Scary and underused Immortal micro

On December 21 2010 17:13 SpoR wrote:
he didn't need the micro to win that game at all. He was just messiing around cause he was going to win.

The roach and spine shots still only gonna do 10, and then u can just lift away and let full recharge and go back in after 10 hits or so.

PS- The queens AA is 9 range and can rape the weak ass warp prism from well out of range of the immortal or support.

People were doing immortal drops first month of beta. I believe louder and KHB we fans of it. Then recently for MLG or something HuK or someone did a build vs Idra where he rushed this drop and warped in zeals and shit with the immortals.

Then recently for MLG or something HuK or someone did a build vs Idra where he rushed this drop and warped in zeals and shit with the immortals.

On December 21 2010 17:30 grannock wrote:
Why didn't the zerg put up nydus at his base, the only reason he lost was because he was attacking down his ramp into a bad concave.

On December 21 2010 17:20 Xanbatou wrote:
As a Zerg player, that sort of cannon abuse at the beginning makes me depressed. Even though the protoss epic failed with that cannon wall-in, he still ended up crippling that poor zerg player. The force fielding just made it even harder to watch.

I am so glad that they are nerfing that wall-in and making 50% more expensive to do.

On December 21 2010 17:04 vlaric wrote:
very heartening to see micro that doesn't involve kiting/focus fire being used in sc2. iirc, the same thing was attempted with colossi awhile ago but was abandoned quite quickly, though i think that the immortal+warp prism micro is a lot more practical and could actually be used vs heavy roach play in pvz.

On December 21 2010 17:24 TheDominator wrote:
Wow... and maybe they may use some really irritating unit like the thor.
Lol i wud hate that.

On December 21 2010 19:49 arterian wrote:
that doesn't even look that APM intensive, but cool strategy nonetheless

On December 21 2010 17:25 AndAgain wrote:
It's only a matter of time until someone makes a thread "The future of protoss micro!!!"

On December 22 2010 12:35 Resistentialism wrote:
do roaches actually have delay on their shots landing?

On December 21 2010 17:20 Xanbatou wrote:
As a Zerg player, that sort of cannon abuse at the beginning makes me depressed. Even though the protoss epic failed with that cannon wall-in, he still ended up crippling that poor zerg player. The force fielding just made it even harder to watch.

I am so glad that they are nerfing that wall-in and making 50% more expensive to do.

On December 21 2010 17:13 SpoR wrote:
People were doing immortal drops first month of beta. I believe louder and KHB we fans of it. Then recently for MLG or something HuK or someone did a build vs Idra where he rushed this drop and warped in zeals and shit with the immortals.

On December 26 2010 04:10 Blyadischa wrote:
Don't understand why this is causing the "OMG SC2 MICRO OMG/SKILL CEILING SKILL CEILING etc." stupidity in this thread.

This has been done in brood war and SC2 before, and in BW, shuttle + reaver micro was a standard protoss build.

This skill ceiling is just as low as it was before. The 10 more apm it takes to do this doesn't bridge the gap between the skill level of BW and the skill level of SC2, and also the immortal is not as much of a game turning unit as the reaver was, and thus this will result in sadly, nothing.

On December 26 2010 04:16 gr8ape wrote:


Lets just specify some things here:

Brood war requires more technical skill.

More apm dedicated to actually playing the game. NOT DOING MORE ELABORATED STRATEGIES. Simply making units, using buildings, and using units. What does this effect have? It means no one can be good before a certain technical mastery of the game. Theyre not "good" at the game, they dont have complex strategies, deceptive tactics or anything like that, they are simply ABLE TO PLAY THE GAME.

In sc2, it is easier to play the game. WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT THE ACTUAL PLAYER WITH BETTER STRATEGIES, MINDGAMES AND TACTICS WILL WIN because technical mastery has been removed toned down. Nonetheless, technical mastery in sc2 will be rewarding as with every game.

On December 26 2010 04:29 Xanbatou wrote:


I disagree. Very rarely can on the fly strategies win you the game. In brood war, eventually everyone discovered the most standard build orders that were standard for a reason. This game is not dynamic enough to reward creative and clever playing.

I really wish it were the case that the most strategic players would win the most, but most tournaments so far haven't displayed that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

On December 26 2010 04:16 gr8ape wrote:


Lets just specify some things here:

Brood war requires more technical skill.

More apm dedicated to actually playing the game. NOT DOING MORE ELABORATED STRATEGIES. Simply making units, using buildings, and using units. What does this effect have? It means no one can be good before a certain technical mastery of the game. Theyre not "good" at the game, they dont have complex strategies, deceptive tactics or anything like that, they are simply ABLE TO PLAY THE GAME.

In sc2, it is easier to play the game. WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT THE ACTUAL PLAYER WITH BETTER STRATEGIES, MINDGAMES AND TACTICS WILL WIN because technical mastery has been removed toned down. Nonetheless, technical mastery in sc2 will be rewarding as with every game.

On December 21 2010 17:41 Zoltan wrote:


That was some impressive force-fielding by NS, instant timing and perfect placement. It dosen't make me depressed, just impressed at how powerful and useful sentries still are. I feel like i haven't seen sentry micro like that since beta; good show.

On December 26 2010 05:16 Blyadischa wrote:


Watch a brood war game, then watch a SC2 game.

In a brood war game, there are multiple stages in one game where one player must use the timing of the matchup to assert their position over the map, then the timing of the matchup allows the other player to assert their position over the map. Then, when both players have their higher tech, they must strategically expand and attack expansions and strategically place units in the map to counter attack, catch drops, drop themselves, catch reinforcements, etc.

In SC2, it's either 70 food expansions with one player constantly attacking and either breaking the front and winning or getting denied and losing, 1 base all in vs 1 base all in, or it's fast expansions into midgame 1a's from both players to see who comes out on top. Rarely is it a long game, but if it is it's essentially just more of the same thing, more 1a's.

It's not a matter of less APM, the game is made easier by inject larva, mules, chronoboost, which make most economic damage negligible and one base all ins more potent then ever, the stupidity of some units (high templar TTTTTTTTTTTT I just won the game), and the terribleness of the map pool, where the expansion path is explicit, the attack path is explicit and the rush distances are all incredibly small compared to BW maps.

I remember watching BW Day9 dailies, where I actually learned something each time. Now I watch Day9 dailies of SC2 and just think, wow I would be miserable if I had to play BW, then switch to SC2, and had to throw away knowledge and be limited by the terribleness of the game.

On December 26 2010 05:16 Blyadischa wrote:


Watch a brood war game, then watch a SC2 game.

In a brood war game, there are multiple stages in one game where one player must use the timing of the matchup to assert their position over the map, then the timing of the matchup allows the other player to assert their position over the map. Then, when both players have their higher tech, they must strategically expand and attack expansions and strategically place units in the map to counter attack, catch drops, drop themselves, catch reinforcements, etc.

In SC2, it's either 70 food expansions with one player constantly attacking and either breaking the front and winning or getting denied and losing, 1 base all in vs 1 base all in, or it's fast expansions into midgame 1a's from both players to see who comes out on top. Rarely is it a long game, but if it is it's essentially just more of the same thing, more 1a's.

It's not a matter of less APM, the game is made easier by inject larva, mules, chronoboost, which make most economic damage negligible and one base all ins more potent then ever, the stupidity of some units (high templar TTTTTTTTTTTT I just won the game), and the terribleness of the map pool, where the expansion path is explicit, the attack path is explicit and the rush distances are all incredibly small compared to BW maps.

I remember watching BW Day9 dailies, where I actually learned something each time. Now I watch Day9 dailies of SC2 and just think, wow I would be miserable if I had to play BW, then switch to SC2, and had to throw away knowledge and be limited by the terribleness of the game.

it's some good micro, but I dont see this becoming the new reaver micro, as warp prisms are SO fragile.

On December 26 2010 11:37 NicolBolas wrote:


Warp Prisms have 40 shields and 100 Hp. Shuttles had 60 shields and 80 Hp. Warp Prisms are no more fragile than Shuttles.

The only difference is that Warp Prisms can't drop units that deal 100+ AoE damage with every shot. Reavers could cover Shuttles pretty well from many ground units.