|
United States8476 Posts
Back when I was starting out learning PvP, this thread was very useful for me. However, as it is out of date now, I decided to update it with the current PvP builds.
Each build has its own strengths and weaknesses, and every current mainstream build that is used in PvP will be displayed here. The builds will all be compared against each other, approximating which one will have the upper hand. The builds do not include early builds such as 2 gate proxy, cannon rushes, or even 4 gate.
Here is a graph representing the PvP builds used as of now. Read left to top. Ex. Phoenix is greater than Colossi. “>” does not indicate that one build has a huge advantage over another. It merely indicates that one build consistently has an advantage over the other, no matter how big or small. Also note that “=” does not mean the builds will come out equal against each other. It means that depending on how each player plays his build, one player may come out ahead of the other but neither player will consistently come out with the advantage.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tXqvo.jpg)
Fast expansion
Fast expansion is a new category of build that has just recently begun seeing heavy use in pro level PvP. Previously, players would expand with 3 gates and a forge, but now robo follow-ups are also common after a fast expand, because of the recent immortal buff.
Fast expansion < Delayed 4 gate, 3 gate pressure
According to the chart, it may look like fast expansion is the best build with no weaknesses. However, on most maps, if your opponent scouts the expansion in time, he can either opt for a delayed 4 gate, which all other builds will hold, but this one will fall to.
Fast expansion = Blink stalker
Depending on the exact fast expansion build and the map, blink stalkers may be able to punish fast expands. For example, 3 gate expand on metal with a forge have no hope of holding blinkl, while 1 gate expo on shak with a robo followup has an extremely easy time.
Fast expansion > Dt
Pretty much all good fast expansion builds include either a forge or a robo, both of which should shut down dts.
Fast expansion > All other builds.
All the other builds do not have the potential to punish fast expands are generally forced to go for an later expand or allin.
Immortal expand
This build is similar to a fast expand but trades away the weakness to delayed 4 gates in exchange for a later expansion and a commitment to immortal tech. Because of this, immortal expand opens up a weakness to a host of other builds. Although this build is hardly ever used in high level play, it is common on the ladder, because of the prevalence of robo blink.
Immortal expand > Robo blink
Robo blink has no way of punishing an immortal expand once the robo blink player commits to both a robo and twilight council. The cost of twilight offsets the cost of the nexus and offers no immediate benefits for the robo blink player that would allow him to punish the expansion.
Immortal expand < Colossi
A vast majority of the time, a straight up collosi push will kill an immortal expand. However, on an especially large map, I can possibly see a quick expand vs an extremely late robo if you either get a flank with immortals or tech to collosi directly after.
Immortal expand ≥ Blink
A 4 gating blink player might be able to successfully allin a immortal expand player. However, you don’t have to expand so fast versus a blinking player who shows a lot of stalkers. You’re extremely safe, because you opened immortals versus blink, so instead, you can tech to blink yourself or colossi.
Immortal expand > Dts
You have observers and your army should be at home the entire time, so you shouldn’t be caught offguard too much.
Immortal expand < Phoenix
If you don’t expand, you will lose a lot of probes and be behind in tech. If you expand he can alling you and just straight up win.
Robo blink
Robo blink = Colossi
One player will have the advantage based on each others’ nexus timings and whether either players decides to allin or not.
Robo blink ≥ Blink
Robo blink will have the advantage in all but 2 situations. The first is that he allins you while you are unprepared because you committed to twilight and blink and ran out of forcefield somehow.The other way the blink player can get ahead is on a large map where the blink player takes an extremely early expo and follows that up with his own robo for immortals.
Robo blink > Dts
You have a robo for observers and can be very aggressive with your blink stalkers after you fend off the initial dts. The only issue might be when you move out with your stalkers/observer and leave nothing home.
Robo blink ≥ Phoenix
You shouldn’t take too much damage from phoenix harass and you will force your opponent into some detection because you have a twilight council, so I would say you’re generally ahead. However, watch out for the new phoenix immortal builds, which can be deadly if you don’t know how to deal with them.
Colossi
Colossi = Blink
This can play out in so many ways and I wouldn’t say either player has a definitive advantage going into these builds.
Colossi > Dts
Just a move here.
Colossi < Phoenix
Because of the heavy gas investment into colossi, you won’t have many stalkers to deter the intial phoenix harass. It only goes downhill from there
Blink
Blink ≤ Dt
Just depends on whether the blink player can get detection in time. If the blink player gets out a cannon in his base but doesn’t do any initial damage, the game becomes playable for him, but he’s still not too ahead.
Blink > Phoenix
You can put a ton of pressure on the phoenix player as the blink player and you won’t lose probes.
Dt/Phoenix
Dt ≥ Phoenix
Just matters if you scout the dts in time.
|
This is just great. Thanks!
|
Immortal expand beats colossi. You get the expansion much earlier and can hold 1 base colossus pushes easily. The all-in basically has to get thermal lance or 6 range immortals pop 6 range colossi like balloons, and 200/200 for robo bay + 200/200 for thermal lance means that the immortal expand player has a much larger army.
|
Phoenix = all Stargate builds?
What about Archon Chargelot builds?
|
On October 23 2011 03:11 kcdc wrote:
Immortal expand beats colossi. You get the expansion much earlier and can hold 1 base colossus pushes easily. The all-in basically has to get thermal lance or 6 range immortals pop 6 range colossi like balloons, and 200/200 for robo bay + 200/200 for thermal lance means that the immortal expand player has a much larger army.
Care 2 show some replays :L?
|
Tnx for this thread, hopefully will help with PvP!
Would be great if you could add links, to the mentioned builds.
|
i like the idea, but not the execution. You have some wrong information. There are many factors that you didnt include, such as rush distance, macro, scouting etc.
Btw. Phoenix oppening beats FE, dts can work against robo builds and everything can beat collossi
|
For those going phoenix opening into a 2/3gate stargate expand... a good transition against a roboing player who is going for a collosus ball is to transition into 2gate robo stargate and get alot of immortal and void ray with a few phoenix's to lift immortals and get down the collosus. (on 2 base of course)
|
Monk, as much as I love all your posts and guides, I'm not sure if I like this one. While some builds do give you automatic advantages over others, these advantages are minimized depending on execution and also small variations within the build. In other words, each of your styles such as "blink" or "phoenix" have different variations that end up majorly changing its counter chart. You could create more categories, but then with too many categories the chart just becomes not really useful at all.
For example, a 23 probe 1 gate twilight blink stalker all in build plays out a lot differently than perhaps a 3 gate twilight with more probes blink build. With the all-in variant, it really comes down to if your opponent scouts it or not, and can potentially counter all other builds out there.
Another example is the immortal expand versus colossus. Generally colossus beats immortal expand, but if immortal expand adds in warp prism, then actually I'd say the immortal expand has the advantage.
Or take phoenix play. There's 2 distinct styles of phoenix play - 1 with robo for phoenix/immortal, and one without for just phoenix/gateway. Phoenix/immortal pretty much hard counters DTs because of robo, but phoenix/gateway gets hard countered by DTs. And while if you go for phoenix/robo and tech too fast you are weak to blink, I've found that if I just go phoenix/gateway I can actually crush pure blink variants pretty easily.
|
I'm not one hundred percent certain if this is accurate, but for now I would like people to either prove their statements with replays or with some sort of timing based calculation.
Just outright saying "you're wrong X beats Y np" with 0 understanding of the matchup yourself is not helping in a strategy forum.
I know I'm not OP but I would really like it if people could stop just spreading wrong/uncertain information as facts.
That is all.
not exactly all:
Thank you for this thread, was needed a long time I don't understand why I never came up with this idea -.-
Oh and please do not make comments stating "with better macro build Y can defeat build Z"... with better execution you will almost always win...
|
On October 23 2011 03:14 mizU wrote:
Phoenix = all Stargate builds?
What about Archon Chargelot builds?
Chargelot Archon is more of a midgame composition rather than a build. You can transition into it from a lot of these builds.
|
can somebody please link some reps of pvp fe builds? This is news to me o_o
|
way too black and white for my taste, but i appreciate the effort some people are putting in to figure out wtf is happening in pvp ^^
most of my pvps start with gw pressure (teh tinman) and can pretty much instagib a lot of builds so I really only have to play against pretty safe openings, and if you are playing against safe openings into blink/robo/SG, these random advantages are a lot less apparent--ie any 3gate build into tech route X is less polarized towards X because of later tech and the forcing of earlier units. and coinflip FEs just die to it
edit: just saw anihc made similar point 
|
Italy12246 Posts
I think the fact that even blue posters don't agree says a lot about the current state of pvp. At least this guide clears things a little bit. One question: what is the specific way to deal with phoenix and phoenix-immortal allins?
|
United States8476 Posts
On October 23 2011 03:11 kcdc wrote:
Immortal expand beats colossi. You get the expansion much earlier and can hold 1 base colossus pushes easily. The all-in basically has to get thermal lance or 6 range immortals pop 6 range colossi like balloons, and 200/200 for robo bay + 200/200 for thermal lance means that the immortal expand player has a much larger army.
I've been testing this and if both players go 1 gate robo into immortal expand/collosi on a normal sized map, a 2 collosi no range push will consistently win.
On October 23 2011 03:14 mizU wrote:
Phoenix = all Stargate builds?
What about Archon Chargelot builds?
Voidray builds and archon chargelot builds are not mainstream or heavily used in the pro scene.
On October 23 2011 04:42 gejfsyd wrote:
i like the idea, but not the execution. You have some wrong information. There are many factors that you didnt include, such as rush distance, macro, scouting etc.
Btw. Phoenix oppening beats FE, dts can work against robo builds and everything can beat collossi
Phoenix openings do not beat FE. In fact they're one of the worst openings vs FE. Dt builds can work against robo builds, but GENERALLY, they're at a disadvantage. True, everything can beat colossi, but again, this thread is about which build generally has the advantage.
On October 23 2011 05:37 Anihc wrote:
Monk, as much as I love all your posts and guides, I'm not sure if I like this one. While some builds do give you automatic advantages over others, these advantages are minimized depending on execution and also small variations within the build. In other words, each of your styles such as "blink" or "phoenix" have different variations that end up majorly changing its counter chart. You could create more categories, but then with too many categories the chart just becomes not really useful at all.
For example, a 23 probe 1 gate twilight blink stalker all in build plays out a lot differently than perhaps a 3 gate twilight with more probes blink build. With the all-in variant, it really comes down to if your opponent scouts it or not, and can potentially counter all other builds out there.
Another example is the immortal expand versus colossus. Generally colossus beats immortal expand, but if immortal expand adds in warp prism, then actually I'd say the immortal expand has the advantage.
Or take phoenix play. There's 2 distinct styles of phoenix play - 1 with robo for phoenix/immortal, and one without for just phoenix/gateway. Phoenix/immortal pretty much hard counters DTs because of robo, but phoenix/gateway gets hard countered by DTs. And while if you go for phoenix/robo and tech too fast you are weak to blink, I've found that if I just go phoenix/gateway I can actually crush pure blink variants pretty easily.
I agree with your general point. However, this thread is meant to be an oversimplification. Many people were asking about the state of PvP and I'm trying to rationalize it here. To be honest, it's mostly targeted towards beginners who are just learning the game. And again, I don't try to quantify the advantage one build has over the other. I'm just saying one build generally has an advantage over another, no matter how small it is. Also, I try to assume that both players have scouted each other at a certain point and are playing optimally.
Also, I don't see how immortal expand + warp prism can defeat colossi. I've tried immortal drop on colossi and that doesn't work in a fight. Do you mean warp prism counter into your opponent's main?
On October 23 2011 07:15 Alejandrisha wrote:way too black and white for my taste, but i appreciate the effort some people are putting in to figure out wtf is happening in pvp ^^ most of my pvps start with gw pressure (teh tinman) and can pretty much instagib a lot of builds so I really only have to play against pretty safe openings, and if you are playing against safe openings into blink/robo/SG, these random advantages are a lot less apparent--ie any 3gate build into tech route X is less polarized towards X because of later tech and the forcing of earlier units. and coinflip FEs just die to it edit: just saw anihc made similar point
Completely agree here, but again, I'm trying to simplify everything. The point you make is actually really important for PvP and used to be one of the basis of how I played my PvP.
|
United States8476 Posts
|
Yeah I don't agree with this chart. It's very pretty and has the potential to be very useful but in my experience fast expands in pvp are a quick way to lose.
In fact I win pretty much all of my pvps by waiting for my opponent to expand then killing him with my 400mineral stronger army.
|
Sup Monk!!! I completely like the idea of simplifying things, i don't think it serves a purpose when inaccurate information is being put out there... ;/
|
wait a minute. this says fast expo is the best build to do, generally. As all the other builds are less than that except for blink. :O
|
|
|
I would heavily agree with the statement that this is way too oversimplified for players that are good at, and understand the matchup. On the other hand, for anyone diamond and even masters could find this very helpful to understand "normal" builds in pvp, what they are good against and bad against to create a better decisions as a whole in the matchup
|
No immortal drop? I feel it'll be just as common as it great vesus many things - and if you're going up against up against phoenix or blink you'll easily scout it with your observer.
|
On October 23 2011 11:37 Moosegills wrote:
I would heavily agree with the statement that this is way too oversimplified for players that are good at, and understand the matchup. On the other hand, for anyone diamond and even masters could find this very helpful to understand "normal" builds in pvp, what they are good against and bad against to create a better decisions as a whole in the matchup
On October 23 2011 11:21 mage36 wrote:
wait a minute. this says fast expo is the best build to do, generally. As all the other builds are less than that except for blink. :O
how about you read the post before making one urself!?
|
This seems like such an oversimplification that the information isn't useful anymore. Like anihc and others said there are too many variations for the builds which vastly change how each build is working. Also many things are too map dependent. Capturing this information in a scheme like this as it will either get way too complex by adding all variables or it will say nothing which is pretty much the case now.
Also immortal expand > colo push on any map. Colo's on one base are a huge investment and non-range colo's don't do well against range 6 immortals.. Colo's aren't too good in low number fights either as the oppurtunities for surrounds etc are much bigger. Their slow movement also makes it terrible to pus early with as by the time you arrive at your opponents expo they'll have 1 more robo unit extra already.
Edit:
excluding 3 or 4 gates is also a odd choice, as they are still reasonably popular and impact the choices by quite a bit.
|
Amazing guide and write up, easy to understand with the chart too!
Its a pleasure to see this pop up on the strategy forum, bravo
|
United States8476 Posts
On October 23 2011 20:10 Markwerf wrote:
This seems like such an oversimplification that the information isn't useful anymore. Like anihc and others said there are too many variations for the builds which vastly change how each build is working. Also many things are too map dependent. Capturing this information in a scheme like this as it will either get way too complex by adding all variables or it will say nothing which is pretty much the case now.
Also immortal expand > colo push on any map. Colo's on one base are a huge investment and non-range colo's don't do well against range 6 immortals.. Colo's aren't too good in low number fights either as the oppurtunities for surrounds etc are much bigger. Their slow movement also makes it terrible to pus early with as by the time you arrive at your opponents expo they'll have 1 more robo unit extra already.
Edit:
excluding 3 or 4 gates is also a odd choice, as they are still reasonably popular and impact the choices by quite a bit.
Immortal expands can't hold equally greedy colossi allins. Excluding 3 or 4 gates is because every build except fast expand can be played either safely to hold 4 gates or greedily to not hold 4 gates that there's not much of a point including those into the chart.
|
Very useful post considering how everyone is lost in PvP after the recent patch.
|
On October 23 2011 20:20 NrGmonk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 20:10 Markwerf wrote:
This seems like such an oversimplification that the information isn't useful anymore. Like anihc and others said there are too many variations for the builds which vastly change how each build is working. Also many things are too map dependent. Capturing this information in a scheme like this as it will either get way too complex by adding all variables or it will say nothing which is pretty much the case now.
Also immortal expand > colo push on any map. Colo's on one base are a huge investment and non-range colo's don't do well against range 6 immortals.. Colo's aren't too good in low number fights either as the oppurtunities for surrounds etc are much bigger. Their slow movement also makes it terrible to pus early with as by the time you arrive at your opponents expo they'll have 1 more robo unit extra already.
Edit:
excluding 3 or 4 gates is also a odd choice, as they are still reasonably popular and impact the choices by quite a bit. Immortal expands can't hold equally greedy colossi allins. Excluding 3 or 4 gates is because every build except fast expand can be played either safely to hold 4 gates or greedily to not hold 4 gates that there's not much of a point including those into the chart.
kcdc explained it pretty well, colossi allins are too costly to have a chance against immortal expand. If you don't get range your expensive colossi are just victim to immortals, if you do get range the economy of the expo will have paid off and they can simply swarm you with units. Expansion has always been quite popular in robo vs robo scenario's because of this and is now even safer since robo -> blink builds are slower and immortals got buffed (helping both against robo-blink and fast colossi)..
With the same argument your excluding 3 or 4 gates you could exclude DT builds as well as any build can be adapted to stop that and almost any build can lose against it given no detection..
|
United States8476 Posts
On October 23 2011 21:21 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 20:20 NrGmonk wrote:On October 23 2011 20:10 Markwerf wrote:
This seems like such an oversimplification that the information isn't useful anymore. Like anihc and others said there are too many variations for the builds which vastly change how each build is working. Also many things are too map dependent. Capturing this information in a scheme like this as it will either get way too complex by adding all variables or it will say nothing which is pretty much the case now.
Also immortal expand > colo push on any map. Colo's on one base are a huge investment and non-range colo's don't do well against range 6 immortals.. Colo's aren't too good in low number fights either as the oppurtunities for surrounds etc are much bigger. Their slow movement also makes it terrible to pus early with as by the time you arrive at your opponents expo they'll have 1 more robo unit extra already.
Edit:
excluding 3 or 4 gates is also a odd choice, as they are still reasonably popular and impact the choices by quite a bit. Immortal expands can't hold equally greedy colossi allins. Excluding 3 or 4 gates is because every build except fast expand can be played either safely to hold 4 gates or greedily to not hold 4 gates that there's not much of a point including those into the chart. kcdc explained it pretty well, colossi allins are too costly to have a chance against immortal expand. If you don't get range your expensive colossi are just victim to immortals, if you do get range the economy of the expo will have paid off and they can simply swarm you with units. Expansion has always been quite popular in robo vs robo scenario's because of this and is now even safer since robo -> blink builds are slower and immortals got buffed (helping both against robo-blink and fast colossi).. With the same argument your excluding 3 or 4 gates you could exclude DT builds as well as any build can be adapted to stop that and almost any build can lose against it given no detection..
You won't be able to target the colossi with immortals versus a player who controls well. The expansion also will not pay for itself by the time a 2 colossi push comes.
|
On October 23 2011 05:46 blooblooblahblah wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 03:14 mizU wrote:
Phoenix = all Stargate builds?
What about Archon Chargelot builds? Chargelot Archon is more of a midgame composition rather than a build. You can transition into it from a lot of these builds.
I've been using this build with reasonable success: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=233994
I'd say it beats most expansion/robo openings, aside from fast Colossus, as well as DTs (which is why gas stealing is great).
|
On October 23 2011 21:31 NrGmonk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 21:21 Markwerf wrote:On October 23 2011 20:20 NrGmonk wrote:On October 23 2011 20:10 Markwerf wrote:
This seems like such an oversimplification that the information isn't useful anymore. Like anihc and others said there are too many variations for the builds which vastly change how each build is working. Also many things are too map dependent. Capturing this information in a scheme like this as it will either get way too complex by adding all variables or it will say nothing which is pretty much the case now.
Also immortal expand > colo push on any map. Colo's on one base are a huge investment and non-range colo's don't do well against range 6 immortals.. Colo's aren't too good in low number fights either as the oppurtunities for surrounds etc are much bigger. Their slow movement also makes it terrible to pus early with as by the time you arrive at your opponents expo they'll have 1 more robo unit extra already.
Edit:
excluding 3 or 4 gates is also a odd choice, as they are still reasonably popular and impact the choices by quite a bit. Immortal expands can't hold equally greedy colossi allins. Excluding 3 or 4 gates is because every build except fast expand can be played either safely to hold 4 gates or greedily to not hold 4 gates that there's not much of a point including those into the chart. kcdc explained it pretty well, colossi allins are too costly to have a chance against immortal expand. If you don't get range your expensive colossi are just victim to immortals, if you do get range the economy of the expo will have paid off and they can simply swarm you with units. Expansion has always been quite popular in robo vs robo scenario's because of this and is now even safer since robo -> blink builds are slower and immortals got buffed (helping both against robo-blink and fast colossi).. With the same argument your excluding 3 or 4 gates you could exclude DT builds as well as any build can be adapted to stop that and almost any build can lose against it given no detection.. You won't be able to target the colossi with immortals versus a player who controls well. The expansion also will not pay for itself by the time a 2 colossi push comes.
Is there any chance we could get replays from some of your test games to see the builds and timings for ourselves? Otherwise this is just going to be an endless repetition of "No, I'm right!"
|
On October 23 2011 10:42 Selendis wrote:
Yeah I don't agree with this chart. It's very pretty and has the potential to be very useful but in my experience fast expands in pvp are a quick way to lose.
In fact I win pretty much all of my pvps by waiting for my opponent to expand then killing him with my 400mineral stronger army.
I agree that FE's in PvP seem suicidal, even in a slightly less chaotic meta game. Still, it varies drastically on whether or not taking a Nexus is an auto lose when the other player hits at the right time.
|
On October 24 2011 09:01 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 10:42 Selendis wrote:
Yeah I don't agree with this chart. It's very pretty and has the potential to be very useful but in my experience fast expands in pvp are a quick way to lose.
In fact I win pretty much all of my pvps by waiting for my opponent to expand then killing him with my 400mineral stronger army. I agree that FE's in PvP seem suicidal, even in a slightly less chaotic meta game. Still, it varies drastically on whether or not taking a Nexus is an auto lose when the other player hits at the right time.
I fast expand in PvP pretty often, and I do just fine. I actually win every time I've done it this past couple weeks, because I know when and how to.
|
On October 24 2011 09:04 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 09:01 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 23 2011 10:42 Selendis wrote:
Yeah I don't agree with this chart. It's very pretty and has the potential to be very useful but in my experience fast expands in pvp are a quick way to lose.
In fact I win pretty much all of my pvps by waiting for my opponent to expand then killing him with my 400mineral stronger army. I agree that FE's in PvP seem suicidal, even in a slightly less chaotic meta game. Still, it varies drastically on whether or not taking a Nexus is an auto lose when the other player hits at the right time. I fast expand in PvP pretty often, and I do just fine. I actually win every time I've done it this past couple weeks, because I know when and how to.
It still varies on both player's openings and the map. Also, define 'fast.'
|
On October 24 2011 08:50 Xujhan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 21:31 NrGmonk wrote:On October 23 2011 21:21 Markwerf wrote:On October 23 2011 20:20 NrGmonk wrote:On October 23 2011 20:10 Markwerf wrote:
This seems like such an oversimplification that the information isn't useful anymore. Like anihc and others said there are too many variations for the builds which vastly change how each build is working. Also many things are too map dependent. Capturing this information in a scheme like this as it will either get way too complex by adding all variables or it will say nothing which is pretty much the case now.
Also immortal expand > colo push on any map. Colo's on one base are a huge investment and non-range colo's don't do well against range 6 immortals.. Colo's aren't too good in low number fights either as the oppurtunities for surrounds etc are much bigger. Their slow movement also makes it terrible to pus early with as by the time you arrive at your opponents expo they'll have 1 more robo unit extra already.
Edit:
excluding 3 or 4 gates is also a odd choice, as they are still reasonably popular and impact the choices by quite a bit. Immortal expands can't hold equally greedy colossi allins. Excluding 3 or 4 gates is because every build except fast expand can be played either safely to hold 4 gates or greedily to not hold 4 gates that there's not much of a point including those into the chart. kcdc explained it pretty well, colossi allins are too costly to have a chance against immortal expand. If you don't get range your expensive colossi are just victim to immortals, if you do get range the economy of the expo will have paid off and they can simply swarm you with units. Expansion has always been quite popular in robo vs robo scenario's because of this and is now even safer since robo -> blink builds are slower and immortals got buffed (helping both against robo-blink and fast colossi).. With the same argument your excluding 3 or 4 gates you could exclude DT builds as well as any build can be adapted to stop that and almost any build can lose against it given no detection.. You won't be able to target the colossi with immortals versus a player who controls well. The expansion also will not pay for itself by the time a 2 colossi push comes. Is there any chance we could get replays from some of your test games to see the builds and timings for ourselves? Otherwise this is just going to be an endless repetition of "No, I'm right!"
Yeah this is actually really important. I've been hoping for someone to make a guide exactly like this (a grid of what beats/has an edge over what), but now I can't really tell how I'm supposed to use this. For example, I would consider what my PvP is as an "immortal expand" but the time I get my expansion varies greatly depending on what I see, so I'd like to see both how you do it (because you're better than me), what beats it and what I need to watch for as a result. Also, when to be where, when to push, how to engage, etc. are useful to know. So if you could add a replay for each matchup or at least just one example of what each build is (so we know what is being compared to what), it would help.
|
On October 24 2011 09:09 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 09:04 CecilSunkure wrote:On October 24 2011 09:01 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 23 2011 10:42 Selendis wrote:
Yeah I don't agree with this chart. It's very pretty and has the potential to be very useful but in my experience fast expands in pvp are a quick way to lose.
In fact I win pretty much all of my pvps by waiting for my opponent to expand then killing him with my 400mineral stronger army. I agree that FE's in PvP seem suicidal, even in a slightly less chaotic meta game. Still, it varies drastically on whether or not taking a Nexus is an auto lose when the other player hits at the right time. I fast expand in PvP pretty often, and I do just fine. I actually win every time I've done it this past couple weeks, because I know when and how to. It still varies on both player's openings and the map. Also, define 'fast.'
Of course it varies. If you do it at the wrong time, you are at a disadvantage, and at the right time, an advantage.
I'd say fast is something like a 1 Gate FE after the first Stalker is out.
|
On October 24 2011 09:04 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 09:01 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 23 2011 10:42 Selendis wrote:
Yeah I don't agree with this chart. It's very pretty and has the potential to be very useful but in my experience fast expands in pvp are a quick way to lose.
In fact I win pretty much all of my pvps by waiting for my opponent to expand then killing him with my 400mineral stronger army. I agree that FE's in PvP seem suicidal, even in a slightly less chaotic meta game. Still, it varies drastically on whether or not taking a Nexus is an auto lose when the other player hits at the right time. I fast expand in PvP pretty often, and I do just fine. I actually win every time I've done it this past couple weeks, because I know when and how to.
I'm a zerg player, but when I offrace as P and I play a PvP I typically always 1gate FE which is super greedy (unless it's TDA), even at midmasters level this works (although I'm sure once you get to higher levels they get better and scouting and rescouting and figuring out what you're doing based on your units). Obviously it's disguised as an agressive 4gate (with the original 20probe cut until I force scouting probe out).
|
Really great chart organizing all the builds in PvP! Unfortunately this kinda proves that PvP can be somewhat of a coin flip if the players are on equal skill levels. A lot of these are build order wins for the most part.
|
On October 24 2011 09:18 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 09:09 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 24 2011 09:04 CecilSunkure wrote:On October 24 2011 09:01 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 23 2011 10:42 Selendis wrote:
Yeah I don't agree with this chart. It's very pretty and has the potential to be very useful but in my experience fast expands in pvp are a quick way to lose.
In fact I win pretty much all of my pvps by waiting for my opponent to expand then killing him with my 400mineral stronger army. I agree that FE's in PvP seem suicidal, even in a slightly less chaotic meta game. Still, it varies drastically on whether or not taking a Nexus is an auto lose when the other player hits at the right time. I fast expand in PvP pretty often, and I do just fine. I actually win every time I've done it this past couple weeks, because I know when and how to. It still varies on both player's openings and the map. Also, define 'fast.' Of course it varies. If you do it at the wrong time, you are at a disadvantage, and at the right time, an advantage. I'd say fast is something like a 1 Gate FE after the first Stalker is out.
In other words, a coin flip.
I feel like we're discussing two entirely different circumstances.
|
Tried searching and failed. Are there any good links to guides to latest patch builds PvP for FE and Immortal Expand? Links to replays also appreciated.
Thanks!
|
On October 24 2011 09:25 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 09:18 CecilSunkure wrote:On October 24 2011 09:09 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 24 2011 09:04 CecilSunkure wrote:On October 24 2011 09:01 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 23 2011 10:42 Selendis wrote:
Yeah I don't agree with this chart. It's very pretty and has the potential to be very useful but in my experience fast expands in pvp are a quick way to lose.
In fact I win pretty much all of my pvps by waiting for my opponent to expand then killing him with my 400mineral stronger army. I agree that FE's in PvP seem suicidal, even in a slightly less chaotic meta game. Still, it varies drastically on whether or not taking a Nexus is an auto lose when the other player hits at the right time. I fast expand in PvP pretty often, and I do just fine. I actually win every time I've done it this past couple weeks, because I know when and how to. It still varies on both player's openings and the map. Also, define 'fast.' Of course it varies. If you do it at the wrong time, you are at a disadvantage, and at the right time, an advantage. I'd say fast is something like a 1 Gate FE after the first Stalker is out. In other words, a coin flip. I feel like we're discussing two entirely different circumstances.
If you can tell a player cannot 4 gate you (stole your gas, has two gas, used chrono on probes) then you can 1 Gate FE reactively and win without coinflipping.
We're discussing the same thing, you're just being inaccurate and pessimistic about it.
|
Thanks so much for this. Great compilation and chart.
|
On October 24 2011 09:34 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 09:25 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 24 2011 09:18 CecilSunkure wrote:On October 24 2011 09:09 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 24 2011 09:04 CecilSunkure wrote:On October 24 2011 09:01 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 23 2011 10:42 Selendis wrote:
Yeah I don't agree with this chart. It's very pretty and has the potential to be very useful but in my experience fast expands in pvp are a quick way to lose.
In fact I win pretty much all of my pvps by waiting for my opponent to expand then killing him with my 400mineral stronger army. I agree that FE's in PvP seem suicidal, even in a slightly less chaotic meta game. Still, it varies drastically on whether or not taking a Nexus is an auto lose when the other player hits at the right time. I fast expand in PvP pretty often, and I do just fine. I actually win every time I've done it this past couple weeks, because I know when and how to. It still varies on both player's openings and the map. Also, define 'fast.' Of course it varies. If you do it at the wrong time, you are at a disadvantage, and at the right time, an advantage. I'd say fast is something like a 1 Gate FE after the first Stalker is out. In other words, a coin flip. I feel like we're discussing two entirely different circumstances. If you can tell a player cannot 4 gate you (stole your gas, has two gas, used chrono on probes) then you can 1 Gate FE reactively and win without coinflipping. We're discussing the same thing, you're just being inaccurate and pessimistic about it.
That's assuming they even gas steal or let you see a 2nd gas at all. In every other case it's totally blind. It just looks like a 4 gate, especially when you're aggressive. I'm pretty sure I'm entirely accurate. The 1 gate FE is just an abuse of the current meta game. Not that it's a bad build.
The other circumstance of throwing down a nexus in every other case that isn't an FE is much too situational to arbitrarily declare a one base protoss will kill him every time.
|
On October 24 2011 09:40 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 09:34 CecilSunkure wrote:On October 24 2011 09:25 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 24 2011 09:18 CecilSunkure wrote:On October 24 2011 09:09 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 24 2011 09:04 CecilSunkure wrote:On October 24 2011 09:01 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 23 2011 10:42 Selendis wrote:
Yeah I don't agree with this chart. It's very pretty and has the potential to be very useful but in my experience fast expands in pvp are a quick way to lose.
In fact I win pretty much all of my pvps by waiting for my opponent to expand then killing him with my 400mineral stronger army. I agree that FE's in PvP seem suicidal, even in a slightly less chaotic meta game. Still, it varies drastically on whether or not taking a Nexus is an auto lose when the other player hits at the right time. I fast expand in PvP pretty often, and I do just fine. I actually win every time I've done it this past couple weeks, because I know when and how to. It still varies on both player's openings and the map. Also, define 'fast.' Of course it varies. If you do it at the wrong time, you are at a disadvantage, and at the right time, an advantage. I'd say fast is something like a 1 Gate FE after the first Stalker is out. In other words, a coin flip. I feel like we're discussing two entirely different circumstances. If you can tell a player cannot 4 gate you (stole your gas, has two gas, used chrono on probes) then you can 1 Gate FE reactively and win without coinflipping. We're discussing the same thing, you're just being inaccurate and pessimistic about it. That's assuming they even gas steal or let you see a 2nd gas at all. In every other case it's totally blind.
Nobody said you have to do it blind...
|
On October 24 2011 09:42 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 09:40 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 24 2011 09:34 CecilSunkure wrote:On October 24 2011 09:25 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 24 2011 09:18 CecilSunkure wrote:On October 24 2011 09:09 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 24 2011 09:04 CecilSunkure wrote:On October 24 2011 09:01 Tyrant0 wrote:On October 23 2011 10:42 Selendis wrote:
Yeah I don't agree with this chart. It's very pretty and has the potential to be very useful but in my experience fast expands in pvp are a quick way to lose.
In fact I win pretty much all of my pvps by waiting for my opponent to expand then killing him with my 400mineral stronger army. I agree that FE's in PvP seem suicidal, even in a slightly less chaotic meta game. Still, it varies drastically on whether or not taking a Nexus is an auto lose when the other player hits at the right time. I fast expand in PvP pretty often, and I do just fine. I actually win every time I've done it this past couple weeks, because I know when and how to. It still varies on both player's openings and the map. Also, define 'fast.' Of course it varies. If you do it at the wrong time, you are at a disadvantage, and at the right time, an advantage. I'd say fast is something like a 1 Gate FE after the first Stalker is out. In other words, a coin flip. I feel like we're discussing two entirely different circumstances. If you can tell a player cannot 4 gate you (stole your gas, has two gas, used chrono on probes) then you can 1 Gate FE reactively and win without coinflipping. We're discussing the same thing, you're just being inaccurate and pessimistic about it. That's assuming they even gas steal or let you see a 2nd gas at all. In every other case it's totally blind. Nobody said you have to do it blind...
Fair enough.
|
Somebody should do a guide on sase's 2gate expo into robo (usually followed up with sentry drop) It seems solid and I've never seen him outright die to anything.
|
I find it rather odd that 5:35 4gate allin isn't on this chart. I have beaten countless fast expands by doing a standard 4gate
|
SaSe 2 gate expo robo would be cool idea. He prooly harrash with 2 sentries and forcefields. Nice but you should not fail with sentries.. Lots of gas.
|
I honestly think 4gate should be in here, not because it's viable but because people still use it on ladder...
|
United States8476 Posts
On October 24 2011 19:25 Leroyx2 wrote:
I honestly think 4gate should be in here, not because it's viable but because people still use it on ladder...
There'd be no point. As I've said beore, every build except fast expand can be played to either hold 4 gate or not hold 4 gate.
|
What about a 2 gate proxy (dont know if its the right term, building gates in the center of the map). I tend to do this on maps such as nezarim, shattered, Antiga, and an in base proxy on xel naga. How do you feel about searching for the cheese and how it counters FE, 1 gate fast immortals, and a lot of other builds that lack room for early scouting and early units?
|
On October 25 2011 01:28 Peanutbutter717 wrote:
What about a 2 gate proxy (dont know if its the right term, building gates in the center of the map). I tend to do this on maps such as nezarim, shattered, Antiga, and an in base proxy on xel naga. How do you feel about searching for the cheese and how it counters FE, 1 gate fast immortals, and a lot of other builds that lack room for early scouting and early units?
All builds have the same 12 gate 14 gas opening... Why would your build matter against proxies? You shouldn't even decide on a build without scouting info anyway.
|
Really nice and simple guide
i've been playing around with 2 gate + robo expand and have had ALOT of succes. the only build that i have consistently lost to is the either dt into some sort of charge archon 1 base allin or sometimes 5gate + hts for archon chargelot allin.
|
This guide just keeps on reinforcing my feeling that PvP has become purely a coin flip. As far as I know, there is no build that will give you an equal amount of chances to win vs your opponent, all PvP builds counter something and get countered by something else. Anyone else miss the previous pure 4 gate PvP where what mattered was skill and execution?
|
I'm really interested in trying out the 3 gate phoenix build that people have been mentioning around here for a few weeks. I've tried searching for a BO/guide here on TL but haven't been able to find anything. I found a 2 gate stargate build created back in february that would probably work now but if anyone has a link to a BO/guide or VOD of the 3 gate phoenix build I'd be very grateful!
|
Where/how would the Adelscott build fit into all this?
|
United States8476 Posts
On November 01 2011 08:26 Imperium11 wrote:
Where/how would the Adelscott build fit into all this?
lol..........
|
I think this is really good and I appreciate the thread. I've been out for two months so my last go to build in P vs P was a super safe anti 4 gate in to Robo/Blink. It feels very out of date now so I'm glad someone has taken his time to explain the general theme of the current P vs P "metagame". My question is though, which build should I choose to learn? I can't help feeling that the 1 gate expand builds seem so vulnerable to all ins so I feel opted to go for an Immortal expand build and maybe with time just cut down to a pure 1 gate expand. What are your thoughts on that? If it helps I'm currently a newly promoted Masters player.
|
i still feel like immortal/expand has the least holes. Due to blink nerf and vision nerf there's no way to lose to a blink timing up your ramp so you can always get away with obs first. I've occasionally ditched the immortal if i scout a stargate fast enough, and not chronoing the first immortal. I usually begin a robo bay but have the ability to cancel that as well if i see robo/blink.
Playing this way makes pvp way less of a coinflip and more of a reactive build. Btw my opener is an 11gate into 2gate robo which holds a 4gate just fine and looks like a 4gate itself.
The only issue i've been having with immortal/expo is when exactly to expo since if i start it too early i get FF contained with no massive units out for a while, but waiting for an extra immortal and units delays the nexus way too much. I think i am going to add a mandatory warp prism to elevator out/harass into the build and see how that works.
|
I really appreciate this as a general overview. I know some are nitpicking the results you're describing but I enjoy the general basis of what you're trying to portray. I've been a master zerg player since beta and I've been greatly debating going Protoss for season 4 just to try it out. I will definitely book mark this thread in case I take the toss plunge. :D
|
I strongly disagree with your belief that a delayed 4gate beats a fast expo, if you do a 1gate expand, build a nexus on 20 and then 3 more gates or 2 more gates and a robo, you'll beat a delayed 4gate with good sentry usage, a la piqliq back in the day
|
I would like to see a replay of this fast expand
|
On November 01 2011 08:39 NrGmonk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 08:26 Imperium11 wrote:
Where/how would the Adelscott build fit into all this? lol..........
I don't feel as if that's a response worthy of a blue poster. Perhaps it was a ridiculous question, and if so I apoologize because I still use the build and find it to be quite effective, but regardless I think that it warrants a response beyond what you gave, especially considering that you've been highlighted as a quality poster regarding strategy.
|
On November 01 2011 12:30 Imperium11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 08:39 NrGmonk wrote:On November 01 2011 08:26 Imperium11 wrote:
Where/how would the Adelscott build fit into all this? lol.......... I don't feel as if that's a response worthy of a blue poster. Perhaps it was a ridiculous question, and if so I apoologize because I still use the build and find it to be quite effective, but regardless I think that it warrants a response beyond what you gave, especially considering that you've been highlighted as a quality poster regarding strategy.
i think why he's laughing is that the adelscott build is simply an opener. you need a build that technically can hold a 4 gate and hold off adel pressure THEN transition into one of the following in the chart. its like saying "what composition is good vs zerg" and then someone asking "does that composition do well vs a 6 pool?"
plus noone does adel anymore and its easily scouted
|
On November 01 2011 13:30 drybones wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 12:30 Imperium11 wrote:On November 01 2011 08:39 NrGmonk wrote:On November 01 2011 08:26 Imperium11 wrote:
Where/how would the Adelscott build fit into all this? lol.......... I don't feel as if that's a response worthy of a blue poster. Perhaps it was a ridiculous question, and if so I apoologize because I still use the build and find it to be quite effective, but regardless I think that it warrants a response beyond what you gave, especially considering that you've been highlighted as a quality poster regarding strategy. i think why he's laughing is that the adelscott build is simply an opener. you need a build that technically can hold a 4 gate and hold off adel pressure THEN transition into one of the following in the chart. its like saying "what composition is good vs zerg" and then someone asking "does that composition do well vs a 6 pool?" plus noone does adel anymore and its easily scouted
Thank you very much, that was what i was looking for. Much appreciated.
|
I tinkered around adelscott's style for the longest of times (even way after it was outdated), imo its still a viable opener, but only for lower levels (maybe up to diamond max) - because its easy to execute and puts some early pressure on to your opponent. However that said, once I started playing against masters and a few GM's, its just not very viable, the higher level the opponent, the less feasible this build is, because you realize it relies on them reacting the wrong way for the early 4zealots/2stalkers to do the damage it needs to.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if one day a revamped version of it could be effective again because of metagame changes and such.
|
what about the 4 warp gate rush? could you please add that in for me or explain why its not in there for being as common as it still is.
|
I feel as though the chart is wrong about the DT build in general. DT rushes don't just end at a DT rush. Even with a late 20 food 2nd gas timing, I still have enough gas to research Charge and get 2 initial DTs. I also do a paranoid version of a DT build by getting a Forge for cannons, and after the initial DTs I get +1 weapons. The only build I haven't beaten with a +1 Charge-Archon is Immortal Drop play. Against Colossus rush builds, it's a bit of a coinflip, but Charge-Archon usually wins out.
DT rushes can just transition into a DT expand with 6 gates or 4 gate Colossus.
|
Italy12246 Posts
On November 01 2011 15:05 DadE wrote:
what about the 4 warp gate rush? could you please add that in for me or explain why its not in there for being as common as it still is.
He has explained it multiple times, read the thread.
You can play all those builds except fast expand to either be safe vs 4gate or not safe, hence why it's not included.
edit:@poster above me: wait...a dt opening into 1base colossus without any expansion?
|
On November 01 2011 14:54 Zealot Lord wrote:
I tinkered around adelscott's style for the longest of times (even way after it was outdated), imo its still a viable opener, but only for lower levels (maybe up to diamond max) - because its easy to execute and puts some early pressure on to your opponent. However that said, once I started playing against masters and a few GM's, its just not very viable, the higher level the opponent, the less feasible this build is, because you realize it relies on them reacting the wrong way for the early 4zealots/2stalkers to do the damage it needs to.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if one day a revamped version of it could be effective again because of metagame changes and such.
You're probably right, but it's still working for me very well in high diamond/ low masters. I guess that means that I probably have a big shock coming my way pretty soon. Guess it's time to learn some variation of the immortal expand.
|
United States8476 Posts
On November 01 2011 13:55 Imperium11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 13:30 drybones wrote:On November 01 2011 12:30 Imperium11 wrote:On November 01 2011 08:39 NrGmonk wrote:On November 01 2011 08:26 Imperium11 wrote:
Where/how would the Adelscott build fit into all this? lol.......... I don't feel as if that's a response worthy of a blue poster. Perhaps it was a ridiculous question, and if so I apoologize because I still use the build and find it to be quite effective, but regardless I think that it warrants a response beyond what you gave, especially considering that you've been highlighted as a quality poster regarding strategy. i think why he's laughing is that the adelscott build is simply an opener. you need a build that technically can hold a 4 gate and hold off adel pressure THEN transition into one of the following in the chart. its like saying "what composition is good vs zerg" and then someone asking "does that composition do well vs a 6 pool?" plus noone does adel anymore and its easily scouted Thank you very much, that was what i was looking for. Much appreciated.
Yea, what he said. The reason it's funny is because it's a running joke that people always ask, "how does this build do versus adelscott's build?" in every single thread about PvP when it's irrelevant. In fact, this is my first guide where I don't make fun of people who ask this question directly in my guide. Check my FAQs sections of my other PvP guides for more info ^^.
Anyways, at higher levels, the Adelscott build is completely figured out. Simply chorno units out of your first gateway while sim citying off your mineral line. Kite your opponents' first few zealots with your stalkers so that you don't lose anything to his pressure and he loses all his zealots. Then proceed to delayed 4 gate him. Free win.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Presuming standard-ish play, what kind of time would an immortal-expand build expect to be putting down the nexus?
And what are the common follow-ups? For some reason I'm a bit in the dark on this one :/
|
On November 01 2011 23:38 marvellosity wrote:
Presuming standard-ish play, what kind of time would an immortal-expand build expect to be putting down the nexus?
And what are the common follow-ups? For some reason I'm a bit in the dark on this one :/
well i find that it simply just depends on your early read of your opponent. Against a failed 4gate for example expoing behind 1 immortal and some units is quite safe. If you see alot of stalkers roaming then wait for at least 2 immortals. Against a 1base colli either speed prism 2 immort drop, robo twilight with blink + obs, or going into 1 base colli as well and constantly check their expo timing. Then just wait for them to attack while you position your units better then theirs. Against stargate you should cancel your 2nd immo and plop down twilight, a total of 3-4 gates and i like to expo vs pheonix too. I find chargelot archon > blink stalks against pheonix.
2robo mass colli is a good followup to robo/expand as long as you have a good eye on your opponents army. just turtle and defend untill you have a critical mass of colli. expand aggressively and force the fight to come to you where you can position better than the attacker.
probably reiterating alot of whats been said so apologies.
|
On October 23 2011 10:05 NrGmonk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 03:11 kcdc wrote:
Immortal expand beats colossi. You get the expansion much earlier and can hold 1 base colossus pushes easily. The all-in basically has to get thermal lance or 6 range immortals pop 6 range colossi like balloons, and 200/200 for robo bay + 200/200 for thermal lance means that the immortal expand player has a much larger army. I've been testing this and if both players go 1 gate robo into immortal expand/collosi on a normal sized map, a 2 collosi no range push will consistently win.
It really depends on the builds. 1 gate robo with 2 gas straight into colossi dies to too many things to be considered a realistic build. Meanwhile, 1 gate robo with 1 gas can be adjusted after scouting to defend a 4 gate, and depending on what you scout, you can often take your natural before you build a single immortal.
This is my go-to build in PvP, and I consistently defend colossus all-ins.
|
United States8476 Posts
On November 02 2011 06:15 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2011 10:05 NrGmonk wrote:On October 23 2011 03:11 kcdc wrote:
Immortal expand beats colossi. You get the expansion much earlier and can hold 1 base colossus pushes easily. The all-in basically has to get thermal lance or 6 range immortals pop 6 range colossi like balloons, and 200/200 for robo bay + 200/200 for thermal lance means that the immortal expand player has a much larger army. I've been testing this and if both players go 1 gate robo into immortal expand/collosi on a normal sized map, a 2 collosi no range push will consistently win. It really depends on the builds. 1 gate robo with 2 gas straight into colossi dies to too many things to be considered a realistic build. Meanwhile, 1 gate robo with 1 gas can be adjusted after scouting to defend a 4 gate, and depending on what you scout, you can often take your natural before you build a single immortal. This is my go-to build in PvP, and I consistently defend colossus all-ins.
In my tests, the builds were double gas for both players into 1 gate robo, so 4 gate wasn't really viable for either player.
|
zomg, this thread is glorious.
|
On November 02 2011 06:19 NrGmonk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 06:15 kcdc wrote:On October 23 2011 10:05 NrGmonk wrote:On October 23 2011 03:11 kcdc wrote:
Immortal expand beats colossi. You get the expansion much earlier and can hold 1 base colossus pushes easily. The all-in basically has to get thermal lance or 6 range immortals pop 6 range colossi like balloons, and 200/200 for robo bay + 200/200 for thermal lance means that the immortal expand player has a much larger army. I've been testing this and if both players go 1 gate robo into immortal expand/collosi on a normal sized map, a 2 collosi no range push will consistently win. It really depends on the builds. 1 gate robo with 2 gas straight into colossi dies to too many things to be considered a realistic build. Meanwhile, 1 gate robo with 1 gas can be adjusted after scouting to defend a 4 gate, and depending on what you scout, you can often take your natural before you build a single immortal. This is my go-to build in PvP, and I consistently defend colossus all-ins. In my tests, the builds were double gas for both players into 1 gate robo, so 4 gate wasn't really viable for either player.
Well there's the problem. If you stay on 1 gas, you can threaten a 4 gate, and you're also able to get out more zealots and immortals to defend the colossus timing. I suppose this gets back to the issue of the MU being too dynamic to paint in such broad strokes. If you tweak the builds a little, you get different results.
|
This is honestly the reason I think Blizzard should have left warp gates alone. I mean seriously, look at this:
Before the Warp Gate Nerf:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XteiR.png)
Now:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BknY9.jpg)
It's the equivalent of this:
+ Show Spoiler +
Sure it was a bit boring, but as long as you executed this one build well you could cut through all the shit that wasn't safe, and it was consistent. And if both players 4 gated? The one who executed it better wins, and if they end up on equal footing then they can continue the game. I never saw any reason as to why that needed to be changed. Nowadays no one really know wtf is up with this matchup at all.
Also Phoenixes are bull.
|
Geovu PvP has become a much more intresting matchup now. It's become very reactive and there are many different styles for PvP currently developing.
|
PvP is my weakest matchup by a landslide, I've been looking through threads like these trying to make sense of it. Thanks for your effort, nrgmonk, as always.
Just as a suggestion, adding some links to rep/VODs of pro level games playing out some of these openers would be immensely helpful.
|
PvP is probably my weakest as well :\
I'd have to say that I can never 1 gate FE, since that just gets wrecked at any aggression before the 10 min mark... which is what most people do anyways. Maybe I'll try this out, but people in the higher league always constantly scout and poke, which basically nullifies the 1 gate FE :\
I mean, this is build is purely based on scouting, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://umop.com/images/rps25.jpg)
