|
I will say that adding carriers is indeed amazing, it's something you can only do at 4+ bases. And some maps just plain do not allow that.
Like imagine Slayers_Brown style on dual sight. He would get wrecked. I would go as far as to say MOST of blizzard's ladder maps make it extremely difficult to do brown's exact style he used in game 1.
Furthermore, something I really dislike is that the entire matchup is hinged on your mothership. You miss a vortex, and you're dead. You mothership get's NP'd for a second and you're dead.
Good writeup tho, when i finished watching this game, I also though similiarly that brown probably has the best macro protoss understanding than any other right now.
|
This is my version of rsvp's zealot void -> templar -> carrier/mothership deathball strategy. It's a really stable way to hit the mega-deathball that almost can't lose and gives you a couple clutch timing attacks to keep Z's economy honest.
http://drop.sc/69944
http://drop.sc/69945
|
On December 07 2011 14:26 kcdc wrote:This is my version of rsvp's zealot void -> templar -> carrier/mothership deathball strategy. It's a really stable way to hit the mega-deathball that almost can't lose and gives you a couple clutch timing attacks to keep Z's economy honest. http://drop.sc/69944http://drop.sc/69945
Thanks, KCDC. A lot of Zerg seem to be better at countering the Heroic FFE style. The seem to have faster roaches these days (in lowly diamond league at least) so I've been looking to incorporate the VR in with the +1 zealots. RSVP does this well.
I think that one of the benefits of this thread is that it legitimizes a long-term plan that includes a mothership and possibly carriers. Sure many games won't get to 4 or 5 bases. But should the opportunity arise, my long game plan now includes this unit comp. I pulled off my first successful archon toilet today. I had already tried to do a lot of damage with WP harass but the Z I was playing defended well. Once I realized I had the opportunity, I dropped the fleet beacon.
Most of all, I know that if I can get a mothership with vortex, I stand a much better chance against Blords. I've been doing a lot of base trading with Blording Zergs and this allows me to actually engage their army.
tl;dr Having a mothership assuages my fears of his army. As others have said in this thread, it's not about just pulling of a money toilet--its about recognizing that this toss army composition places you in the driver's seat and forces the Z to react/respond correctly.
|
well some great analysis, think most protoss needs to stop going into auto pilot late game. myself is really guilty of it.
I normally do go double robo off 2-3 base normally by mid game normalyl anyway, just to get a few immortals if they go mass roach!
|
Good thread. Been using a similar style myself when it goes into late game with the exception i tend to go for HT and Immortals first for IST. Still though, expanding fast and expanding agressive is definatly one of the vital parts of a good macro PvZ. No question about it. And Motherships are always usefull late game.
|
On December 08 2011 01:31 Divine Emperor wrote:
Good thread. Been using a similar style myself when it goes into late game with the exception i tend to go for HT and Immortals first for IST. Still though, expanding fast and expanding agressive is definatly one of the vital parts of a good macro PvZ. No question about it. And Motherships are always usefull late game.
Yes that can be a good tactic if you can get solid confirmation your opponent is using heavy roach midgame and some infestors. I mean, no matter what, you are never going to get ALL the infestors (if he hes going 6+) but its good to whittle down the numbers of course. But yeah, if hes not going roach/infestor then you are pretty much screwed, so this will definately work and its what some protoss's have been doing due to the popular Roach/ling/festor mid game.
|
On December 07 2011 12:47 NrGmonk wrote:
Taking which expo was dangerous? They all seemed pretty safe to me given what Brown had scouted.
Brown didn't win because he got lucky and landed a "lucky" archon toliet. He was aiming for archon toilet and once protoss has the tools to get archon toliet + storm, protoss has the advantage, not zerg. Yes, the archon toilet was more effective than it should have been but it doesn't change the fact that Brown had the advantage the moment before the archon toliet.
I never claimed that this style is the end-all-be-all of ZvP. I'm just saying that Brown demonstrated good points and that his style is one viable way to play the matchup.
Also, Artosis would certainly not agree with you, as he's been lobbying for macro protoss for a long time.
I think that his general expo-taking play was risky given Losira's army. Also, that Archon toilet wasn't lucky so much as it was unlikely. As Kaldor pointed out, that is simply the only thing that could have won him that game. He was very behind and he entered a very dangerous and risky game.
By the way, Artosis would agree with me, I think, because macro=/=greedy. He STRONGLY believes in CONSTANT harassment, which is why he likes Sage, Creator, and Hero so much. The harass needs to be successful, by the way, it can't be wasted minerals on the failed harass that Brown did.
Ultimately though, I don't imagine it would be appreciated to be spoken for, so who cares about Artosis right now? I'll stick with Moletrap and Kaldor. I maintain that he only won that game because of the toilet. Moreover, I think you are pretty much claiming this is a new style that should be implemented across the boards because you treat it as something that's obvious and should be adopted.
Seriously though I'm not discounting your post. It was a great post and I'm already adding some of these things to my play style. I just think that the style came down to too many "ifs," and that's just my analysis of Brown's style. It's all subjective man, I'm just getting some conversation going to heighten the discussion. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, because I rarely have time to watch Code A (b/c I like S more, and time is limited). I learned a lot from it I'm just providing some counter-perspective. 
|
Canada13389 Posts
Just need to note that the void ray one pheonix is great for scouting. The pheonix can fly around the main and see things like infestation pits, spires, and lair/gas timings.
|
I'm not sure i agree with people saying that Losira was not ahead before the vortex landed. Ngrmonk and Kcdc seem to be thinking that Brown came with a relatively new style of macro. I think it's the case with Losira as well.
What did we call being ahead, from Zerg pov, a few month ago? I think people would agree to say being ahead meant, by that time, being ahead macro wise while sending endless armies of tier 2 units at their death vs the collossus-stalker ball and trading pretty unefficiently. Some french commentators used to say a Zerg usually won a game with 300 supply : 2 consecutive maxed armies. Roach-Hydra-Corruptors would not trade efficiently vs the usual protoss army and didnt stand a chance vs a maxed protoss. That's why Zerg had to max way before the protoss and send possibly 2 consecutive maxed armies.
What if Losira showed a new definition of being ahead as Z? The idea here is that if u can reach broodlords-Corruptors-Infestors with decent upgrades u WILL trade efficiently. From that point of view, being ahead would mean :
1) Being ahead macro wise
2) While teching
2) And while still being safe versus the pressure the protoss could show before hive tech.
From that point of view, the Zerg doesnt need to deny the third, he doesnt need to be agressive. If he knows that thanks so the Zerg game mechanics and his knowledge of toss timings he can drone much harder than the toss while still being safe, he'll be ahead. That's what happened with Losira, he was ahead on macro whole game, had the composition he wanted. Then the archon toilet happened. One can argue that Protoss must have a tool to fight broodlords, but archon toilet is definetely imbalanced. Even if it's not unbeatable.
I would like to have an answer from Ngrmonk on my point here, that losira could not be said to be behind when he was ahead in macro and had the composition he wanted. To speak about this game in particular, Losira was maxed before the protoss had a vortex. Had he attacked at that point, seems to me like a guarantee win. And that's why Losira was ahead and not Brown.
|
United States8476 Posts
On December 08 2011 12:04 Natalya wrote:
I'm not sure i agree with people saying that Losira was not ahead before the vortex landed. Ngrmonk and Kcdc seem to be thinking that Brown came with a relatively new style of macro. I think it's the case with Losira as well.
What did we call being ahead, from Zerg pov, a few month ago? I think people would agree to say being ahead meant, by that time, being ahead macro wise while sending endless armies of tier 2 units at their death vs the collossus-stalker ball and trading pretty unefficiently. Some french commentators used to say a Zerg usually won a game with 300 supply : 2 consecutive maxed armies. Roach-Hydra-Corruptors would not trade efficiently vs the usual protoss army and didnt stand a chance vs a maxed protoss. That's why Zerg had to max way before the protoss and send possibly 2 consecutive maxed armies.
What if Losira showed a new definition of being ahead as Z? The idea here is that if u can reach broodlords-Corruptors-Infestors with decent upgrades u WILL trade efficiently. From that point of view, being ahead would mean :
1) Being ahead macro wise
2) While teching
2) And while still being safe versus the pressure the protoss could show before hive tech.
From that point of view, the Zerg doesnt need to deny the third, he doesnt need to be agressive. If he knows that thanks so the Zerg game mechanics and his knowledge of toss timings he can drone much harder than the toss while still being safe, he'll be ahead. That's what happened with Losira, he was ahead on macro whole game, had the composition he wanted. Then the archon toilet happened. One can argue that Protoss must have a tool to fight broodlords, but archon toilet is definetely imbalanced. Even if it's not unbeatable.
I would like to have an answer from Ngrmonk on my point here, that losira could not be said to be behind when he was ahead in macro and had the composition he wanted. To speak about this game in particular, Losira was maxed before the protoss had a vortex. Had he attacked at that point, seems to me like a guarantee win. And that's why Losira was ahead and not Brown.
I don't think this "new style of macro" from Losira is that new. The standard for zergs these days is aing for infestor/broodlord late game, although most zerg go for a more harrass based muta, roach, roach baneling, roach infestor, roach corruptor mid game. Losira just skipped that and got the brood up way faster.
I think your argument is based on one key assumption that is false:
"The idea here is that if u can reach broodlords-Corruptors-Infestors with decent upgrades u WILL trade efficiently."
As long as you have a mothership with a decent amount of archons, some storms, and a decent ground force, Protoss will trade efficiently versus corruptor broodlord. My argument is that Brown was ahead because he reached this golden composition. In somewhat your own words, "The idea here is that if you can reach mothership/archon/templar you WILL trade efficiently." Yes, you can argue that archon toliet is imbalanced, but that doesn't change the fact that it's in the current patch of the game and within the confines/rules of this game. Protoss has the better ultimate end game composition, and for Losira to be truly "ahead", he has to deny this ultimate composition in some way.
In relation to this particular game, if you watch carefully, you'd see that Losira would always have a hard time pushing at all times. The "winningest" Losira ever was in that game was when he killed Brown's first huge colossi army. However, if you look closely, after that battle, Losira ended up with only 7 broodlords and 0 infestors. Many zergs are reluctant to push with such a low broodlord count, because as many can tell you, if you lose one broodlord army, you pretty much lose the game. In addition, the mothership popped out right after the battle ended, so there was a very small timing window when Brown would not have the archon toliet at his disposal. Finally, because of Brown's mass expanding, if Losira tried to attack him, Brown could simply counter attack, taking out one of Losira's bases while delaying for more archon/templar for his archon toliet.
|
United States8476 Posts
On December 08 2011 08:56 Nuclease wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2011 12:47 NrGmonk wrote:
Taking which expo was dangerous? They all seemed pretty safe to me given what Brown had scouted.
Brown didn't win because he got lucky and landed a "lucky" archon toliet. He was aiming for archon toilet and once protoss has the tools to get archon toliet + storm, protoss has the advantage, not zerg. Yes, the archon toilet was more effective than it should have been but it doesn't change the fact that Brown had the advantage the moment before the archon toliet.
I never claimed that this style is the end-all-be-all of ZvP. I'm just saying that Brown demonstrated good points and that his style is one viable way to play the matchup.
Also, Artosis would certainly not agree with you, as he's been lobbying for macro protoss for a long time.
I think that his general expo-taking play was risky given Losira's army. Also, that Archon toilet wasn't lucky so much as it was unlikely. As Kaldor pointed out, that is simply the only thing that could have won him that game. He was very behind and he entered a very dangerous and risky game. By the way, Artosis would agree with me, I think, because macro=/=greedy. He STRONGLY believes in CONSTANT harassment, which is why he likes Sage, Creator, and Hero so much. The harass needs to be successful, by the way, it can't be wasted minerals on the failed harass that Brown did. Ultimately though, I don't imagine it would be appreciated to be spoken for, so who cares about Artosis right now? I'll stick with Moletrap and Kaldor. I maintain that he only won that game because of the toilet. Moreover, I think you are pretty much claiming this is a new style that should be implemented across the boards because you treat it as something that's obvious and should be adopted. Seriously though I'm not discounting your post. It was a great post and I'm already adding some of these things to my play style. I just think that the style came down to too many "ifs," and that's just my analysis of Brown's style. It's all subjective man, I'm just getting some conversation going to heighten the discussion. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, because I rarely have time to watch Code A (b/c I like S more, and time is limited). I learned a lot from it I'm just providing some counter-perspective.
Again, which expos are you talking about? As Brown took his 3rd, Losira had no army. As Brown took his 4th, Losira had only infestor ling with mass spines while teching to broods, pretty much the least threatening standing army zerg could have at this point. Bases after the 4th Brown didn't care too much if they were taken out. Brown could have used their deaths as a way to draw the main army of Losira and counterattack other bases.
I don't see how the archon toliet was unlikely. It's very easy to land archon toliets as Protoss while it's much harder to avoid them from the Zerg perspective, especially since Zergs don't have good practice spreading and dodging vortex.
I would also argue against the fact that Brown was behind at any point in the game. See my post above for more on that.
Finally, I'd like to stress I don't think this new "style" should be implemented across the board. Rather, I saw a bunch of individual cool things that I thought weren't being used enough. This is why the post is called "lessons" and there are individual points, mostly independent of one another. The post is not called "Brown's new PvZ style".
|
Fair enough NrGMonk. Fair enough.
You have convinced me, to a point. I think I just have a few problems with the way Brown played, but I still think this is fairly low-risk given your analysis above. Had the game not been a macro-on-macro, I think Brown would have had some problems, but, hey, this whole game's about reaction, right?
You win this time. 
|
Against mutalisks I feel this isnt working so good. I just played a game where I had about 9 observers, covered the whole map basically with obs speed. However if you don't pressure their mutalisk ball get's bigger and bigger, it one hits pylons and two-three hits a bunch of gateways. Even if you are the superior player and have HT's spread out for storm + cannons it wasn't enough for me. Maybe if I was able to caught the mutalisks in the vortex but hard to move around your whole army after them lol. Guess this works if the zerg stays passive and puts no pressure but otherwise I think it's quite hard against mutalisks.
Would really like to see a replay against a decent muta/ling user if this really works. Oo
|
United States8476 Posts
On December 08 2011 22:41 eYeball wrote:
Against mutalisks I feel this isnt working so good. I just played a game where I had about 9 observers, covered the whole map basically with obs speed. However if you don't pressure their mutalisk ball get's bigger and bigger, it one hits pylons and two-three hits a bunch of gateways. Even if you are the superior player and have HT's spread out for storm + cannons it wasn't enough for me. Maybe if I was able to caught the mutalisks in the vortex but hard to move around your whole army after them lol. Guess this works if the zerg stays passive and puts no pressure but otherwise I think it's quite hard against mutalisks.
Would really like to see a replay against a decent muta/ling user if this really works. Oo
Again, I'm not advocating for this exact style. I'm pointing out specific individual things that Brown did in the game that I thought were smart/underused.
Vs straight up mutas, I wouldn't stick to colossi at all or go for mothership, so it's kinda a moot point to discuss it.
|
a great write up. There is 1 point i have to disagree though: double robo. It is true if you consider the fact that colossus in PvZ is really freaking strong mid game. However in the current meta game where zerg start their hive once they have 6 gas, unless you could read the timing of that hive to go for a 2 bases all-in, having 2 robos is really useless late game vs air tech. Remember if you are on colossi heavy, the period from their spire finished (corruptors) to greater spire finished (BL), You will have to play in a defensive manner.
Proposal: 1 robo with charge in stead of 1 robo with support bay. If you scout the army composition with hallucination/obs, you can react in time to make decision on how to spend your gas early on. The options are: HT(storm if not infestor), DT drop(risky), forge upgrades (should be +2 +2 by now), charge, blink etc.
Reason: in contrast with colossi tech where you need at least 3 colossi(600 gas) to held off a push from Z. You could spend it on storm (150 gas each HT). The cost are basicly the same but HT is better where it doesnt cost as much mineral therefore free up your options for wrap prism/chargelots counter attack + cannon to defend push. Things would turn even nicer if you could use your force fields to support your storm usage.
Out of the 3 options Zerg have mid game: muta/ infestor/ roach hydra, HT only 'weak' vs roach hydra which also is the most uncommon tech path from zerg because it requires a huge amount of time to creep spread across the map.
Transition: as i said, HT tech when compare to colossi tech is much more 'flexible' and thats mainly show in the transition phase. Instead of 2 robo lying around uselessly once we cant remax with colossi due to Zerg air tech. HT path give you thousand of extra wrapgates with a combination of wrap prism which result a really flexible counter attack style once you get blink/charge. Not only that, with a flexible usage of gas (150 per HT and you only need 2-3 HT in an army at a time), you will have an easy time getting mothership/carriers since you will never be opened to a counter attack timing after a 200/200 battle (the speed of your re-max is faster than a zerg in term of production and location). Try trading food with a BL army and this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230735 you will understand what i mean.
Again, it could be just a personal taste in styles as well as decision making but overall i believe most of the colossi tech strat will be scouted and hard counter in the near future. Going templar route will simply give you more flexibility, harder to be scouted the EXACT strat therefore harder for a Zerg to truly counter.
Man we need more posts like yours in this strategy forum, =_=... Peace.
|
United States8476 Posts
On December 09 2011 02:14 NB wrote:a great write up. There is 1 point i have to disagree though: double robo. It is true if you consider the fact that colossus in PvZ is really freaking strong mid game. However in the current meta game where zerg start their hive once they have 6 gas, unless you could read the timing of that hive to go for a 2 bases all-in, having 2 robos is really useless late game vs air tech. Remember if you are on colossi heavy, the period from their spire finished (corruptors) to greater spire finished (BL), You will have to play in a defensive manner. Proposal: 1 robo with charge in stead of 1 robo with support bay. If you scout the army composition with hallucination/obs, you can react in time to make decision on how to spend your gas early on. The options are: HT(storm if not infestor), DT drop(risky), forge upgrades (should be +2 +2 by now), charge, blink etc. Reason: in contrast with colossi tech where you need at least 3 colossi(600 gas) to held off a push from Z. You could spend it on storm (150 gas each HT). The cost are basicly the same but HT is better where it doesnt cost as much mineral therefore free up your options for wrap prism/chargelots counter attack + cannon to defend push. Things would turn even nicer if you could use your force fields to support your storm usage. Out of the 3 options Zerg have mid game: muta/ infestor/ roach hydra, HT only 'weak' vs roach hydra which also is the most uncommon tech path from zerg because it requires a huge amount of time to creep spread across the map. Transition: as i said, HT tech when compare to colossi tech is much more 'flexible' and thats mainly show in the transition phase. Instead of 2 robo lying around uselessly once we cant remax with colossi due to Zerg air tech. HT path give you thousand of extra wrapgates with a combination of wrap prism which result a really flexible counter attack style once you get blink/charge. Not only that, with a flexible usage of gas (150 per HT and you only need 2-3 HT in an army at a time), you will have an easy time getting mothership/carriers since you will never be opened to a counter attack timing after a 200/200 battle (the speed of your re-max is faster than a zerg in term of production and location). Try trading food with a BL army and this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=230735 you will understand what i mean. Again, it could be just a personal taste in styles as well as decision making but overall i believe most of the colossi tech strat will be scouted and hard counter in the near future. Going templar route will simply give you more flexibility, harder to be scouted the EXACT strat therefore harder for a Zerg to truly counter. Man we need more posts like yours in this strategy forum, =_=... Peace.
There actually a lot of points I disagree with here. Double robo is completely a reactionary play not meant for versus mutas. Also I think you're missing the point that the double robo is just for colossi. Rather, it's a lot for warp prisms and observers while being able to produce double colossi when you need it. Also, I would disagree with your assessment that templar tech is better versus broodlords. I would argue that colossi tech alone is more useful versus broods alone than templar/immortal tech alone. In addition, in Brown's game, his double robo were constantly in producing versus mass air. You can almost always get more prisms and observers.
You say there are only 3 midgame zerg options while there are really many more. Some you don't take into account are ling/bane, roach/bane, and roach/ling drop play. Your proposal of 1 robo with charge just doesn't cut it. Some problems include that you'll have a hard time fighting mass tunneling roaches even with a high immortal count because of kiting. And you don't really have a good answer versus roach bane or even worse, ling bling. In general, I think blink/immortal is a much better and solid composition in the mid game, and that is a viable composition, close to what you thought of.
I agree, however, that all of this is mostly a style thing
|
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.
|
United States8476 Posts
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.
|
|
|
Nice thread, appreciated
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
