The Protoss Help Me Thread - Page 358

On October 23 2012 17:13 Teoita wrote:
I think it's only doable on maps where you can easily wall off with 2-3 buildings like Ohana or Shakuras, it does sound pretty silly on Daybreak or Entombed when you also need your Cyber Core to be part of the wall.

On October 23 2012 19:08 thousand wrote:
I have noticed that most pros are making Archons from High Templars instead of Dark Templars. Why? The difference is 150 minerals and 50 gas and from what I understand gas is a more precious resource especially after mid game. I am mostly considering PvP, as HT are heavily used in PvZ and PvT for storms therefore it's usually useless to build Dark Shrine.

On October 23 2012 19:08 thousand wrote:
I have noticed that most pros are making Archons from High Templars instead of Dark Templars. Why? The difference is 150 minerals and 50 gas and from what I understand gas is a more precious resource especially after mid game. I am mostly considering PvP, as HT are heavily used in PvZ and PvT for storms therefore it's usually useless to build Dark Shrine.

On October 24 2012 03:57 Gumbi wrote:
Agree wholeheartedly with the two posts above. Very good points about economy management and macro management.

It's annoying that the PvP meta still hasn't evolved into a "fully-fledge macro game". The way the armies and compositions match up against each other, and he way Forge timings work out, in addition to other factors, limit your probe count, and consequently your overall economy.

On October 24 2012 04:31 MysteryMeat1 wrote:


I think the underlying reason is that you take your third soo late in macro pvp. That by the time you do take it your main is kind of mined out. Also the 2-4 extra collo that you get from having fewer probes is kind of a big advantage.

On October 22 2012 12:10 ineversmile wrote:


No.

First of all, FFE is worse than Gateway first against an early pool (6-10 pool). If you open 13 gate by your Nexus against an early pool, it's a build order win. If they open early pool and you went FFE, you have to cancel your Nexus, sac a Pylon and sometimes a Forge, you have to spend 150 on a cannon in your mineral line, and then you basically have to use a Gateway expo from there forward. If you open Gate first, you're a few steps ahead: you keep your pylons, you have the Gateway already, and a boosted Zealot comes out a few seconds after the zerglings get to your mineral line. Then, you boost a Stalker, and you have map control.

The best opening zerg has against Gateway first? Gas/Pool. But if you wall off properly and build some units, you beat the all-ins. If they just speedling expand? Who cares? You're ahead because they killed one of their drones and had 3 of them mine gas for a minute before building a hatchery. Not to mention that it's really, really easy to scout a 14/14, so you can actually react to it, but it's impossible to scout a 6pool and then decide not to build your 9 pylon on the low ground. The most dangerous thing they can do, if you prepare for the all-ins, is build the magic number of zerglings to deny your expansion while they get theirs up. But they can't do that, drone up, and also be safe against tech-based attacks that don't care about speedlings. That's where things like DTs, drops, and Stargate play can even that back out or even outright kill the zerg.

Building a cannon against Triple Hatch is like throwing 150 minerals into the garbage. Do cannons walk out onto the map and kill overlords? Do they take watchtowers? Do they cancel third bases? No, on all accounts. If you build a cannon at your natural and your opponent drones up, you just dumped a lot of money into something that doesn't do anything. Oh, it keeps those pesky zerglings from doing damage, right? Who cares? Sure, you can use cannons offensively, but you have to build them on the other side of the map, and they can't go on creep. Guess what can be built in your base for defense and then go do economic damage if there's nothing to defend against? Zealots and Stalkers. It's not like I have anything against putting up some defense, but building static defense at that stage of the game is stifling, and

And drone count? If you FFE and you're not doing the SaSe style where you build a second pylon (one in your main and one at the natural, in whichever order), that means you're significantly cutting probes for a while. First you have to build Nexus+Forge in whichever order. Then you have to add a pylon. You miss probe production, which means less mining time, and he's at a similar drone count during all of this. If you open gateway, you don't cut probes until you're close to 30 supply, so you have full saturation with a gas or two and the constant probes means you're 4-5 workers higher until the first inject finishes and 4 larvae are turned into drones. By that point, you have mined more money for a couple full minutes, and then that first inject only brings the zerg to parity with a gateway expo, as both players have low-mid 20s for worker count. You're not actually behind; you're even.

Are the probe numbers the same as with a FFE? No. But is that actually relevant? No. I don't care about my probe count; I care about the comparison between probe count and drone count. That's what actually matters. The benchmarks for "at 8 minutes FFE has this many probes and Gateway Expo has that many probes" are just stupid. It should always be about how the protoss looks by comparison to the zerg. That's like looking at a 15 point tied basketball game in the second quarter and saying "The Bulls are playing horribly; they only have 15 points!" when they're actually doing just fine because they're tied with the other team. Sure, you can derive some information from that scoreboard; it points to defense overpowering offense in the case of both teams, or players not getting hot yet. But a tied game is a tied game. A lead is a lead. Those are the things that matter.

The reason why FFE is the standard is that gateway expansions are more difficult to execute, require more elaborate defenses against 14/14s, and are not as refined as the FFE. None of those reasons translate into the FFE being better than a Gateway expansion. Remember when people thought you had to get 3 gateways before expanding? Remember when Shakuras Plateau was thought to be an excellent map for macro games? Remember when GSL players were having problems accurately hitting the forcefield on the ramp to their main to defend against a 2rax? Popularity and greatness do not necessarily go hand-in-hand, and there is always the possibility that everyone is, in fact, dead wrong about an idea.

On October 24 2012 05:21 Wingblade wrote:


I disagree. Why does speeding expand become the only viable way for Zerg to open against gateway first? A gateway first opening let's the Zerg hatch first without having to worry about cannon shenanagains into pool then gas. You end up getting early warp gate tech that cannot provide any real benefit against Zerg. 3 gate pressures were figured out a long time ago and can cost you a lot of gas to do and outright lose games if they get shutdown. 1 gate expand has a very difficult time holding allins unless you get a forge which puts you back at square one. Now you delay your expo for useless tech that you cant do anything with because you invested the extra money into being safe. Stargaze expands rely on the Zerg having a late evo and messing up.

In the current meta, going Hatch first on the basis of a late scout is quite risky, what with many Tosses doig a 13 Forge in base these days. in any case, it's not a big deal, hatch first isn't hugely detrimental to a Toss. the potential 4 Gate that hits at 6 15 ish makes a gasless third near-suicide; Zerg's best response is to get a reactive gas and get Speed, delaying the third by a bit.

And excluding a 6/7 pool, you don't get map control for very long if the Zerg player has to get a gas. Now Zerg has speed faster and can take map control faster. Your expansion simply ends up later and you don't gain any extra amount of time with map control. You still have map control for a solid amount of time until speed comes out with an FFE and you guarantee absolute safety when done correctly. If you lose to an allin with FFE it's because you didn't scout, not because the FFE is bad.

My nexus goes down slightly faster than the nexus of an FFE (due to me scouting a bit later). If I scout a gas, my ramp pylon is used to start a wall, not of 3 gates; I add a Forge, then a cannon, which finish before a speedling timing is possible.

The idea that your actually making less money because there is a bit of time when you aren't making
probes is silly. You will still have less probes mining minerals, and gas on only 1 base is pointless because you can't do anything reliably effective with gas on 1 base, as I explained before.

My build incorporates immediately getting a second gas upon scouting a reactive gas, so the timings are equivalent.

What your neglecting to mention is that even tho you may have even worker counts, your opponent has twice as many bases. The idea that 2 base Zerg = 1 base Protoss is a misnomer because the first year of WoL was spent proving that 1 base Protoss has no reliable method of pressuring Zerg at a decent risk/reward ratio. 1 base Protoss only works against Zerg if the Zerg does something wrong.

1 base Protoss with gateway first play gets tech options that are useless at that stage instead of a more competitive economy. 2 base Zerg is stronger than 1 base protoss unless the Zerg is bad and makes mistakes. Relying on an opponent to be bad is the wrong way to play Starcraft.

FFE has been proven to be the superior build against Zerg.

I would argue that the very way that metas work does not work in proofs at all. I would define the meta, generally, as a style which tends to be the most efficient. I derive from this that modern meta does not necessitate the most efficient way of playing the game, but that it tends to be so, so your argument here is invalid.

Your comment also detracts from the very meaning of the meta. the fact that we have a current style of Z play, meaning it can be somewhat predicted, meaning potentially less efficient builds are more viable.

On October 24 2012 04:36 Gumbi wrote:

Yep, you're right about the late third thing. The main point still stands though, about the Protoss meta. The power of tech and weakness of GW units makes for a wonky metagame :/

On October 24 2012 12:33 playa wrote:
I personally never understood the ht -> archons in p vs p. Still don't. As strong as colossi are in p vs p, I'm going to save as much gas as I can to maximize that number. Plus, why wouldn't you want the ability to harass with a dt at anytime? Also, it's always nice to have at least 1 dt mixed in with your army to force them to have an obs at all times. The only time you actually need an ht is if the other guy has a mothership, so... if the other guy wants to favor having more zealots, thank god I get to have an extra colossi... I can only hope that people continue to think that tradeoff makes sense. It makes perfect sense. You guys are all amazing. Please keep at it.