefields are not nearly as good vs zerglings because you need a lot more of them to stop zerglings from attacking and because they move a ton faster so that the reaction on protoss part has to be that much faster. And no need to say that immortals cant deal their usual uncredible amount of damage versus lings. Now, hydras are still beatable with forcefield. They dont counter immortals. Test it, an equal cost of hydras lose to immortals. Forcefields are also usefull because you can forcefield half the hydras in, half the hydras out.
I could still enjoy listening to your justification of hydras on paper if you mind.
I responded in more detail in a PM, but please don't make cost-for-cost arguments. 2 lings beat 1 marine, lings beat tanks cost-for-cost, I even recall seeing that cost-for-cost roaches will beat an immortal. Hell, depending on how you weigh gas, lings may even beat colossi cost-for-cost. Cost-for-cost is an awful way to judge a unit. Things like timing, unit comps, etc. make a huge difference, which is what I stress in my build. My argument is that the unit composition of roach/ling/hydra is more potent against immo/sentry than pure roach/ling.
Also, saying that what pros don't do is not bad is NOT the same as saying what pros do IS bad, or what I do is better than what pros do. Please do not misrepresent my argument.
|
Hey guys,
Question about mid game army comps: I know Zerg is a reactive race, but how set in stone are your build orders when you see what race you are facing/their initial builds? I always find my tech is behind (high gold btw) because I don't definitively decide what the heck to build. Sometimes I stick on tier 1 too long and just aim for tier 3, only to get stomped by a better mid game army.
For example, against immo/sentry I like to go roach/ling, but if I hold it I often haven't "planned" what to tech to with the exception of wanting broods. Should I go into the game by saying "okay, if he goes immo/sentry I'm gonna start roach/ling, then add in infestors (or hydras, or both), and then get to broods"?
Any input on your mindsets would be great
|
On December 08 2012 06:55 schach wrote:
Hey guys,
Question about mid game army comps: I know Zerg is a reactive race, but how set in stone are your build orders when you see what race you are facing/their initial builds? I always find my tech is behind (high gold btw) because I don't definitively decide what the heck to build. Sometimes I stick on tier 1 too long and just aim for tier 3, only to get stomped by a better mid game army.
For example, against immo/sentry I like to go roach/ling, but if I hold it I often haven't "planned" what to tech to with the exception of wanting broods. Should I go into the game by saying "okay, if he goes immo/sentry I'm gonna start roach/ling, then add in infestors (or hydras, or both), and then get to broods"?
Any input on your mindsets would be great
This is a good question. Ideally you want to have a plan before every game starts for the early, mid, and lategame, and based on your scouting you want to know how to react. This comes from a lot of experience and watching pros, reading forums, etc., but that is how I approach every game generally.
For example, take ZvT. I'll typically try to open with 6Q, get 2 gas at 6:00, get speed, get lair. Then I'll typically add a baneling nest and scout, and react accordingly. If he's going mech, a lot of times I'll open muta and get a roach warren to defend against heavy hellion play, get a few mutas to force thors, and then switch into roach aggression/roach drops. If he's going marine/tank, I'll maybe add an infestation pit at lair completion and go for infestor/ling/bane while teching to ultra. These options are set in my mind even before the game begins.
Now to your example: so you go roach/ling and hold his immo/sentry. Now what? Basically as soon as you hold the push, fully saturate 3 bases, get an infestation pit, get pathogen glands, and go ling/infestor/spine while tech'ing to hive (the same as you would do in a macro PvZ game, basically). Try to contain him on 2-base using your leftover roach/ling from the push; if you cannot and he takes a 3rd, take a 4th base and continue the game from there. You should be ahead in eco at this point because of his allin.
There're other options; for example, if you crush his push you can try to push in with your roach/ling and break his base or go for drop tech, mutas, etc. However, you should have a preset response in case this does occur in the game.
|
On December 08 2012 00:43 Natalya wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 12:48 Defenestrator wrote:
And... maybe not. The same could be said to you; hundreds of different explanations are possible for why pros do NOT use it at their level. People didn't use BL/infestor 8 months-1 year ago; does that make it a bad composition? I apologize for not answering your concerns directly, but I've done it so many times and so thoroughly from a theorycrafting point of view, and then backed it up by replays, that it does get tiresome. For example, I address your point about taking a 3rd with reasoning and a replay in that thread.
Sen, in an interview at BWC, explicitly said his build was designed to counter the immortal all-in. So you cant say he thinks hydras are good against the immortal all-in since he designed his build to counter it and it doesnt include hydras. How can you assume he didnt figure out an answer when he holded the all-in against the player that execute it better than anyone else? How can you make the assumption that he maybe didnt figure something out and that you figured it? Sen said, in the same interview, that he used to hold the all-in everytime on ladder, but that Parting had a little something that made it more special, more difficult to hold, that he was faster than anyone else with it. You speak about theorycrafting. Nice. Guess what forcefield immortals are supposed to counter? Roaches. Guess what is supposed to counter that composition? Zerglings with equals upgrades. Forcefields are not nearly as good vs zerglings because you need a lot more of them to stop zerglings from attacking and because they move a ton faster so that the reaction on protoss part has to be that much faster. And no need to say that immortals cant deal their usual uncredible amount of damage versus lings. Now, hydras are still beatable with forcefield. They dont counter immortals. Test it, an equal cost of hydras lose to immortals. Forcefields are also usefull because you can forcefield half the hydras in, half the hydras out. I could still enjoy listening to your justification of hydras on paper if you mind. Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 12:48 Defenestrator wrote:
As for Sen at BWC, did you choose to ignore the fact that he was significantly behind in that game after holding the allin and ultimately lost? And what about Suppy, the only person outside of GSL known to have stopped Parting's allin? He went a ton of spines into infestors and held, and actually won the game to boot, vs a superior opponent. Why don't you advocate that strategy instead of roach/ling?
About Sen, what happened after the all-in was hold is another discussion. I dont believe he was behind. Remember, he didnt suffer drone loss. He was still on 3 base fully mineral saturated (but with only 2 gas) vs 2 base. And the immortal all-in include some drone cut. About Suppy, his game was very very interesting but so far seems like a one time thing. If more pros try and do the same with some success, ofcourse his build could be advised. Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 12:48 Defenestrator wrote:
Just because you haven't seen a strategy at the pro level doesn't make it bad. So you are right and those tenths and hundreds of pros playing the game 24/7, making a living out of it, talking strategies with each other all the time, beating players you would never dream of beating at your actual level are wrong. If you simply refuse to consider that, I dont know what I can add. This thread is not supposed to be a discussion between our personal experiences, but between the builds the pro use. I didnt say hydras were not viable at mid master. But that's exactly the point. We are not aiming at solving problems at a mid master level, because at that level every problem can be solved with superior macro. You can win a fight with an inferior unit composition if you simply have more of everything. It's less and less the case the higher you get into master league and beyond, because the macro is getting closer and closer to the point where it's optimal. And about infestors bl, well, dont forget the infestor was highly buffed for once, and the queen buff allowed zergs to play more greedy in the early game, letting them get in the late game easier. That's for ZvT. For ZvP, until the roach max out style popped out, most games were 2 base all-in from the protoss. Games were decdided by the Zerg holding or not period. With the roach max style, protosses felt like their gate all-in were less and less potent. This build is a great tool to hold early all-ins. They started to try to take a third base while holding waves of roaches. Remember how Zerg had so much free-win back then. The Protoss builds were simply not refined enough yet. When they learned how to hold it, well, Zergs started exploring the vastly unexplored late game. Before that, they could kill their opponent with roach or muta based midgame play. Why would'nt they? Now that Zergs have learned how to use their bl-infestors composition, protosses feel like they have to go back to 2 base all-in with immortals in mind.
Hey wait up. Sen lost all the drones at his third holding the all-in on daybreak, it put him in the high 30s against parting's refined 45 probes. That's a big part of why he lost to the followup. Basically, the all-in did enough damage, so parting macro'd out of it and knocked him out a few minutes later.
I watched defenestrator's replays (3 or 4 of them) in the linked thread, and hydra looks solid to me. That said, I've been holding it just fine with 3 spines at the third, and roach ling.
I know that no pros are using hydras, we all do. But Parting says it's impossible to hold. Should we just listen to him, too? This thread is to help people, and it can be discussion of personal experiences if we're trying to help--i.e. if hydras will help all the way through mid-masters, and seemingly consistently, why wouldn't we discuss and suggest it? I'd rather talk to defenestrator, who did real testing with an attempt to improve the zerg response, than to sen, who looked like he was skating on thin ice nonstop, in every game. Yeah, he "held" on daybreak against parting, but not without significant drone losses, and that's why he lost in the end. I'd be more excited to see defenestrator play hydra defense against parting than to watch sen try again.
I also really feel the need to comment on your lack of reading. You responded to something I said without reading the nested stuff, and you outright recommended that I read Belial's anti-6 pool guide, when I had JUST recommended that to the guy who was actually having problems with early pools. I sincerely doubt you bothered to read the immortal-sentry thread that defenestrator linked; I would bet that you did not even click it. If you had, you'd see the blue toss post that suggests that going hydra sounds about right as well, and you'd see that we discussed the whole "hydras suck he'll back off and make colossi" thing and showed that it's a stupid argument, corruptors are out in time because you know he MUST get collosi, so you drop the spire as soon as you're not in danger of dying, and you can easily spot his third going down and drop your fourth to keep up. Macro keeps up, tech keeps up. This is from watching an actual replay (daybreak, iirc), too. I don't think you can argue that he can back off and go to colossi and win at high masters or GM, either, it's not exactly difficult to put down a spire and a fourth base on time, and defenestrator's hydra defense only goes to 8 hydras without range, so the tech delay is less than that of heavy roach play. This is all in the relevant thread, though, so any further discussion should go there.
I'm being extremely critical of you because I think that top players coming into this thread hold greater responsibility, just as the mid-masters players have some responsibility to watch replays and diagnose problems. Ideally, you'd be able to contribute more than just say "do as the pros".
It's possible you disagree with this mindset, and of course I can't do anything regardless. But speaking as a mid-masters player who is trying to contribute what he can, as well as trying to learn, I feel that I've learned absolutely nothing from your first dozen posts in this thread, and I don't think anyone else who's been keeping up with this thread and with the immortal-sentry thread has learned anything from you either.
I intentionally am posting this openly because I think it's important that we not get stuck in a "talk only about the pros" mindset. Everyone has mistakes and bad habits, and this thread is to identify those and help people improve. Certainly specific discussion such as immortal sentry should stay in that thread, and normally I'd just PM about these kinds of complaints. But only explaining what the pros do is like pointing at Mozart, and saying we should copy him, does not work when you're trying to help a student learn piano. Help must be focused on the student and his or her specific issues, not the master and the perfect way to play. Stop pointing at Mozart.
p.s. this is why I always ask for replays.
|
On December 08 2012 07:35 Defenestrator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2012 06:55 schach wrote:
Hey guys,
Question about mid game army comps: I know Zerg is a reactive race, but how set in stone are your build orders when you see what race you are facing/their initial builds? I always find my tech is behind (high gold btw) because I don't definitively decide what the heck to build. Sometimes I stick on tier 1 too long and just aim for tier 3, only to get stomped by a better mid game army.
For example, against immo/sentry I like to go roach/ling, but if I hold it I often haven't "planned" what to tech to with the exception of wanting broods. Should I go into the game by saying "okay, if he goes immo/sentry I'm gonna start roach/ling, then add in infestors (or hydras, or both), and then get to broods"?
Any input on your mindsets would be great This is a good question. Ideally you want to have a plan before every game starts for the early, mid, and lategame, and based on your scouting you want to know how to react. This comes from a lot of experience and watching pros, reading forums, etc., but that is how I approach every game generally. For example, take ZvT. I'll typically try to open with 6Q, get 2 gas at 6:00, get speed, get lair. Then I'll typically add a baneling nest and scout, and react accordingly. If he's going mech, a lot of times I'll open muta and get a roach warren to defend against heavy hellion play, get a few mutas to force thors, and then switch into roach aggression/roach drops. If he's going marine/tank, I'll maybe add an infestation pit at lair completion and go for infestor/ling/bane while teching to ultra. These options are set in my mind even before the game begins. Now to your example: so you go roach/ling and hold his immo/sentry. Now what? Basically as soon as you hold the push, fully saturate 3 bases, get an infestation pit, get pathogen glands, and go ling/infestor/spine while tech'ing to hive (the same as you would do in a macro PvZ game, basically). Try to contain him on 2-base using your leftover roach/ling from the push; if you cannot and he takes a 3rd, take a 4th base and continue the game from there. You should be ahead in eco at this point because of his allin. There're other options; for example, if you crush his push you can try to push in with your roach/ling and break his base or go for drop tech, mutas, etc. However, you should have a preset response in case this does occur in the game.
this is exactly the answer I was looking for :D
thanks a million
|
Hey wait up. Sen lost all the drones at his third holding the all-in on daybreak, it put him in the high 30s against parting's refined 45 probes. That's a big part of why he lost to the followup. Basically, the all-in did enough damage, so parting macro'd out of it and knocked him out a few minutes later.
I know that no pros are using hydras, we all do. But Parting says it's impossible to hold. Should we just listen to him, too? This thread is to help people, and it can be discussion of personal experiences if we're trying to help--i.e. if hydras will help all the way through mid-masters, and seemingly consistently, why wouldn't we discuss and suggest it? I'd rather talk to defenestrator, who did real testing with an attempt to improve the zerg response, than to sen, who looked like he was skating on thin ice nonstop, in every game. Yeah, he "held" on daybreak against parting, but not without significant drone losses, and that's why he lost in the end. I'd be more excited to see defenestrator play hydra defense against parting than to watch sen try again.
Wait. Sen held the push against the best immortal all-in player in the world (yes he lost drones and finally the game). I believe, of all the official matches Parting played, only three players held it. And yet you better follow defenestrator's build? Then I have nothing to add, I'm sorry.
My bad on that game, didnt remember Sen lost drones to parting.
|
On December 08 2012 10:47 Natalya wrote:Show nested quote +
Hey wait up. Sen lost all the drones at his third holding the all-in on daybreak, it put him in the high 30s against parting's refined 45 probes. That's a big part of why he lost to the followup. Basically, the all-in did enough damage, so parting macro'd out of it and knocked him out a few minutes later.
I know that no pros are using hydras, we all do. But Parting says it's impossible to hold. Should we just listen to him, too? This thread is to help people, and it can be discussion of personal experiences if we're trying to help--i.e. if hydras will help all the way through mid-masters, and seemingly consistently, why wouldn't we discuss and suggest it? I'd rather talk to defenestrator, who did real testing with an attempt to improve the zerg response, than to sen, who looked like he was skating on thin ice nonstop, in every game. Yeah, he "held" on daybreak against parting, but not without significant drone losses, and that's why he lost in the end. I'd be more excited to see defenestrator play hydra defense against parting than to watch sen try again.
Wait. Sen held the push against the best immortal all-in player in the world (yes he lost drones and finally the game). I believe, of all the official matches Parting played, only three players held it. And yet you better follow defenestrator's build? Then I have nothing to add, I'm sorry. My bad on that game, didnt remember Sen lost drones to parting.
Let's be extra clear: sen did not hold it off, and it's misleading to state that he did. He lost to it, but he managed to draw out the loss well past the initial attack, just like how terrans can draw out a loss against roach-bane by stabilizing at their main ramp by pulling scvs to buffer until tanks come out. Parting only lost to the ridiculous spine-infestor thing suppy did, then subsequently stated in an interview that he made a mistake and should have just pulled back and macro'd for an easy win. People have mentioned some wcs game or something that I didn't see, maybe that's where you've got me and you can shut me up with that. But what I'm saying is that roach ling loses, even the spines-at-third base variant with 1-1 lings that Sen did ok with, and that he designed to counter Parting-style triple immortal sentry. It's a smart attempt to counter it while still playing for lategame--the spines delay and hold long enough to get 1-1 lings, which eventually win the war of attrition when backed by a core handful of roaches. But it still dies, or is inconsistent enough to die to proper toss micro.
However, this is not the place to argue about the proper response to immortal-sentry. No one has a good solution, not a single pro player thus far, including sen. So you tell people what you think, and defenestrator will advise according to his knowledge; anything debate should go in the immortal-sentry thread.
Let me restate: there is no accepted pro response to immortal sentry that works. So there's no need to behave as though there is. Yes, sen seems to think 1-1 lings is the key, and I agree that it's amazing and gives you a fighting chance and we should point it out, but there is no accepted, working solution against immortal sentry. Your argument against defenestrator is rubbing me the wrong way because you speak as though there is.
Sigh. All this debate over nothing, really, because for most players reading this thread, defending immortal sentry is still 90% a macro issue, and the last 10% isn't composition, it's just poor engagements or silly micro mistakes like not moving roaches into range. As you said, even at mid-masters, macro can still make or break an engagement.
|
Watching Proleague right now, Doa keeps mentioning a +2/+2 ling/bane/muta push in zvt. Just saw action use it against thorzain and it looks crazy good. Anyone got the timings somewhere, or a rough sketch of the push?
|
On December 08 2012 01:13 pedrlz wrote:
Bronze/Silver league player here.
My build normally is mass roach attack 10 minutes. Every time I play with zerg, my opponent go mass air, so I stay defensive until have a nice number of corruptors, if they attack me I send roach to counterattack and try to defender with just corruptors, am I doing raight?
What I supposed to do when I found they are going mass air?
What problems are you having when you send the roaches to counter while you defend with corruptors? Because this is what I would do, but if he has VRs, corruptors would not be my response in the first place, I would go for infestors while steadily adding spores. Are you talking ZvP? I am assuming this is ZvP where you go three hatch against FFE.
If he's really going mass air, get spores, queens, and keep droning (at least enough to replace the ones that are used for spores). Start lair if you didn't already, and keep adding to your anti-air defenses until you see that he's not adding more VRs. In the meantime, get your infestation pit when lair finishes, and get infestors when the pathogen glands upgrades is >50% done, and now start adding roaches again. Once you have infestors out, you just need to fungal a few units and use queens to shoot them down while they're fungal-locked.
|
On December 08 2012 13:40 Thienan567 wrote:
Watching Proleague right now, Doa keeps mentioning a +2/+2 ling/bane/muta push in zvt. Just saw action use it against thorzain and it looks crazy good. Anyone got the timings somewhere, or a rough sketch of the push?
Standard 6 queen opener (or similar) for quick 3 bases and double evo with a later lair. Bane nest after lair, drone up to ~66-70 (3 base saturation). Macro hatch around 9:00, then mass muta/ling. Once 2/2 nears finish, save gas for banelings and take a fourth (and fifth optionally). Morph a shitload of banelings (get speed when you want, it takes a lot less time than +2), then try to pick a good engagement at Terran's third. You should be near-max when 2/2 finishes, and that's pretty much it.
Basically standard 3 base muta build, you just all in by morphing 40+ banes and attacking at 2/2 instead of saving gas for hive/infestors/+3 upgrades/fourth. Should win every game until masters, and even then some. I mean it works in pro games so it's obviously strong, just very all in. If you don't kill/cripple Terran, you're dead.
|
On December 08 2012 13:37 6xFPCs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2012 10:47 Natalya wrote:
Hey wait up. Sen lost all the drones at his third holding the all-in on daybreak, it put him in the high 30s against parting's refined 45 probes. That's a big part of why he lost to the followup. Basically, the all-in did enough damage, so parting macro'd out of it and knocked him out a few minutes later.
I know that no pros are using hydras, we all do. But Parting says it's impossible to hold. Should we just listen to him, too? This thread is to help people, and it can be discussion of personal experiences if we're trying to help--i.e. if hydras will help all the way through mid-masters, and seemingly consistently, why wouldn't we discuss and suggest it? I'd rather talk to defenestrator, who did real testing with an attempt to improve the zerg response, than to sen, who looked like he was skating on thin ice nonstop, in every game. Yeah, he "held" on daybreak against parting, but not without significant drone losses, and that's why he lost in the end. I'd be more excited to see defenestrator play hydra defense against parting than to watch sen try again.
Wait. Sen held the push against the best immortal all-in player in the world (yes he lost drones and finally the game). I believe, of all the official matches Parting played, only three players held it. And yet you better follow defenestrator's build? Then I have nothing to add, I'm sorry. My bad on that game, didnt remember Sen lost drones to parting. Let's be extra clear: sen did not hold it off, and it's misleading to state that he did. He lost to it, but he managed to draw out the loss well past the initial attack, just like how terrans can draw out a loss against roach-bane by stabilizing at their main ramp by pulling scvs to buffer until tanks come out. Parting only lost to the ridiculous spine-infestor thing suppy did, then subsequently stated in an interview that he made a mistake and should have just pulled back and macro'd for an easy win. People have mentioned some wcs game or something that I didn't see, maybe that's where you've got me and you can shut me up with that. But what I'm saying is that roach ling loses, even the spines-at-third base variant with 1-1 lings that Sen did ok with, and that he designed to counter Parting-style triple immortal sentry. It's a smart attempt to counter it while still playing for lategame--the spines delay and hold long enough to get 1-1 lings, which eventually win the war of attrition when backed by a core handful of roaches. But it still dies, or is inconsistent enough to die to proper toss micro. However, this is not the place to argue about the proper response to immortal-sentry. No one has a good solution, not a single pro player thus far, including sen. So you tell people what you think, and defenestrator will advise according to his knowledge; anything debate should go in the immortal-sentry thread. Let me restate: there is no accepted pro response to immortal sentry that works. So there's no need to behave as though there is. Yes, sen seems to think 1-1 lings is the key, and I agree that it's amazing and gives you a fighting chance and we should point it out, but there is no accepted, working solution against immortal sentry. Your argument against defenestrator is rubbing me the wrong way because you speak as though there is. Sigh. All this debate over nothing, really, because for most players reading this thread, defending immortal sentry is still 90% a macro issue, and the last 10% isn't composition, it's just poor engagements or silly micro mistakes like not moving roaches into range. As you said, even at mid-masters, macro can still make or break an engagement.
Semi-finals 1 I just rewatched the vod.
Yes, we are talking about some games at wcs.... I dont know what game you are talking about. The game was on daybreak, Sen held then took a late fourth, because maybe he was thinking Parting was coming with a second wave. Parting finally killed him with collossus. In the game what Sen did looked like a clear hold followed by some little mistakes that allowed Parting to come back. At the end of the all in, Parting had no army left and 47 drones, Sen had 40 drones. But since it was 2 base vs 3, arguably Sen was not really behind in eco since he could replenish a healthy drone count fast.
Dont forget Sniper who held the All-In with roach ling in gsl.
Looks like a good enough answer to me, or the beggining of one. It's still closer to hold than any hydra thing i've seen. And I still think following blindly pros builds is a better way to improve than to craft your own build unless you are GM.
The other debate is should we advise other players to follow some builds that work up to midmaster? I dont think so, because they will have to unlearn later a good part of what they've learned. And it can nearly be concluded from your own post, it's maybe defenestrator's execution that's better than the one of his protoss counterpart that lets him win. The next step would be to wonder if his build isn't slowing him down in his ladder climbing rather than helping.
Also, you keep acting like it was me vs you or something. It's not. It's you vs the pros. I'm not defending my own build, i'm advocating to follow what the pros are doing, and god knows if they're far better than you and me.
Edit: the link didnt work
|
If parting stepped back and macro'd after doing sentry immortal all-in and not attacking, he'd be up against 70 drones and then 80 soon after, with him on 44 probes, very delayed third, no tech, and no way to stop me from getting a fourth and hive. It's called sentry immortal all-in for a reason!
If you saw my drone saturation on Antiga, I still had 65-70 drones when he attacked (honestly a bit too many, I should have made some more lings earlier and injected better so I didn't get like 1k/1k surplus).
Not to say that my build doesn't have other weaknesses scouting wise but I think if I learn a few more clues to look for when scouting toss I think it will be quite strong.
|
On December 08 2012 15:45 Superiorwolf wrote:
If parting stepped back and macro'd after doing sentry immortal all-in and not attacking, he'd be up against 70 drones and then 80 soon after, with him on 44 probes, very delayed third, no tech, and no way to stop me from getting a fourth and hive. It's called sentry immortal all-in for a reason!
If you saw my drone saturation on Antiga, I still had 65-70 drones when he attacked (honestly a bit too many, I should have made some more lings earlier and injected better so I didn't get like 1k/1k surplus).
Not to say that my build doesn't have other weaknesses scouting wise but I think if I learn a few more clues to look for when scouting toss I think it will be quite strong.
yeah I think also if you scout robo and start doing this build (over droning a bit & going mass spines) if he decides to go warp prism before immortals (for some reason or reactionary to scouting your spines/drone sat) it could be weak because you have such delayed units, and defending big warp ins with only spines out of position is really not efficient.
And also yeah if you defend the immo/sentry all in with that saturation, that superior tech and the spine crawlers (useful in later stages) already rooted and ready, you can do such a crazy strong BL push, protoss can't possibly stop that if you don't mess up!
|
On December 08 2012 00:43 Natalya wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 12:28 RaAj wrote:
But what about Taeja he did what he always does to him and MVP? There is a reason he was able to beat him using his style and MVP can be considered the polar opposite of MKP. I honestly dont think its due to the styles. Also what zergs do when they drone and tech and make units in response to scouting information is not gimmicky as you are not relying on your opponent to make a mistake or overextension but rather your own ability. It IS gimmicky though if you make units to see if your opponents made a mistake that justify your preemptive creation of zerglings that are not nessecarily in response to an offensive attack to you THAT relies on your opponent ability and not yours thus it is much more gimmicky than actualy making drones and reaction to the opponent. So this brings us bal to my question, why does Life decide to make so many lungs if it is to try to see if your opponent made a mistake (which is not repiable) You cant make the assumption that your opponent will never make mistakes. Starcraft simply does not work like that. Sacrificing a little bit of drone count to be able to throw your opponent out of his comfort zone can not be underestimated. You lose an advantage in drones to get a mental advantage, a moral advantage. Players like MKP and Taeja have played five thousands times the same scenario where they walk cross map with their timings and the Z has exactly 5 infestors and 60 lings, and it means they know exactly how greedy was the Z up to that point, where are his upgrades, his tech, etc etc. They know what to do to follow it, they know what's the next move. Playing against someone really unpredictable as Life is not easy because all that past experience is a lot less usefull to you. Tasteless and Artosis talked here and there of the possibility to 6 pool versus Protoss because the 6 pooler can practice it two hundreds times in a row if he wants to, and he will know exactly if he is ahead/behind according to the amount of damage he dealt with it. While the Protoss might wonder "well, what's the next move now?". If you have to use your brain to think about your strat ingame, it's not good news. Your reactions should be like reflexes, your thinking should be done in between games when watching your own replays. You are right that Taeja has a different playstyle. I dont really have answers, I would have to look again at the vods. Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 12:48 Defenestrator wrote:
And... maybe not. The same could be said to you; hundreds of different explanations are possible for why pros do NOT use it at their level. People didn't use BL/infestor 8 months-1 year ago; does that make it a bad composition? I apologize for not answering your concerns directly, but I've done it so many times and so thoroughly from a theorycrafting point of view, and then backed it up by replays, that it does get tiresome. For example, I address your point about taking a 3rd with reasoning and a replay in that thread.
Sen, in an interview at BWC, explicitly said his build was designed to counter the immortal all-in. So you cant say he thinks hydras are good against the immortal all-in since he designed his build to counter it and it doesnt include hydras. How can you assume he didnt figure out an answer when he holded the all-in against the player that execute it better than anyone else? How can you make the assumption that he maybe didnt figure something out and that you figured it? Sen said, in the same interview, that he used to hold the all-in everytime on ladder, but that Parting had a little something that made it more special, more difficult to hold, that he was faster than anyone else with it. You speak about theorycrafting. Nice. Guess what forcefield immortals are supposed to counter? Roaches. Guess what is supposed to counter that composition? Zerglings with equals upgrades. Forcefields are not nearly as good vs zerglings because you need a lot more of them to stop zerglings from attacking and because they move a ton faster so that the reaction on protoss part has to be that much faster. And no need to say that immortals cant deal their usual uncredible amount of damage versus lings. Now, hydras are still beatable with forcefield. They dont counter immortals. Test it, an equal cost of hydras lose to immortals. Forcefields are also usefull because you can forcefield half the hydras in, half the hydras out. I could still enjoy listening to your justification of hydras on paper if you mind. Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 12:48 Defenestrator wrote:
As for Sen at BWC, did you choose to ignore the fact that he was significantly behind in that game after holding the allin and ultimately lost? And what about Suppy, the only person outside of GSL known to have stopped Parting's allin? He went a ton of spines into infestors and held, and actually won the game to boot, vs a superior opponent. Why don't you advocate that strategy instead of roach/ling?
About Sen, what happened after the all-in was hold is another discussion. I dont believe he was behind. Remember, he didnt suffer drone loss. He was still on 3 base fully mineral saturated (but with only 2 gas) vs 2 base. And the immortal all-in include some drone cut. About Suppy, his game was very very interesting but so far seems like a one time thing. If more pros try and do the same with some success, ofcourse his build could be advised. Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 12:48 Defenestrator wrote:
Just because you haven't seen a strategy at the pro level doesn't make it bad. So you are right and those tenths and hundreds of pros playing the game 24/7, making a living out of it, talking strategies with each other all the time, beating players you would never dream of beating at your actual level are wrong. If you simply refuse to consider that, I dont know what I can add. This thread is not supposed to be a discussion between our personal experiences, but between the builds the pro use. I didnt say hydras were not viable at mid master. But that's exactly the point. We are not aiming at solving problems at a mid master level, because at that level every problem can be solved with superior macro. You can win a fight with an inferior unit composition if you simply have more of everything. It's less and less the case the higher you get into master league and beyond, because the macro is getting closer and closer to the point where it's optimal. And about infestors bl, well, dont forget the infestor was highly buffed for once, and the queen buff allowed zergs to play more greedy in the early game, letting them get in the late game easier. That's for ZvT. For ZvP, until the roach max out style popped out, most games were 2 base all-in from the protoss. Games were decdided by the Zerg holding or not period. With the roach max style, protosses felt like their gate all-in were less and less potent. This build is a great tool to hold early all-ins. They started to try to take a third base while holding waves of roaches. Remember how Zerg had so much free-win back then. The Protoss builds were simply not refined enough yet. When they learned how to hold it, well, Zergs started exploring the vastly unexplored late game. Before that, they could kill their opponent with roach or muta based midgame play. Why would'nt they? Now that Zergs have learned how to use their bl-infestors composition, protosses feel like they have to go back to 2 base all-in with immortals in mind.
I don't think you understand. Firstly, I know pros make mistakes, but it is very simply bad strategy to directly damage economy to damage your opponent WHEN it relies on your opponent making a mistake. Yes they do make mistakes but what you're saying to justify making early lings is that "people make mistakes" it is bad strategy to rely on being successful based on the fact that your opponents make a mistake. Example: I put everything into a DT rush against a terran, now based on your theory of, 'people make mistakes', I hope the Terran does not scout my base thoroughly to find my shrine, I hope the Terran does not scout my gases or he will find out I'm going dt and I hope
the Terran forgets to make an ebay and a turret so I can kill him off! Cos, you know, people make mistakes. What you propose seems inaccurate of the reasoning to why Life makes those early lings.
|
What is the ideal ratio of roach to hydra in zvz when both going roach hydra infestors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
