|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On December 09 2011 23:57 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 23:00 marvellosity wrote:On December 09 2011 20:18 Markwerf wrote:On December 09 2011 13:07 kcdc wrote:On December 09 2011 08:16 NrGmonk wrote:On December 09 2011 07:15 kcdc wrote:
I'm going to weigh in on NB's side here and agree that double robo is wasteful. In theory, it's wasteful because you really only want 3 colossi max, and with just 1 robo, you can already get that with enough time for observers and warp prisms. In practice, Brown didn't do anything with his double robo in that game that he couldn't have done just as well (or better) with 1 robo. If he'd spent less on robo units, he would have started his fleet beacon transition earlier, and he wouldn't have lost that big fight which sent him scrambling.
Also, I think HT > colossi in the current metagame. In late game, P wants carrier/mothership/archon/storm with a dash of blink stalkers for mobility. Colossi are kind of cool for killing broodlings, but the only Z unit that can threaten you in that scenario is corruptors, so supply is better used on units that shoot up. So late game, HT > colossi.
In mid-game, colossi might be marginally better than HT against roach-hydra and roach-infestor, but they're worse against infestor-ling or bling, and they're awful if Z springs a muta transition on you. IMO, the problem with mid-game colossus tech is three-fold: (1) colossi, while strong in chokes and with forcefields, are rather vulnerable to flanks, corruptors, and they require your army to be balled together, (2) they're wasted spending if Z sneaks a muta transition by you, and (3) you have to get a lot of stalkers and sentries as support, and stalkers and sentries are pretty bad.
If you go HT instead, you have a more efficient path to your end-game deathball, you're much stronger against a muta transition, you can more easily split forces, and since HT don't require sentry support and need fewer stalkers for AA, you have more resources available for for stronger support units like immortals, zealots, archons and cannons.
Note that I list zealots as good combat units in PvZ. I should explain that zealots are good defensively and for harass, but they're very kitable when used for a straight push. The key to making zealots work defensively is denying creep and having void rays. The void rays punish roaches that try to score free kills on your zealots unless Z brings hydras, and bringing hydras off creep commits fully to an attack since they can't retreat against charelots. If you want to gear up for a mid-game timing with HT against roach-hydra, you're going to need cut zealots once you're safe and build more stalkers and immortals. Double-robo immortal can be good for this sort of timing if you know that Z's hive tech is delayed. I think it's quite naive to dismiss double robo completely. You base this conclusion off of your belief that you never want more than 3 colossi in your army, which is just plain wrong. In almost every single GSL level PvZ where the protoss goes colossi, the protoss will get 4+ colossi unless he dies before that point or mutas come. 3 colossi is just simply not enough in a maxed army to fight any maxed zerg army. You can have your opinion that ht > colossi generally, and I somewhat agree to an extent. The main flaws of ht, however, are that they're much harder to safely transition to and they're more gas heavy than colossi. I prefer ht over colossi generally if I had a choice to get them both safely. I also disagree that ht are better vs ling infestor or especially ling bling. A ling infestor player can transition to roach infestor vs ht and a ht player will have a hard time dealing with both bling flanks and bling drops with his lower stalker count/higher zealot count. HT are easy to get vs macro Z. Just open with voidray+zealot pressure, tech HT behind your push, and take an 11 minute third. Against 2-base Z, colossi are a good choice except against spire. As for 3 vs 4 colossi, okay, so you can get 4 colossi. My point is that you don't want to produce them for that long because they're very vulnerable if Z simply gets enough corruptors. They're not like HT where the tech can never be shut down. - roaches have more health per cost then zealots Kinda irrelevant, but afaik this is untrue. 100 minerals for 150hp vs 75/25 for 145hp, with the HP being equivalent I guess because Roaches have armour for all their HP. But 100 mins is cheaper than 75/25 after all. Zealots are the best tanks in the game for cost I believe. Also gas intake is about as fast as mineral intake so you can't really say minerals are 'cheaper'.
800 mins per base vs 240 gas per minute? :/ I don't think I ever saw anyone argue gas wasn't worth more than minerals o.o
|
On December 10 2011 00:52 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 23:57 Markwerf wrote:On December 09 2011 23:00 marvellosity wrote:On December 09 2011 20:18 Markwerf wrote:On December 09 2011 13:07 kcdc wrote:On December 09 2011 08:16 NrGmonk wrote:On December 09 2011 07:15 kcdc wrote:
I'm going to weigh in on NB's side here and agree that double robo is wasteful. In theory, it's wasteful because you really only want 3 colossi max, and with just 1 robo, you can already get that with enough time for observers and warp prisms. In practice, Brown didn't do anything with his double robo in that game that he couldn't have done just as well (or better) with 1 robo. If he'd spent less on robo units, he would have started his fleet beacon transition earlier, and he wouldn't have lost that big fight which sent him scrambling.
Also, I think HT > colossi in the current metagame. In late game, P wants carrier/mothership/archon/storm with a dash of blink stalkers for mobility. Colossi are kind of cool for killing broodlings, but the only Z unit that can threaten you in that scenario is corruptors, so supply is better used on units that shoot up. So late game, HT > colossi.
In mid-game, colossi might be marginally better than HT against roach-hydra and roach-infestor, but they're worse against infestor-ling or bling, and they're awful if Z springs a muta transition on you. IMO, the problem with mid-game colossus tech is three-fold: (1) colossi, while strong in chokes and with forcefields, are rather vulnerable to flanks, corruptors, and they require your army to be balled together, (2) they're wasted spending if Z sneaks a muta transition by you, and (3) you have to get a lot of stalkers and sentries as support, and stalkers and sentries are pretty bad.
If you go HT instead, you have a more efficient path to your end-game deathball, you're much stronger against a muta transition, you can more easily split forces, and since HT don't require sentry support and need fewer stalkers for AA, you have more resources available for for stronger support units like immortals, zealots, archons and cannons.
Note that I list zealots as good combat units in PvZ. I should explain that zealots are good defensively and for harass, but they're very kitable when used for a straight push. The key to making zealots work defensively is denying creep and having void rays. The void rays punish roaches that try to score free kills on your zealots unless Z brings hydras, and bringing hydras off creep commits fully to an attack since they can't retreat against charelots. If you want to gear up for a mid-game timing with HT against roach-hydra, you're going to need cut zealots once you're safe and build more stalkers and immortals. Double-robo immortal can be good for this sort of timing if you know that Z's hive tech is delayed. I think it's quite naive to dismiss double robo completely. You base this conclusion off of your belief that you never want more than 3 colossi in your army, which is just plain wrong. In almost every single GSL level PvZ where the protoss goes colossi, the protoss will get 4+ colossi unless he dies before that point or mutas come. 3 colossi is just simply not enough in a maxed army to fight any maxed zerg army. You can have your opinion that ht > colossi generally, and I somewhat agree to an extent. The main flaws of ht, however, are that they're much harder to safely transition to and they're more gas heavy than colossi. I prefer ht over colossi generally if I had a choice to get them both safely. I also disagree that ht are better vs ling infestor or especially ling bling. A ling infestor player can transition to roach infestor vs ht and a ht player will have a hard time dealing with both bling flanks and bling drops with his lower stalker count/higher zealot count. HT are easy to get vs macro Z. Just open with voidray+zealot pressure, tech HT behind your push, and take an 11 minute third. Against 2-base Z, colossi are a good choice except against spire. As for 3 vs 4 colossi, okay, so you can get 4 colossi. My point is that you don't want to produce them for that long because they're very vulnerable if Z simply gets enough corruptors. They're not like HT where the tech can never be shut down. - roaches have more health per cost then zealots Kinda irrelevant, but afaik this is untrue. 100 minerals for 150hp vs 75/25 for 145hp, with the HP being equivalent I guess because Roaches have armour for all their HP. But 100 mins is cheaper than 75/25 after all. Zealots are the best tanks in the game for cost I believe. Also gas intake is about as fast as mineral intake so you can't really say minerals are 'cheaper'. 800 mins per base vs 240 gas per minute? :/ I don't think I ever saw anyone argue gas wasn't worth more than minerals o.o
uhh 24 probes on minerals vs 6 on gas?? per worker gas collects the same speed as minerals and that is what matters.. It really depends on your units and strat if you value gas much more highly then minerals..
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On December 10 2011 01:21 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 00:52 marvellosity wrote:On December 09 2011 23:57 Markwerf wrote:On December 09 2011 23:00 marvellosity wrote:On December 09 2011 20:18 Markwerf wrote:On December 09 2011 13:07 kcdc wrote:On December 09 2011 08:16 NrGmonk wrote:On December 09 2011 07:15 kcdc wrote:
I'm going to weigh in on NB's side here and agree that double robo is wasteful. In theory, it's wasteful because you really only want 3 colossi max, and with just 1 robo, you can already get that with enough time for observers and warp prisms. In practice, Brown didn't do anything with his double robo in that game that he couldn't have done just as well (or better) with 1 robo. If he'd spent less on robo units, he would have started his fleet beacon transition earlier, and he wouldn't have lost that big fight which sent him scrambling.
Also, I think HT > colossi in the current metagame. In late game, P wants carrier/mothership/archon/storm with a dash of blink stalkers for mobility. Colossi are kind of cool for killing broodlings, but the only Z unit that can threaten you in that scenario is corruptors, so supply is better used on units that shoot up. So late game, HT > colossi.
In mid-game, colossi might be marginally better than HT against roach-hydra and roach-infestor, but they're worse against infestor-ling or bling, and they're awful if Z springs a muta transition on you. IMO, the problem with mid-game colossus tech is three-fold: (1) colossi, while strong in chokes and with forcefields, are rather vulnerable to flanks, corruptors, and they require your army to be balled together, (2) they're wasted spending if Z sneaks a muta transition by you, and (3) you have to get a lot of stalkers and sentries as support, and stalkers and sentries are pretty bad.
If you go HT instead, you have a more efficient path to your end-game deathball, you're much stronger against a muta transition, you can more easily split forces, and since HT don't require sentry support and need fewer stalkers for AA, you have more resources available for for stronger support units like immortals, zealots, archons and cannons.
Note that I list zealots as good combat units in PvZ. I should explain that zealots are good defensively and for harass, but they're very kitable when used for a straight push. The key to making zealots work defensively is denying creep and having void rays. The void rays punish roaches that try to score free kills on your zealots unless Z brings hydras, and bringing hydras off creep commits fully to an attack since they can't retreat against charelots. If you want to gear up for a mid-game timing with HT against roach-hydra, you're going to need cut zealots once you're safe and build more stalkers and immortals. Double-robo immortal can be good for this sort of timing if you know that Z's hive tech is delayed. I think it's quite naive to dismiss double robo completely. You base this conclusion off of your belief that you never want more than 3 colossi in your army, which is just plain wrong. In almost every single GSL level PvZ where the protoss goes colossi, the protoss will get 4+ colossi unless he dies before that point or mutas come. 3 colossi is just simply not enough in a maxed army to fight any maxed zerg army. You can have your opinion that ht > colossi generally, and I somewhat agree to an extent. The main flaws of ht, however, are that they're much harder to safely transition to and they're more gas heavy than colossi. I prefer ht over colossi generally if I had a choice to get them both safely. I also disagree that ht are better vs ling infestor or especially ling bling. A ling infestor player can transition to roach infestor vs ht and a ht player will have a hard time dealing with both bling flanks and bling drops with his lower stalker count/higher zealot count. HT are easy to get vs macro Z. Just open with voidray+zealot pressure, tech HT behind your push, and take an 11 minute third. Against 2-base Z, colossi are a good choice except against spire. As for 3 vs 4 colossi, okay, so you can get 4 colossi. My point is that you don't want to produce them for that long because they're very vulnerable if Z simply gets enough corruptors. They're not like HT where the tech can never be shut down. - roaches have more health per cost then zealots Kinda irrelevant, but afaik this is untrue. 100 minerals for 150hp vs 75/25 for 145hp, with the HP being equivalent I guess because Roaches have armour for all their HP. But 100 mins is cheaper than 75/25 after all. Zealots are the best tanks in the game for cost I believe. Also gas intake is about as fast as mineral intake so you can't really say minerals are 'cheaper'. 800 mins per base vs 240 gas per minute? :/ I don't think I ever saw anyone argue gas wasn't worth more than minerals o.o uhh 24 probes on minerals vs 6 on gas?? per worker gas collects the same speed as minerals and that is what matters.. It really depends on your units and strat if you value gas much more highly then minerals..
But you're capable of collecting more minerals. You're not seriously telling me that for either Protoss or Zerg in PvZ/ZvP minerals are the limiting factor...
|
Monk, I think we're not that far apart in that we agree that there's a timing window where colossus tech is stronger than HT tech if Z goes roaches, but that HT are generally better outside of that window.
In response to your specific points:
-Saying that you want to get voids before teching templar is a lot like saying you want to get sentries before teching colossi. It's probably possible to make it work other ways, but the transitions are just stronger if you open with the right support units. And I'd rather open with a stargate and 2-3 voids than a handful of sentries.
-You're right that early templar suck vs roaches. You can't do a timing attack with templar-immortal until you're almost maxed, so you have to take a third. But with immortals, voids, and chargelots to kill the roaches and templar to kill the hydras, I'm finding that you can take a third pretty comfortably unless you lose a bunch of units early.
I think it's worth noting that I don't think colossi are very good against roaches either. What's good against roaches is forcefield. You can open sentry-stalker-immortal take a quick third easily against roaches--you only need colossi in that composition if Z gets hydras or infestors.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On December 10 2011 01:50 kcdc wrote:
Monk, I think we're not that far apart in that we agree that there's a timing window where colossus tech is stronger than HT tech if Z goes roaches, but that HT are generally better outside of that window.
But with immortals, voids, and chargelots to kill the roaches
It sounds nice to me, but what happens if/when he switches to mutas? All those units don't do so hot against them :/
|
On December 10 2011 01:21 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 00:52 marvellosity wrote:On December 09 2011 23:57 Markwerf wrote:On December 09 2011 23:00 marvellosity wrote:On December 09 2011 20:18 Markwerf wrote:On December 09 2011 13:07 kcdc wrote:On December 09 2011 08:16 NrGmonk wrote:On December 09 2011 07:15 kcdc wrote:
I'm going to weigh in on NB's side here and agree that double robo is wasteful. In theory, it's wasteful because you really only want 3 colossi max, and with just 1 robo, you can already get that with enough time for observers and warp prisms. In practice, Brown didn't do anything with his double robo in that game that he couldn't have done just as well (or better) with 1 robo. If he'd spent less on robo units, he would have started his fleet beacon transition earlier, and he wouldn't have lost that big fight which sent him scrambling.
Also, I think HT > colossi in the current metagame. In late game, P wants carrier/mothership/archon/storm with a dash of blink stalkers for mobility. Colossi are kind of cool for killing broodlings, but the only Z unit that can threaten you in that scenario is corruptors, so supply is better used on units that shoot up. So late game, HT > colossi.
In mid-game, colossi might be marginally better than HT against roach-hydra and roach-infestor, but they're worse against infestor-ling or bling, and they're awful if Z springs a muta transition on you. IMO, the problem with mid-game colossus tech is three-fold: (1) colossi, while strong in chokes and with forcefields, are rather vulnerable to flanks, corruptors, and they require your army to be balled together, (2) they're wasted spending if Z sneaks a muta transition by you, and (3) you have to get a lot of stalkers and sentries as support, and stalkers and sentries are pretty bad.
If you go HT instead, you have a more efficient path to your end-game deathball, you're much stronger against a muta transition, you can more easily split forces, and since HT don't require sentry support and need fewer stalkers for AA, you have more resources available for for stronger support units like immortals, zealots, archons and cannons.
Note that I list zealots as good combat units in PvZ. I should explain that zealots are good defensively and for harass, but they're very kitable when used for a straight push. The key to making zealots work defensively is denying creep and having void rays. The void rays punish roaches that try to score free kills on your zealots unless Z brings hydras, and bringing hydras off creep commits fully to an attack since they can't retreat against charelots. If you want to gear up for a mid-game timing with HT against roach-hydra, you're going to need cut zealots once you're safe and build more stalkers and immortals. Double-robo immortal can be good for this sort of timing if you know that Z's hive tech is delayed. I think it's quite naive to dismiss double robo completely. You base this conclusion off of your belief that you never want more than 3 colossi in your army, which is just plain wrong. In almost every single GSL level PvZ where the protoss goes colossi, the protoss will get 4+ colossi unless he dies before that point or mutas come. 3 colossi is just simply not enough in a maxed army to fight any maxed zerg army. You can have your opinion that ht > colossi generally, and I somewhat agree to an extent. The main flaws of ht, however, are that they're much harder to safely transition to and they're more gas heavy than colossi. I prefer ht over colossi generally if I had a choice to get them both safely. I also disagree that ht are better vs ling infestor or especially ling bling. A ling infestor player can transition to roach infestor vs ht and a ht player will have a hard time dealing with both bling flanks and bling drops with his lower stalker count/higher zealot count. HT are easy to get vs macro Z. Just open with voidray+zealot pressure, tech HT behind your push, and take an 11 minute third. Against 2-base Z, colossi are a good choice except against spire. As for 3 vs 4 colossi, okay, so you can get 4 colossi. My point is that you don't want to produce them for that long because they're very vulnerable if Z simply gets enough corruptors. They're not like HT where the tech can never be shut down. - roaches have more health per cost then zealots Kinda irrelevant, but afaik this is untrue. 100 minerals for 150hp vs 75/25 for 145hp, with the HP being equivalent I guess because Roaches have armour for all their HP. But 100 mins is cheaper than 75/25 after all. Zealots are the best tanks in the game for cost I believe. Also gas intake is about as fast as mineral intake so you can't really say minerals are 'cheaper'. 800 mins per base vs 240 gas per minute? :/ I don't think I ever saw anyone argue gas wasn't worth more than minerals o.o uhh 24 probes on minerals vs 6 on gas?? per worker gas collects the same speed as minerals and that is what matters.. It really depends on your units and strat if you value gas much more highly then minerals..
No dood that's not what matters at all (and for the record its actually lower because you get 4 gas per trip not 5) What matters is the ratio you receive minerals to gas. Since you receive minerals at a much higher ratio than gas (since 1. you get4 per trip and 2. you only have two geysers per base) they are less valuable. I don't think I have ever heard someone discuss economy management under the assumption that 1 mineral=1 gas. The general assumption is 2 mineral=1 gas or 1.5=1. Basically at no point in PvZ are you constrained by minerals(beyond like the opening or whatever), so gas is a more valuable resource.
|
On December 09 2011 20:18 Markwerf wrote:
I'm no fan at all of the immortal/zealot/ht style against roach based play:
- you can't effectively use force fields anymore because you're more melee based then the zerg
- fungals are very effective against your zealots because they nullify their damage for a while.
- roaches have more health per cost then zealots and are faster, this makes it very hard to use storm effectively as they can retreat easily and let you hit your own zealots
- immortals are great vs roach but still very slow, this makes it very hard to push a full roach based army with ht/zealot/immortal as zerg can just kite back with roach nullifying the immortals.
-You don't need rely on FFs with IST. That is one of the strengths of IST, not a weakness.
-For clarification, I do not think anybody is saying you should stick with Zealots in your late-game army. As you start getting the extra gas income from your 3rd base you should be replacing Zealots with Stalkers. IST actually stands for Immortal/Stalker/Templar.
-Already pointed out by other posters.
-You can micro your Immortals to counter Roach micro. Simply "stutterstep" forward with your Immortals when he tries to kite your Zealots. If a Zerg went fast 3rd he will very likely not have roach speed and will be off creep when attempting to attack your 3rd.
|
Been playing like this a little on ladder, hardly losing any games. I find myself having trouble remembering to get later Fleet Beacon tech at the proper times since I'm taking my 3rd at 9 and fourth at 12, the timings are just all different. One time I lost with a really large army of Stalker/Colossus to a hard Muta switch because my Templar Archives was sniped (no last second archons could be made) and I didn't realize it until I was too late. Even Templar tech feels a little awkward with the different pacing.
I've been getting 2 Robo on 3 base almost every game. I don't really see a reason not to, lots of Obs, WP, Immortal/Colo are needed all the time. You have the money for those two + upgrades + other tech paths.
|
On December 10 2011 01:54 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 01:50 kcdc wrote:
Monk, I think we're not that far apart in that we agree that there's a timing window where colossus tech is stronger than HT tech if Z goes roaches, but that HT are generally better outside of that window.
But with immortals, voids, and chargelots to kill the roaches It sounds nice to me, but what happens if/when he switches to mutas? All those units don't do so hot against them :/
The threat of muta switches is the #1 reason to go templar/immortal instead of colossi. If you tech colossi, you invest at least 400 gas into sentries, 200 gas for robo bay, 200 gas for range, and 200 gas for every collosus you build. That's a ton of gas spent on stuff that's basically dead weight against mutas. If you go immortal templar, the only gas sink that you'll regret against a muta switch is charge (if it's completed) and you might wish you'd delayed an immortal or two until you needed to break spines.
Also, you have blink and storm up very quickly with a templar build as compared to a colossus build, so your eventual anti-army is not only stronger, it's also quicker.
|
On December 10 2011 04:09 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 01:54 marvellosity wrote:On December 10 2011 01:50 kcdc wrote:
Monk, I think we're not that far apart in that we agree that there's a timing window where colossus tech is stronger than HT tech if Z goes roaches, but that HT are generally better outside of that window.
But with immortals, voids, and chargelots to kill the roaches It sounds nice to me, but what happens if/when he switches to mutas? All those units don't do so hot against them :/ The threat of muta switches is the #1 reason to go templar/immortal instead of colossi. If you tech colossi, you invest at least 400 gas into sentries, 200 gas for robo bay, 200 gas for range, and 200 gas for every collosus you build. That's a ton of gas spent on stuff that's basically dead weight against mutas. If you go immortal templar, the only gas sink that you'll regret against a muta switch is charge (if it's completed) and you might wish you'd delayed an immortal or two until you needed to break spines. Also, you have blink and storm up very quickly with a templar build as compared to a colossus build, so your eventual anti-army is not only stronger, it's also quicker.
Well I guess the toss up between 'IST' and 'CSS' style to call it that is that IST is better agianst muta switch and doesn't really use sentries whereas CSS can take a third easier and deals with roach/infestor styles a bit better.
Overall you could say then that IST is probably better on bigger and more open maps, where sentries don't work as well and muta play is a bigger threat, while CSS is probably better on smaller maps when you want to take a quick third.
|
Personally, I don't think that LosirA handled the archon toilet properly. There is no reason to fly all your Broodlords and Corrupters into a Vortex when you know that there are Archons and storms. I would say that the appropriate response would be to fly away what you can, rebuild the Corrupter/Brood army, then when the Protoss has no more energy to cast Vortex, you re-engage and destroy them. The only problem I foresee with that idea is that if the Mothership has 200/200 energy or near it, then they can easily cast Vortex twice, by which point the Zerg might have lost far too much.
That being said, the Carrier follow-up seems to be the appropriate thing for the Protoss to do, as if the Zerg flies away the Broodlords and sacrifices the majority of their Corrupters into the Vortex, their Anti-Air will be dwindling. If they move all their Broods into the Vortex, then they will all die, the Zerg will be stressed to make more Broods, and if they don't get enough Corrupters/over make Broods then they will die to the impending Carrier switch.
|
I thought the game on Dual Sight was just as interesting. He had 7 zealots with +1 and a void ray at the same time when Hero would normally attack with 8 zealots with +1. People started to counter Hero's opening by building an earlier roach warren, so Brown's build anticipates that and counters it.
|
United States8476 Posts
On December 10 2011 04:59 iamke55 wrote:
I thought the game on Dual Sight was just as interesting. He had 7 zealots with +1 and a void ray at the same time when Hero would normally attack with 8 zealots with +1. People started to counter Hero's opening by building an earlier roach warren, so Brown's build anticipates that and counters it.
It's not new and revolutionary though. It's been done a lot before and is fairly common. In fact, I believe the first uses of it was about 8 months ago and it was really popular for a while then.
|
On December 10 2011 04:17 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 04:09 kcdc wrote:On December 10 2011 01:54 marvellosity wrote:On December 10 2011 01:50 kcdc wrote:
Monk, I think we're not that far apart in that we agree that there's a timing window where colossus tech is stronger than HT tech if Z goes roaches, but that HT are generally better outside of that window.
But with immortals, voids, and chargelots to kill the roaches It sounds nice to me, but what happens if/when he switches to mutas? All those units don't do so hot against them :/ The threat of muta switches is the #1 reason to go templar/immortal instead of colossi. If you tech colossi, you invest at least 400 gas into sentries, 200 gas for robo bay, 200 gas for range, and 200 gas for every collosus you build. That's a ton of gas spent on stuff that's basically dead weight against mutas. If you go immortal templar, the only gas sink that you'll regret against a muta switch is charge (if it's completed) and you might wish you'd delayed an immortal or two until you needed to break spines. Also, you have blink and storm up very quickly with a templar build as compared to a colossus build, so your eventual anti-army is not only stronger, it's also quicker. Well I guess the toss up between 'IST' and 'CSS' style to call it that is that IST is better agianst muta switch and doesn't really use sentries whereas CSS can take a third easier and deals with roach/infestor styles a bit better. Overall you could say then that IST is probably better on bigger and more open maps, where sentries don't work as well and muta play is a bigger threat, while CSS is probably better on smaller maps when you want to take a quick third.
I think the term IST is a little out-dated (it overstates the importance of the stalkers and leaves out the zealots and voids), but it's quick to type and understand, so I'll use it.
You might be right about CSS being better for taking a fast third. Here's my thought process:
CSS quicker to get up and is much stronger at 10 min than IST. If Z goes 2-base hydra or 2-base roach hydra and does a 10 minute timing, you straight up die with IST. So you shouldn't go straight to IST against 2-base Z.
Against 3-base Z (I'm assuming FFE--IST is otherwise a terrible transition), you can't muster a proper army to defend a third with IST until probably 10:30, and I suck, so I'm usually later than that. So the relevant question is how early Z can attack. If you open with a void or 2, Z will wait for hydras to attack (you can defend speedlings with +1 zealots by 8 min). Can a 3-base Z attack you with roach hydra before 10:30? I doubt it, but maybe even if your tech is up, Z's force can be too big to handle.
I typically go for a zealot timing at 8 min instead of expanding, but I might try a 9 minute expansion instead, just poking with the voids.
|
Indeed, I agree with some of the other things people have said in this thread. Vortex in a way can be very powerful as it was demonstrated in Brown vs Losira. The problem is that Losira was most likely unfamiliar with the Vortex, thats why he rushed everything he had into the vortex. When those archons went in there he probably didn't think much of it. This vortex strategy is fairly old, but it seems to have popped back in again. Since this game I have been running into it quite a bit on the ladder (masters top 8).
It seems as if the Vortex is being abused, though. I honestly can not see this not getting patched, it just seems unfair, blatantly. And as I see it, you are exploiting a bug and I can only say that Protoss players should enjoy this vortex archon toilet while it lasts because it will be fixed, most likely.
It was supposed to end a while back, in one of the Patches. The 1.5 second invulnerability nerf to the vortex was to end all of this archon toilet shenanigans. Instead, players found that it still works and they may completely change vortex to reset the units to their original position when they were vortexed, instead of making them all spawn at one point and slowly spreading out.
With all that being said, I can not see Protoss surviving a macro game (without harassing) without abusing this Vortex glitch. Whether you all say it is a glitch or not, it was probably not intended originally to cause mass splash damage upon a unit that comes out of it. It seems Protoss has to resort to two base timings a lot, as its relatively hard for them to take a third.
It's hard for them to take a third because a Zerg has had sooo much more economy for them because of their early third that they can just make lots of units, attack and win. So yeah, macro games among Protosses are rare because Infestor/Brood lord/corruptor/zergling has no counter in ZvP besides Vortex. That statement may be controversial but the thats the truth. Sure, you can kill it but thats only if your opponent makes a mistake (mis-positioning the brood lords or something).
|
Don't agree with much Lebzetu said except for the bit at the start about Losira screwed up his control, but I did get a kick out of this idea:
Vortex is unfair, but Protoss being unable to take a third because "Zerg has had sooo much more economy for them because of their early third that they can just make lots of units, attack and win" is exactly how the MU should be. Also, vortex should be patched so that infestor/brood lord/corruptor/zergling properly has no counter in ZvP.
I just wish I could tell which race you play.
Ultimately, vortex isn't that OP, but neither is Z's macro advantage.
|
I didn't say that infestor brood corruptor zergling should have no counter, I am just saying that vortex is abusing a bug in order to counter it. I personally would love to see protoss stand a chance in the late game but the fact they are abusing a bug in order to do that is flat out wrong.
|
On December 10 2011 05:57 Lebzetu wrote:
I didn't say that infestor brood corruptor zergling should have no counter, I am just saying that vortex is abusing a bug in order to counter it. I personally would love to see protoss stand a chance in the late game but the fact they are abusing a bug in order to do that is flat out wrong.
I feel similarly since the mothership is being removed. For now at least the game seems to be in an okay state, though it is scary knowing things will change with the next expansion.
|
Amazing style, nice guide ^^
I think this style may have trouble aganist muta tho.
|
On December 10 2011 05:57 Lebzetu wrote:
I didn't say that infestor brood corruptor zergling should have no counter, I am just saying that vortex is abusing a bug in order to counter it. I personally would love to see protoss stand a chance in the late game but the fact they are abusing a bug in order to do that is flat out wrong.
A bug that the Zerg could probably help negate with better control. For starters running everything into the Vortex is a bad idea, and secondly LosirA's air units were all clumped up. Granted, units tend to clump, but that doesn't mean that there is no way for them to stay apart. Plus Vortex isn't even something that you can surprise your opponent with (for example in TvZ burrowed banelings cannot be microed against, it just comes down to whether or not you have detection). With Infestors, Ghosts, or Templar, their AoE spells that cast instantly all can be done in a "surprise manner," but there is no way to not know where a Mothership is: it's bulky, slow, and cloaks everything around it--which, in an odd sense--actually makes it spotable while it is outside of the vision of your units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
