A lot of people are having the misconception that I'm advocating the exact build order that Brown used in this game. I am not. Rather, I'm pointing out individual points/lessons that I find Protosses seem to overlook or forget or tactics that seem smart/underused.
Recently I watched a PvZ in the GSL that was so different from every single other PvZ. It didn’t involve some crazy strategy like mass carriers and it wasn’t a brand new undiscovered timing. What was so different about it is that it was purely macro game, possibly the most macro oriented PvZ I’ve ever witnessed on the GSL stage. In fact, it was the Protoss’s [g] oal to get into the late game. And no, it wasn’t a PvZ where where the Protoss turtled on 2 or 3 base for the entire game. There were very intelligent movements, amazing tech transitions, and lots of attempted harass from our Protoss hero.
The Protoss behind this PvZ was SlayersBrown. Previously unknown, his only significant result was defeating LiquidHero in a GSL qualifier. But this season he qualified for Code A and defeated Superstar, Ryung, and Losira all 2-0. And according to SlayersCella, Brown almost never loses to zergs on the korean ladder, so he must be doing something right. The particular game I’m refering to is game one between Brown and Losira on Daybreak. Yes, this is the Losira that is close to a ZvP sniper with a 72% win ratio vs protoss. Here is the vod and I believe game 1 is free to watch. I recommend everyone to watch the vod first before reading the rest of this post. I believe all Protoss can learn from the concepts employed by Brown and without further ado, here they are:
1. Not every PvZ build has to have some 2 base timing. For some reason, most PvZs in the GSL have some 2 base timings incorporated. This has worked previously when zergs were unfamiliar with such timings and when the maps were smaller. But now as zergs become better at defense and we have large macro maps like daybreak, a macro game can be a very good choice.
Not only did Brown not do a 2 base timing in this game, he barely did any pressure off of 2 base. The extent of the pressure was one voidray and one pheonix(which threatens more phoenix) and a fake 4 zealot poke. And neither of these pressure were even committed pressures. The voidray serves a huge purpose as you’ll see in the next point and the phenoix is very useful for scouting. The 4 zealots were immeidately pulled back as soon as Brown realized he couldn’t do anay damage with them. The most important part of this point is that Brown is not afraid to play a completely macro game versus zerg and in fact he encourages it.
9:50 3rd!!!
2. Just one voidray can allow you to take a fast 3rd on large maps. Brown is not the first Protoss to use this tactic, as Huk has done this many a time recently. However, not enough people know about it. Just one voidray prevents roach based attacks from the zerg until he can get a mass of either hydras, mutas, corruptors, or infestors. At this time, you can easily take a third while massing zealot/sentry to deal with lings and teching to colossi to deal with either infestors or hydras.
3. Aggressively expanding as protoss is powerful. I was amazed by how fast Brown took a 4th in this game. Although I first thought it was a reaction to the fast broodlord tech, I later realized that in both his games versus Superstar, he got a 4th base equally as fast. And with good sim city, army movement, observer placement, and cannon spam, Brown was able to defend his bases versus both harass and frontal attacks. By aggressively expanding, Brown was also able to pull slow broodlords to side expansions while counterattacking Losira’s expansions with his more mobile army. 14:00 4th!!! 19:00 5th to divert attention 22:45 2nd attempt at 5th 27:00 6th and 7th started at the same time
4. Mass those observers Brown makes the most observers I’ve ever seen in a PvZ. Not only does he open 2 observers from the start, he eventually goes up to 3 and replaces them whenever they die. With these observers, Brown is able to quickly scout tech switches, observe army movement from the zerg, and find all burrowed units. Most importantly is the army movements. Many times throughout the game, Brown is able to spot ling runbys and intercept them before they do damage. In addition, Brown is able to see Losira’s army moving towards one of his expansions and thus counterattack one of Losira’s expansions. Observers are so cheap and useful that I believe the most important reason people don’t get more of them in PvZ is that they refuse to waste their precious time on their robo, which brings me to my next point.
Note: This is in reference to an internet meme. I'm not suggesting to always get double robo in every single PvZ.
Everyone knows that robo units are the strong units in PvZ midgame, but many people refuse to build more than 1 robo. I believe that especially with this heavy expanding style of Protoss, double robo is the way to go. First, the double robo makes up for the fact that with the expanding style, your robo is going to be later than if you had started colossi off of 2 base. Double pumping colossi also allows your final max army to be more colossi heavy, strengthening the final power of your army. The other obvious advantage is that you can surprise your opponent with a switch to double immortal very quickly. However, the final advantage that many people don’t think of is that you have extra robo time to build auxilary units like warp prisms and observers. In total this game, Brown makes about 6 observers and 3 warp prisms with speed. I’ll admit Brown’s warp prism harrass wasn’t that impressive, but that can be attributed a lot to Losira’s great defense. However, the lesson to learn from this is that with 2 robo, you can afford great luxuries that you wouldn’t be able to otherwise. Any zerg will tell you how annoying warp prisms are and we’ve already been through how useful mid-late game observers are.
6. Mothership tech should be the norm versus broodlord tech. All too many times Protoss go into autopliot and go the same techroute no matter what they face. For example, a standard tech route would be 3 base colossi off 1 robo into templar for storm. This seems simple enough and it was great back in the early days of starcraft 2 when roach hydra corruptor was all the rage and broodlords were way less popular than they are now(This had mostly to do with the infestor buff). But now that hive tech zerg is very common as the zerg endgame, templar transitions make much less sense. As great as high templar are, the fact is that no matter how many high templar you have, you won’t beat 10+ broodlords with just high templar alone. In fact, I advise most people that templar are great to supplement an anti broodlord army, but you should never get them versus impending broods or in response to broods.
Brown’s tech route was double robo colossi straight into mothership and only after the mothership was started did he start his templar archives. Clearly, Brown was timing all his tech so that he would have the mothership and archon/templar at the same time. He was aiming for archon toliet+storm as his counter to mass broodlord, which I believe is the absolute safest and solid counter. Any ground based army just simply will not work. Voidrays are countered too easily by infestors + corruptors, and 1 or 2 carriers will not make enough of a difference in a fight as one single mothership.
Brown adds his templar archives after his mothership starts.
The reason this tech pattern isn’t seen much is that there’s not much of a precedent for it. In fact, I’ve never seen this exact transition in a pro game and the only similar situation I’ve seen is both Huk and Hero transitioning from storm/archon/immortal directly into mothership instead of colossi to deal with broodlords.
In conclusion: Colossi+templar is great versus any lair tech, but you don’t need both of them vs fast broodlords. Mothership is the way to go.
7. Carriers are part of the ultimate Protoss deathball Near the end of the game, Brown begins adding 3 stargates for carriers to add to his huge deathball. In fact, he even sacs probes to do so. The fact is that while a maxed mothership/colossi/templar/archon/stalker deathball is near unbeatable, that deathball with carriers IS unbeatable. The only counter to carriers zerg has is corruptors, which are completely negated by vortex and storm. Yes, carriers are hard to get, but if you mothership/colossi/templar/archon tech, I’m sure you can afford carriers. Why not voidrays you might ask? The fact is that voidrays are much easier to deal with than carriers in that deathball, because while corruptors don’t do as well versus voidrays, fungal and neural do very well, and infestors are much scarier than corruptors.
8. Vortex is pretty sick Ok, we all know this. Here’s a picture: Before: After:
This game has to be the most well played late game PvZ I've ever witnessed. It is clear that Brown almost always plays and practices macro PvZ and he has a better understanding of it than any other protoss because of it. It's also amazing how much you can learn from just one game. If you only watch one PvZ for educational purposes, watch this one, and if you have to pick one up and comer protoss the rise up, it should be Brown. I, for one, will be playing close attention to SlayersBrown in the future.
I kind of disagree on the voidray into quick third point, if only because of Mondragon. If someone can find the link to that post/pic, you'll know what I'm talking about.
It basically said that if toss uses voids, you can hit a timing and simply make more roaches than that one stargate can even handle.
however, if the zerg plays the counter game like you said and only does the correct UNIT response, then the quick third works. Thoughts?
Good points, definitely somethings to keep in mind when playing in a PvZ. However, you have to be very good and you have to know what you are doing when trying to execute something like this. When aggressively expanding you it is very important to keep in mind that you need to know what your enemy is doing, and this is why I really like the mass observers that you mentioned (You don't nececarilly need mass obs in order to get map control and to follow army movement, but it's a lot easier to do so if you do have them. All you need is good army movement, constant zealot/dt scouting around larger maps and control of the middle/xel'naga towers. I know, it's a lot, but it is doable if you're good enough).
The only thing I don't really like is the double robo. Going for Templars /w storm is something I like a lot more than Robo tech. At the Day[9] Daily that was live during the NASL last night Day[9] talked about the advantages of going for templars over Robo and he did a very good explanation as to why it's better. In that Daily he also talked about how HerO played vs Sen in the Semi-Finals of the NASL, as HerO also played much more 'conservative' with very little fake pressure but still enforced a longer macro game based on starving your opponent on 3 bases (You can't really do this style of play with Robo tech, Collossi are just too immobile (as well as immortals) and they don't give you the flexibility Archons/HTs do. However you do need the robo relatively early for the obs [which HerO lacked in the game, he only had one he used to scout expansions with, so it's good to see you bringing up how important a lot of obs are, as HerO could've controlled the map a bit easier even if he did manage to do it without the mass obs]).
Anyways thanks for the post. Always nice to observe newer ways of approaching matchups.
This reminds me a lot of rsvp's PvZ, although rsvp uses storm as often has he does colossi for his mid-game composition. rsvp's PvZ is pretty nasty. Fast third, fast fourth, fleet beacon as soon as hive starts like clockwork.
2. Just one voidray can allow you to take a fast 3rd on large maps. Brown is not the first Protoss to use this tactic, as Huk has done this many a time recently. However, not enough people know about it. Just one voidray prevents roach based attacks from the zerg until he can get a mass of either hydras, mutas, corruptors, or infestors. At this time, you can easily take a third while massing zealot/sentry to deal with lings and teching to colossi to deal with either infestors or hydras.
i think that one void ray for pressure isn't new, and i think that quick thirds involving it aren't necessarily the way to go. the problem with taking a third behind 1 void ray is that your tech for dealing with mutalisks/drops is delayed. an economy for zerg can be rolling by 10.5 minutes against a protoss player doing a passive voidray/expand opening. while the style for opening itself isn't bad, i think that against the aggression that a zerg player can lay on isn't necessarily wonderful. as an alternative, i think that Huk's quick third w/ pure sentries opening is better. it gives you a similar quick third, and it lets you put pressure on very quickly after your third is secured. mutas are less of a threat, since they can't show their faces behind the type of economy that minimalist gateway units allow.
3. Aggressively expanding as protoss is powerful. I was amazed by how fast Brown took a 4th in this game. Although I first thought it was a reaction to the fast broodlord tech, I later realized that in both his games versus Superstar, he got a 4th base equally as fast. And with good sim city, army movement, observer placement, and cannon spam, Brown was able to defend his bases versus both harass and frontal attacks. By aggressively expanding, Brown was also able to pull slow broodlords to side expansions while counterattacking Losira’s expansions with his more mobile army.
depending upon the map, this is 100% true assuming that you can abuse sim city with cannons on the map that you're using. what i wonder though is how this will work once the viper is available to zerg players.
the only way to deal with this type of style in brood war is to use moving-drops, defilers, and multi-pronged attacks. protoss is weak to all of that, but the one key unit that aids it isn't available in this game. with proper sim city, without defilers, a defensive protoss in brood war can't be touched. paired with the ability to warp in units like dark templar, to emulate that type of style in starcraft 2 is actually pretty scary, even with a unit like the viper.
5. Double robo all the way Everyone knows that robo units are the strong units in PvZ midgame, but many people refuse to build more than 1 robo. I believe that especially with this heavy expanding style of Protoss, double robo is the way to go. First, the double robo makes up for the fact that with the expanding style, your robo is going to be later than if you had started colossi off of 2 base. Double pumping colossi also allows your final max army to be more colossi heavy, strengthening the final power of your army. The other obvious advantage is that you can surprise your opponent with a switch to double immortal very quickly. However, the final advantage that many people don’t think of is that you have extra robo time to build auxilary units like warp prisms and observers. In total this game, Brown makes about 6 observers and 3 warp prisms with speed. I’ll admit Brown’s warp prism harrass wasn’t that impressive, but that can be attributed a lot to Losira’s great defense. However, the lesson to learn from this is that with 2 robo, you can afford great luxuries that you wouldn’t be able to otherwise. Any zerg will tell you how annoying warp prisms are and we’ve already been through how useful mid-late game observers are.
the problem with double robo is that it hinders the growth of a gateway army to stay alive early on. how do you make up for taking a quick third and doubling up on robos after getting stargate tech? the amount of cash you invest into economy and technology leads me to believe that there isn't much available to defend with by the 13 minute mark. is it safe to allow everything to hinge upon warp prism harassment? in particular, what happens when a zerg goes in for an attack at the 12 minute mark with a boatload of ling/roach? one void ray can't help out against something like that. is a style like brown's flexible enough to deal with this threat without relying on a warp-prism warp-in trade of third expansions?
6. Mothership tech should be the norm versus broodlord tech. All too many times Protoss go into autopliot and go the same techroute no matter what they face. For example, a standard tech route would be 3 base colossi off 1 robo into templar for storm. This seems simple enough and it was great back in the early days of starcraft 2 when roach hydra corruptor was all the rage and broodlords were way less popular than they are now(This had mostly to do with the infestor buff). But now that hive tech zerg is very common as the zerg endgame, templar transitions make much less sense. As great as high templar are, the fact is that no matter how many high templar you have, you won’t beat 10+ broodlords with just high templar alone. In fact, I advise most people that templar are great to supplement an anti broodlord army, but you should never get them versus impending broods or in response to broods.
Brown’s tech route was double robo colossi straight into mothership and only after the mothership was started did he start his templar archives. Clearly, Brown was timing all his tech so that he would have the mothership and archon/templar at the same time. He was aiming for archon toliet+storm as his counter to mass broodlord, which I believe is the absolute safest and solid counter. Any ground based army just simple will not work. Voidrays are countered too easily by infestors + corruptors, and 1 or 2 carriers will not make enough of a difference in a fight as one single mothership.
The reason this tech pattern isn’t seen much is that there’s not much of a precedent for it. In fact, I’ve never seen this exact transition in a pro game and the only similar situation I’ve seen is both Huk and Hero transitioning from storm/archon/immortal directly into mothership instead of colossi to deal with broodlords.
In conclusion: Colossi+templar is great versus any lair tech, but you don’t need both of them vs fast broodlords. Mothership is the way to go.
7. Carriers are part of the ultimate Protoss deathball Near the end of the game, Brown begins adding 3 stargates for carriers to add to his huge deathball. In fact, he even sacs probes to do so. The fact is that while a maxed mothership/colossi/templar/archon/stalker deathball is near unbeatable, that deathball with carriers IS unbeatable. The only counter to carriers zerg has is corruptors, which are completely negated by vortex and storm. Yes, carriers are hard to get, but if you mothership/colossi/templar/archon tech, I’m sure you can afford carriers. Why not voidrays you might ask? The fact is that voidrays are much easier to deal with than carriers in that deathball, because while corruptors don’t do as well versus voidrays, fungal and neural do very well, and infestors are much scarier than corruptors.
8. Vortex is pretty sick
motherships and the archon toilet are absolutely the counter to brood lords, no doubt about it. adding in carriers seems questionable though. as a game-ending unit, sure, they're good. but i don't think they beat mothership/colossus/archon/stalker against any zerg unit composition. carriers are beautiful at maintaining your lead, since they're impossible to take down once you lose your supply lead against a protoss player. point being, i think that by advertising carriers as the ultimate protoss death ball, you're short-changing the original composition that enabled you to produce carriers.
Oh i didnt realise Brown was on SlayerS, thats awesome!! I had been wondering for a while why a team hadn't picked him up (They obviously had) during his awesome performances in GSL
Ha, I just watched the game and then found your great articel. Really nice write up, but I have to disagree at one point.
The carrier switch had no effect, because the first carriers came after the last big fight. Carrier are good in the late game, but this not a good example for this.
Also 9. Moving bad idea all your broodlords in a vortex is a.
Basically what rsvp has been doing for a long time. Seriously people should watch his stream, he's always months ahead of everyone
I've been doing this for a long time too so I'll add some thoughts:
- The double robo isn't necessarily for mass colossi production, it's usually to be able to make prims and observers without having to stop colossi production for a while.
- I get ht archives when fleet beacon is warping in, so a little sooner.
- Carriers are badass! Void rays die to fungal while carriers die to basically nothing. Once you have mothership/carrier/archon/ht/collo he'll need A LOT of corruptors. (as in one army of corruptors won't even cut it)
- You can safely get the third at the 9:00 min mark. it's best to go 1robo 4gates with immortal/stalker/sentry. Robo bay is usually at 9:20
- Scout! Use those observers constantly! Once he goes hive you need an explosion of stargates to deal with broodlords.
- Vs late lair you can take a third and be agressive at the same time because immortal/stalker/sentry with a lot of ffs can't die to roach/ling without roach speed.
- i don't agree with "1 voidray stops all roachling attacks". You need cannons with gateway if you go colossi, or chargelot/storm after an air into fast third build.
Can't help it: What am I talking about since months in every PvZ thread? Get this third before 10mins or die to any player that holds your 2base pressure and then chooses the right tech (usually mutas as it is pretty easy to do damage to a protoss that plays of less eco and wasted some units early)
Protoss has all the tools to compete with zerg at any stage of the game, they only have to take bases fast enough to be able to use them (which agreed can be tough, at least on some maps)
On December 06 2011 02:19 listal wrote: motherships and the archon toilet are absolutely the counter to brood lords, no doubt about it. adding in carriers seems questionable though. as a game-ending unit, sure, they're good. but i don't think they beat mothership/colossus/archon/stalker against any zerg unit composition. carriers are beautiful at maintaining your lead, since they're impossible to take down once you lose your supply lead against a protoss player. point being, i think that by advertising carriers as the ultimate protoss death ball, you're short-changing the original composition that enabled you to produce carriers.
You're underselling the AA range carriers give you. Without carriers, you're fighting siege-range broodlords with archons and void rays. Void rays have to move into fungal range in order to attack the broodlords, so they get owned. And archons rely on big vortexes to get in range. If for any reason you're unable to vortex a big chunk of Z's broodlord/corruptor/infestor army, you're screwed if you don't have carriers.
That said, carriers wind up being the last piece of the puzzle you add because otherwise, you die. But they are important.
On December 06 2011 02:19 listal wrote: motherships and the archon toilet are absolutely the counter to brood lords, no doubt about it. adding in carriers seems questionable though. as a game-ending unit, sure, they're good. but i don't think they beat mothership/colossus/archon/stalker against any zerg unit composition. carriers are beautiful at maintaining your lead, since they're impossible to take down once you lose your supply lead against a protoss player. point being, i think that by advertising carriers as the ultimate protoss death ball, you're short-changing the original composition that enabled you to produce carriers.
You're underselling the AA range carriers give you. Without carriers, you're fighting siege-range broodlords with archons and void rays. Void rays have to move into fungal range in order to attack the broodlords, so they get owned. And archons rely on big vortexes to get in range. If for any reason you're unable to vortex a big chunk of Z's broodlord/corruptor/infestor army, you're screwed if you don't have carriers.
That said, carriers wind up being the last piece of the puzzle you add because otherwise, you die. But they are important.
the point Monk made in his article is that motherships are what are countering brood lords; i went along with that. i think the point you are making in response to my reaction is different. also, void rays as an end-game unit to counter brood lords aren't within the scope of this article on Brown vs Losira. that said...
i'm by no means underselling any advantage that carriers provide you. my gripe within the context of this article is that the brunt of your army is going to be archons, a mothership, double-robo colossus, and stalkers. that doesn't leave much room for a carrier, especially when you're building a slightly larger than normal economy to help support your defensive, high-gas position.
the way that carriers are folded into the fray is as replacement units as the game continues. you lose units, you replace them with carriers. that's a very interesting approach to increase the utility of investing in carriers. to start mixing them into your army before the mothership/archon/stalker/colossus combination is a huge mistake though, since you need your base army to deal with the initial very heavy broodlord/corruptor combination. as the game goes on, the carriers being folded in will be much more effective since not nearly as many corruptors can continue being built. i guess in this way, i agree with you here
i'm not sure about the point about missing a vortex though. isn't that a fringe case? i don't play protoss, so i'm not sure how complicated executing a toilet really is. in late game, high-level pvzs that i observe and play in, i've never actually seen a botched vortex. it's usually a drawn-out dance between the two players until a vortex or two seals the deal. really, i'm playing out stephano vs kiwi from IPL3 in my mind!
Sorry do you mean that this guy know how to play toss ?
Need a korean terran explanation now and everything will be back at normal
Serious mod : I think it could lead to another type of PvX , more macro style
Terran and protoss are switching from a lot of all-in/cheese timing-push to a lot more macro style and zerg are taking some "all-in " on their hands ( like the one roaches/ling in ZvP )
I think the next updates is a big " max pressure " style kinda timing-push with a lot of macro behind ... ( real starcraft )
I kind of disagree on the voidray into quick third point, if only because of Mondragon. If someone can find the link to that post/pic, you'll know what I'm talking about.
It basically said that if toss uses voids, you can hit a timing and simply make more roaches than that one stargate can even handle.
however, if the zerg plays the counter game like you said and only does the correct UNIT response, then the quick third works. Thoughts?
I know the games you're referring to. Mondragon's opponent, Zeerax, was going 2 stargate with 1 gateway iirc while massing air units. Brown's build is much much different, getting only 1 voidray and 1 pheonix while macroing off of 5 gates.
Good points, definitely somethings to keep in mind when playing in a PvZ. However, you have to be very good and you have to know what you are doing when trying to execute something like this. When aggressively expanding you it is very important to keep in mind that you need to know what your enemy is doing, and this is why I really like the mass observers that you mentioned (You don't nececarilly need mass obs in order to get map control and to follow army movement, but it's a lot easier to do so if you do have them. All you need is good army movement, constant zealot/dt scouting around larger maps and control of the middle/xel'naga towers. I know, it's a lot, but it is doable if you're good enough).
The only thing I don't really like is the double robo. Going for Templars /w storm is something I like a lot more than Robo tech. At the Day[9] Daily that was live during the NASL last night Day[9] talked about the advantages of going for templars over Robo and he did a very good explanation as to why it's better. In that Daily he also talked about how HerO played vs Sen in the Semi-Finals of the NASL, as HerO also played much more 'conservative' with very little fake pressure but still enforced a longer macro game based on starving your opponent on 3 bases (You can't really do this style of play with Robo tech, Collossi are just too immobile (as well as immortals) and they don't give you the flexibility Archons/HTs do. However you do need the robo relatively early for the obs [which HerO lacked in the game, he only had one he used to scout expansions with, so it's good to see you bringing up how important a lot of obs are, as HerO could've controlled the map a bit easier even if he did manage to do it without the mass obs]).
Anyways thanks for the post. Always nice to observe newer ways of approaching matchups.
I'm only suggesting 2 robo as an option and talking about its merits. I never said it was mandatory.
the problem with double robo is that it hinders the growth of a gateway army to stay alive early on. how do you make up for taking a quick third and doubling up on robos after getting stargate tech? the amount of cash you invest into economy and technology leads me to believe that there isn't much available to defend with by the 13 minute mark. is it safe to allow everything to hinge upon warp prism harassment? in particular, what happens when a zerg goes in for an attack at the 12 minute mark with a boatload of ling/roach? one void ray can't help out against something like that. is a style like brown's flexible enough to deal with this threat without relying on a warp-prism warp-in trade of third expansions?
I never said anything about double robo right away after a fast 3rd. I just mean eventually, as Brown did. Leave 2 robos as an option when you're on 3 base.
Ha, I just watched the game and then found your great articel. Really nice write up, but I have to disagree at one point.
The carrier switch had no effect, because the first carriers came after the last big fight. Carrier are good in the late game, but this not a good example for this.
Also 9. Moving bad idea all your broodlords in a vortex is a.
Even though the carrier switch didn't affect the game doesn't make the point less true. Basically what I'm saying is that if a smart player like Brown is doing a carrier transition, it must not be too horrible.
Can't help it: What am I talking about since months in every PvZ thread? Get this third before 10mins or die to any player that holds your 2base pressure and then chooses the right tech (usually mutas as it is pretty easy to do damage to a protoss that plays of less eco and wasted some units early)
Protoss has all the tools to compete with zerg at any stage of the game, they only have to take bases fast enough to be able to use them (which agreed can be tough, at least on some maps)
On December 06 2011 02:19 listal wrote: motherships and the archon toilet are absolutely the counter to brood lords, no doubt about it. adding in carriers seems questionable though. as a game-ending unit, sure, they're good. but i don't think they beat mothership/colossus/archon/stalker against any zerg unit composition. carriers are beautiful at maintaining your lead, since they're impossible to take down once you lose your supply lead against a protoss player. point being, i think that by advertising carriers as the ultimate protoss death ball, you're short-changing the original composition that enabled you to produce carriers.
You're underselling the AA range carriers give you. Without carriers, you're fighting siege-range broodlords with archons and void rays. Void rays have to move into fungal range in order to attack the broodlords, so they get owned. And archons rely on big vortexes to get in range. If for any reason you're unable to vortex a big chunk of Z's broodlord/corruptor/infestor army, you're screwed if you don't have carriers.
That said, carriers wind up being the last piece of the puzzle you add because otherwise, you die. But they are important.
the point Monk made in his article is that motherships are what are countering brood lords; i went along with that. i think the point you are making in response to my reaction is different. also, void rays as an end-game unit to counter brood lords aren't within the scope of this article on Brown vs Losira. that said...
i'm by no means underselling any advantage that carriers provide you. my gripe within the context of this article is that the brunt of your army is going to be archons, a mothership, double-robo colossus, and stalkers. that doesn't leave much room for a carrier, especially when you're building a slightly larger than normal economy to help support your defensive, high-gas position.
the way that carriers are folded into the fray is as replacement units as the game continues. you lose units, you replace them with carriers. that's a very interesting approach to increase the utility of investing in carriers. to start mixing them into your army before the mothership/archon/stalker/colossus combination is a huge mistake though, since you need your base army to deal with the initial very heavy broodlord/corruptor combination. as the game goes on, the carriers being folded in will be much more effective since not nearly as many corruptors can continue being built. i guess in this way, i agree with you here
i'm not sure about the point about missing a vortex though. isn't that a fringe case? i don't play protoss, so i'm not sure how complicated executing a toilet really is. in late game, high-level pvzs that i observe and play in, i've never actually seen a botched vortex. it's usually a drawn-out dance between the two players until a vortex or two seals the deal. really, i'm playing out stephano vs kiwi from IPL3 in my mind!
Don't know what you guys are arguing about. You seem to share similar views from my point of view.
On December 06 2011 02:37 Roynalf wrote: damn it, now every Zerg player is going to blame NrGmonk for bringing this up, thx alot for fucking up our win ratios
I've been advocating a mass cannon on your fourth base a lot and I'm Zerg -.- Turtle Protoss always has been strong but Protoss have simply not found a reliable, safe way to get a fast third without it getting sniped by mass roaches yet and stay way too passive on it.
What Brown and Losira did was as close to what would be the apitome of PvZ and ZvP respectively, a dance about territory where neither party is allowed to overcommit. The only thing that stopped Losira from leveling the playing field is put everything he built up for in a single Vortex together with 4 archons. If not he will have heavily contested the Protoss' fourth and keep him from getting up the unstoppable production-engine of a 4 base toss. it is a shame too, because we would have seen the next level in ZvP development.
I watched missed it today but watched it now in HQ, pretty awesome game I must say.
However what would you do if your opponent goes muta/ling? Add a second stargate and pump phoenixes while getting blink/storm? It must be pretty hard to take bases if you face a good muta/ling user?
Second what if he had not get that vortex down, the game could had been over! Feels very dependant you get use of the mothership.
I'm obviously not gonna argue with NrGmonk who knows about a hundred times more then I do about this game but I want to throw something in here.I found the effective use of the archon toilet to be a huge dissapointment and for me, it completely ruined the game.
This mechanic has been declared by blizzard to be an exploit and I have to say that I agree. Obvisouly the patch implemented in 1.3.0 was ineffective due to air unit scattering slower then ground units. I thought it took all the depth out of the game and turned a balanced beautiful game into a farce.
I don't understand how people who take this game seriously can think that was a proper ending to the game. I want to honestly ask you NrGmonk, didn't you find the use of the archon toilet deplorable?
On December 06 2011 02:19 listal wrote: motherships and the archon toilet are absolutely the counter to brood lords, no doubt about it. adding in carriers seems questionable though. as a game-ending unit, sure, they're good. but i don't think they beat mothership/colossus/archon/stalker against any zerg unit composition. carriers are beautiful at maintaining your lead, since they're impossible to take down once you lose your supply lead against a protoss player. point being, i think that by advertising carriers as the ultimate protoss death ball, you're short-changing the original composition that enabled you to produce carriers.
You're underselling the AA range carriers give you. Without carriers, you're fighting siege-range broodlords with archons and void rays. Void rays have to move into fungal range in order to attack the broodlords, so they get owned. And archons rely on big vortexes to get in range. If for any reason you're unable to vortex a big chunk of Z's broodlord/corruptor/infestor army, you're screwed if you don't have carriers.
That said, carriers wind up being the last piece of the puzzle you add because otherwise, you die. But they are important.
i'm by no means underselling any advantage that carriers provide you. my gripe within the context of this article is that the brunt of your army is going to be archons, a mothership, double-robo colossus, and stalkers. that doesn't leave much room for a carrier, especially when you're building a slightly larger than normal economy to help support your defensive, high-gas position.
the way that carriers are folded into the fray is as replacement units as the game continues. you lose units, you replace them with carriers. that's a very interesting approach to increase the utility of investing in carriers. to start mixing them into your army before the mothership/archon/stalker/colossus combination is a huge mistake though, since you need your base army to deal with the initial very heavy broodlord/corruptor combination. as the game goes on, the carriers being folded in will be much more effective since not nearly as many corruptors can continue being built. i guess in this way, i agree with you here
i'm not sure about the point about missing a vortex though. isn't that a fringe case? i don't play protoss, so i'm not sure how complicated executing a toilet really is. in late game, high-level pvzs that i observe and play in, i've never actually seen a botched vortex. it's usually a drawn-out dance between the two players until a vortex or two seals the deal. really, i'm playing out stephano vs kiwi from IPL3 in my mind!
Sounds like we pretty much agree that carriers are good, but they're the last piece you add.
As for how you wind up unable to vortex a big enough chunk of Z's army, there's a lot of things that can happen. Motherships are slow and there's a bit of casting delay, so it can happen that you simply miss. But more often, it's things like Z sending in waves of corruptors to force you to spend your vortexes, and then hitting again before your energy rebuilds. Sometimes Z sacrifices a ton of corruptors to kill your mothership, and then you're 5 minutes away from having a vortex. Other times, Z is able to split up his army enough that you just aren't able to vortex a big enough chunk.
I watched missed it today but watched it now in HQ, pretty awesome game I must say.
However what would you do if your opponent goes muta/ling? Add a second stargate and pump phoenixes while getting blink/storm? It must be pretty hard to take bases if you face a good muta/ling user?
Second what if he had not get that vortex down, the game could had been over! Feels very dependant you get use of the mothership.
It's not really in the scope of the article to discuss the actual build. Imo the build isn't as important as the concepts that Brown uses. But if you ask me, I would add cannons and tech to blink/storm vs 3 base muta play. 2 base muta play is a completely different story. Also, vortex is quite easy to aim.
I'm obviously not gonna argue with NrGmonk who knows about a hundred times more then I do about this game but I want to throw something in here.I found the effective use of the archon toilet to be a huge dissapointment and for me, it completely ruined the game.
This mechanic has been declared by blizzard to be an exploit and I have to say that I agree. Obvisouly the patch implemented in 1.3.0 was ineffective due to air unit scattering slower then ground units. I thought it took all the depth out of the game and turned a balanced beautiful game into a farce.
I don't understand how people who take this game seriously can think that was a proper ending to the game. I want to honestly ask you NrGmonk, didn't you find the use of the archon toilet deplorable?
Hmmm, not deplorable, but I do agree archon toliet is a bit silly. The problem is without it, protoss really have no hope of ever beating mass broodlords. I think blizzard hopes to fix this by removing the mothership and adding the tempest.
I'm obviously not gonna argue with NrGmonk who knows about a hundred times more then I do about this game but I want to throw something in here.I found the effective use of the archon toilet to be a huge dissapointment and for me, it completely ruined the game.
This mechanic has been declared by blizzard to be an exploit and I have to say that I agree. Obvisouly the patch implemented in 1.3.0 was ineffective due to air unit scattering slower then ground units. I thought it took all the depth out of the game and turned a balanced beautiful game into a farce.
I don't understand how people who take this game seriously can think that was a proper ending to the game. I want to honestly ask you NrGmonk, didn't you find the use of the archon toilet deplorable?
This is what i have been thinking for the past 3 months, watching zerg player of all caliber fall to it. Stephano often tries at least to NP it with hidden infestors to deplete its energy (either he doesn't succeed or P retreats, waits for energy and still wins), other zergs try to snipe it (but you need mass corruptor for that, and mass corruptor gets archon toileted as well).
And i have never seen a professional game where protoss does not win after using archon toilet, no matter how ridiculous the zergs lead was before the encounter.
I think people call it a "good game" since they are excited about the mighty mothership, as they are about nukes. But they do not see that a mothership with 4+ archons is as strong as double nuke combined with fungal for the full nuke duration. Makes me honestly sad for the zerg progamers who have to make a living and then get demolished by armies that cost a fraction of the zerg's army because one thing blizzard put into the game to make bronze level free for all more fun got out of hand.
Seriously, i have no respect whatsoever for people who use mother ships, even without vortex mass cloak is too strong when you need overseer to detect.
On December 06 2011 03:37 NrGmonk wrote: Hmmm, not deplorable, but I do agree archon toliet is a bit silly. The problem is without it, protoss really have no hope of ever beating mass broodlords. I think blizzard hopes to fix this by removing the mothership and adding the tempest.
I don't know, but Carriers have a huge AA range. Sure the problem is getting to carriers without dying, but if you care to look out for it you will notice how many zergs get smashed when trying to get Brood Lords out. So i would even dare to say, if zerg can get Brood Lords out, protoss can afford to get Carriers (ressource- and time-wise). You do not need a unit that instakills 20 Brood Lords FOR FREE when used with 4 Archons.
I'm obviously not gonna argue with NrGmonk who knows about a hundred times more then I do about this game but I want to throw something in here.I found the effective use of the archon toilet to be a huge dissapointment and for me, it completely ruined the game.
This mechanic has been declared by blizzard to be an exploit and I have to say that I agree. Obvisouly the patch implemented in 1.3.0 was ineffective due to air unit scattering slower then ground units. I thought it took all the depth out of the game and turned a balanced beautiful game into a farce.
I don't understand how people who take this game seriously can think that was a proper ending to the game. I want to honestly ask you NrGmonk, didn't you find the use of the archon toilet deplorable?
This is what i have been thinking for the past 3 months, watching zerg player of all caliber fall to it. Stephano often tries at least to NP it with hidden infestors to deplete its energy (either he doesn't succeed or P retreats, waits for energy and still wins), other zergs try to snipe it (but you need mass corruptor for that, and mass corruptor gets archon toileted as well).
And i have never seen a professional game where protoss does not win after using archon toilet, no matter how ridiculous the zergs lead was before the encounter.
I think people call it a "good game" since they are excited about the mighty mothership, as they are about nukes. But they do not see that a mothership with 4+ archons is as strong as double nuke combined with fungal for the full nuke duration. Makes me honestly sad for the zerg progamers who have to make a living and then get demolished by armies that cost a fraction of the zerg's army because one thing blizzard put into the game to make bronze level free for all more fun got out of hand.
Seriously, i have no respect whatsoever for people who use mother ships, even without vortex mass cloak is too strong when you need overseer to detect.
On December 06 2011 03:37 NrGmonk wrote: Hmmm, not deplorable, but I do agree archon toliet is a bit silly. The problem is without it, protoss really have no hope of ever beating mass broodlords. I think blizzard hopes to fix this by removing the mothership and adding the tempest.
I don't know, but Carriers have a huge AA range. Sure the problem is getting to carriers without dying, but if you care to look out for it you will notice how many zergs get smashed when trying to get Brood Lords out. So i would even dare to say, if zerg can get Brood Lords out, protoss can afford to get Carriers (ressource- and time-wise). You do not need a unit that instakills 20 Brood Lords FOR FREE when used with 4 Archons.
You win with the tools that are given to you. Don't hate the players, hate the game.
Seriously, i have no respect whatsoever for people who use mother ships, even without vortex mass cloak is too strong when you need overseer to detect.
This claim is just silly. Overseers are super cheap.
On December 06 2011 03:37 NrGmonk wrote: Hmmm, not deplorable, but I do agree archon toliet is a bit silly. The problem is without it, protoss really have no hope of ever beating mass broodlords. I think blizzard hopes to fix this by removing the mothership and adding the tempest.
I don't know, but Carriers have a huge AA range. Sure the problem is getting to carriers without dying, but if you care to look out for it you will notice how many zergs get smashed when trying to get Brood Lords out. So i would even dare to say, if zerg can get Brood Lords out, protoss can afford to get Carriers (ressource- and time-wise). You do not need a unit that instakills 20 Brood Lords FOR FREE when used with 4 Archons.
In practice, it's just much much too hard for protoss to get carriers to counter broodlords especially since you need both templar and mass carriers to counter corruptor broodlord. Infestor/corruptor/broodlord is one easy tech path and zerg only need 1 tech build per unit. On the other hand, you'd need something silly like 3 stargate plus templar tech to get carriers and you'd need a minimum of 6 before you get any good results.
What I loved about Browns game was as he took his 4th(I think) he split his army in 2 groups, each with a colossus, and sent 1 group to poke while the other defended. That was really smart because Losira just had lings. That being said I think he had way to many colossi at the end - 5 or 6. 3 would have been more than enough.
Archon toilet isn't as strong as people are making it out to be--Zergs just don't have much practice against it. The way you beat it is waves of corruptors. Build 20 corruptors, put them in two or 3 control groups, and A-move them on the mothership from different directions. Storm dodge and micro around archons for bonus points. The mothership has to spend its vortex energy or it dies. Retreat with whatever corruptors survive after the vortexes. Remax and attack. Sure, Z trades a few thousand resources of corruptors for mothership energy, but by that point in the game, Z has infinity bases and resources don't matter.
Vortex is really good, but it's perceived to be a lot better than it actually is because Z players do dumb stuff like send ALL of their units into a single vortex, and then everything explodes. That's the micro equivalent of sending 70 banelings next to a tank line and then hitting hold position. Of course it looks one-sided.
I like herO with more HTs rather than colossi. HTs could snipe infestors and you don't have to worry about corruptors killing both mothership and colossi. Also Brown did really good job on macroing in that game, I think he's pretty passive in-term of harassing and maneuvering. He warped in too late and didn't snipe any structures.
On December 06 2011 03:56 tuho12345 wrote: I like herO with more HTs rather than colossi. HTs could snipe infestors and you don't have to worry about corruptors killing both mothership and colossi.
That's cool, but doesn't really pertain to this discussion.
Also Brown did really good job on macroing in that game, I think he's pretty passive in-term of harassing and maneuvering. He warped in too late and didn't snipe any structures.
The nature of his build didn't allow him to harrass much early game, but he attempted a lot with warp prisms as soon as he could afford it. Also, I personally thought Brown's army movements were really really good, partly due to his observer count and spread.
I watched missed it today but watched it now in HQ, pretty awesome game I must say.
However what would you do if your opponent goes muta/ling? Add a second stargate and pump phoenixes while getting blink/storm? It must be pretty hard to take bases if you face a good muta/ling user?
Second what if he had not get that vortex down, the game could had been over! Feels very dependant you get use of the mothership.
It's not really in the scope of the article to discuss the actual build. Imo the build isn't as important as the concepts that Brown uses. But if you ask me, I would add cannons and tech to blink/storm vs 3 base muta play. 2 base muta play is a completely different story. Also, vortex is quite easy to aim.
I'm obviously not gonna argue with NrGmonk who knows about a hundred times more then I do about this game but I want to throw something in here.I found the effective use of the archon toilet to be a huge dissapointment and for me, it completely ruined the game.
This mechanic has been declared by blizzard to be an exploit and I have to say that I agree. Obvisouly the patch implemented in 1.3.0 was ineffective due to air unit scattering slower then ground units. I thought it took all the depth out of the game and turned a balanced beautiful game into a farce.
I don't understand how people who take this game seriously can think that was a proper ending to the game. I want to honestly ask you NrGmonk, didn't you find the use of the archon toilet deplorable?
Hmmm, not deplorable, but I do agree archon toliet is a bit silly. The problem is without it, protoss really have no hope of ever beating mass broodlords. I think blizzard hopes to fix this by removing the mothership and adding the tempest.
Isn't the answer to mass broodlords simply voidrays? if zerg has 10 broodlords that's the same supply 13 voidrays at signifcantly more gas cost for the zerg. If you compare gas it's the same as 16 voidrays. Now I don't remmber who he was playing but there was a dimaga game where the protoss had mass void-ray and rolled through all dimagas units like he wasn't there. I understand chain-fungals are what worries protoss, but it would seem that some basic splitting would negate that pretty hard, not to mention combining that with the motherships cloack and recall abilities.
Is voidray not an answer due to production time? or is there some other elemenet I'm not considering here.
I watched missed it today but watched it now in HQ, pretty awesome game I must say.
However what would you do if your opponent goes muta/ling? Add a second stargate and pump phoenixes while getting blink/storm? It must be pretty hard to take bases if you face a good muta/ling user?
Second what if he had not get that vortex down, the game could had been over! Feels very dependant you get use of the mothership.
It's not really in the scope of the article to discuss the actual build. Imo the build isn't as important as the concepts that Brown uses. But if you ask me, I would add cannons and tech to blink/storm vs 3 base muta play. 2 base muta play is a completely different story. Also, vortex is quite easy to aim.
I'm obviously not gonna argue with NrGmonk who knows about a hundred times more then I do about this game but I want to throw something in here.I found the effective use of the archon toilet to be a huge dissapointment and for me, it completely ruined the game.
This mechanic has been declared by blizzard to be an exploit and I have to say that I agree. Obvisouly the patch implemented in 1.3.0 was ineffective due to air unit scattering slower then ground units. I thought it took all the depth out of the game and turned a balanced beautiful game into a farce.
I don't understand how people who take this game seriously can think that was a proper ending to the game. I want to honestly ask you NrGmonk, didn't you find the use of the archon toilet deplorable?
Hmmm, not deplorable, but I do agree archon toliet is a bit silly. The problem is without it, protoss really have no hope of ever beating mass broodlords. I think blizzard hopes to fix this by removing the mothership and adding the tempest.
Isn't the answer to mass broodlords simply voidrays? if zerg has 10 broodlords that's the same supply 13 voidrays at signifcantly more gas cost for the zerg. If you compare gas it's the same as 16 voidrays. Now I don't remmber who he was playing but there was a dimaga game where the protoss had mass void-ray and rolled through all dimagas units like he wasn't there. I understand chain-fungals are what worries protoss, but it would seem that some basic splitting would negate that pretty hard, not to mention combining that with the motherships cloack and recall abilities.
Is voidray not an answer due to production time? or is there some other elemenet I'm not considering here.
You are thinking of Socke vs Dimaga and I think it might have been at the most recent homestory cup on crevasse iirc, it was a terrible game. It shouldn't be the basis for anything.
This seems really interesting. I love playing macro games PvZ so this is a must read for me.
I LOVE the idea of double robo to get up an observer network and allow mass warp prism harass but mutalisks scare the crap out of me. What would you suggest with this style if you smell mutalisks - simply avoid double robo altogether and go for the usual templar tech?
I watched missed it today but watched it now in HQ, pretty awesome game I must say.
However what would you do if your opponent goes muta/ling? Add a second stargate and pump phoenixes while getting blink/storm? It must be pretty hard to take bases if you face a good muta/ling user?
Second what if he had not get that vortex down, the game could had been over! Feels very dependant you get use of the mothership.
It's not really in the scope of the article to discuss the actual build. Imo the build isn't as important as the concepts that Brown uses. But if you ask me, I would add cannons and tech to blink/storm vs 3 base muta play. 2 base muta play is a completely different story. Also, vortex is quite easy to aim.
I'm obviously not gonna argue with NrGmonk who knows about a hundred times more then I do about this game but I want to throw something in here.I found the effective use of the archon toilet to be a huge dissapointment and for me, it completely ruined the game.
This mechanic has been declared by blizzard to be an exploit and I have to say that I agree. Obvisouly the patch implemented in 1.3.0 was ineffective due to air unit scattering slower then ground units. I thought it took all the depth out of the game and turned a balanced beautiful game into a farce.
I don't understand how people who take this game seriously can think that was a proper ending to the game. I want to honestly ask you NrGmonk, didn't you find the use of the archon toilet deplorable?
Hmmm, not deplorable, but I do agree archon toliet is a bit silly. The problem is without it, protoss really have no hope of ever beating mass broodlords. I think blizzard hopes to fix this by removing the mothership and adding the tempest.
Isn't the answer to mass broodlords simply voidrays? if zerg has 10 broodlords that's the same supply 13 voidrays at signifcantly more gas cost for the zerg. If you compare gas it's the same as 16 voidrays. Now I don't remmber who he was playing but there was a dimaga game where the protoss had mass void-ray and rolled through all dimagas units like he wasn't there. I understand chain-fungals are what worries protoss, but it would seem that some basic splitting would negate that pretty hard, not to mention combining that with the motherships cloack and recall abilities.
Is voidray not an answer due to production time? or is there some other elemenet I'm not considering here.
You are thinking of Socke vs Dimaga and I think it might have been at the most recent homestory cup on crevasse iirc, it was a terrible game. It shouldn't be the basis for anything.
I remember that game for how long it was but I don't remember exactly what happened in it. Problem with mass voidrays is that fungal + neural + corruptors is too strong vs them and infested terrans do well vs small numbers of voidray.
On December 06 2011 04:14 Xaeldaren wrote: This seems really interesting. I love playing macro games PvZ so this is a must read for me.
I LOVE the idea of double robo to get up an observer network and allow mass warp prism harass but mutalisks scare the crap out of me. What would you suggest with this style if you smell mutalisks - simply avoid double robo altogether and go for the usual templar tech?
I would suggest not going double robo if you at all suspect a mutalisk switch.
Nobody should be complaining about archon toilet, at least with this game as evidence. Losira specifically moved all of his broodlords into the vortex, even though he knew about the archons. (or maybe he didn't because they were cloaked? he had to).
Zerg needs to flank the mothership/deathball with their corruptors/broodlords, as monk suggested above. This is just the same as the way that protoss needs to split against emp or fungal rather than 1a around the map.
Finally glad someone wrote a strategy post outlining how useful/good carriers are. It's a misconception they are bad. They aren't.
It seems like there is no real good hard counter to a maxed out protoss with mass carriers in PvZ imo...just from games i've seen / played before. The only option for Zerg at that point seems to be "make more corruptors" and have a huge resource bank b4 engages, but naturally protoss will have a good resource bank as well, so I think at that point...
It's still a good situation for protoss. Just like TvP, PvZ....if there are vikings left over in the sky after killing all collosus, protoss comes out with an advantage from being able to switch to pure ground remaxes making the remaining vikings useless supply. I'm sure it's the same deal PvZ with carriers vs corruptors. If you lose the carrriers, you remax pure ground and go attack their expansions while they have just the corruptors which don't shoot down...and if you don't lose the carriers...you still win...win win situation.
Nice OP, carriers are baller as hell, literally lol.
vs. Infestor/BL I feel like I accomplish the same thing that carriers do with VR/HT. Is that not correct? Usually if Zergs army attacks I can fight and be confident of getting any infestors with storm and/or feedback so that they don't have time to get off the chain fungals that wreck the VRs...
On December 06 2011 04:42 tehemperorer wrote: vs. Infestor/BL I feel like I accomplish the same thing that carriers do with VR/HT. Is that not correct? Usually if Zergs army attacks I can fight and be confident of getting any infestors with storm and/or feedback so that they don't have time to get off the chain fungals that wreck the VRs...
I wouldn't get too caught up on the carrier thing. You should only get carriers after a mothership and when you're in a dominating position. You can't reliably storm and feedback infestors being protected behind broodlings/lings/roaches. The infestors, however, can easily fungal and neural voidrays that try to go for broodlords.
I really did not like how Brown went for Colo after taking a 3rd. Isn't Blink + 1 Robo for Immortals, Warp Prism and Obs a much better choice? Good Blink micro with FFs really nullifies Roaches and lings from a defensive position. Then you can transition into Colo or whatever.
But I feel like taking a 3rd then going Colo leaves you really vulnerable to aggressive Zergs. They don't even have to win the battle, if they just trade while teching and expanding, it can really leave the Protoss far behind.
I'm obviously not gonna argue with NrGmonk who knows about a hundred times more then I do about this game but I want to throw something in here.I found the effective use of the archon toilet to be a huge dissapointment and for me, it completely ruined the game.
This mechanic has been declared by blizzard to be an exploit and I have to say that I agree. Obvisouly the patch implemented in 1.3.0 was ineffective due to air unit scattering slower then ground units. I thought it took all the depth out of the game and turned a balanced beautiful game into a farce.
I don't understand how people who take this game seriously can think that was a proper ending to the game. I want to honestly ask you NrGmonk, didn't you find the use of the archon toilet deplorable?
Actually they nerfed archon toilet pretty hard a couple of patches ago. It doesn't work anymore except on broodlords because these are to slow and can't spread out well when the archon toilet finishes. It might seem that mothership counters mass brood, but I am still waiting for a zerg who splits his broods. It always pains me to see 15 broods going into 1 vortex, while with some micro it would have been only 4-5. Having played many pvz 's at high lvl, I can say you mothership is the only solution to >10 broods. Edit: watched game. OMG why did Losira moved his broods on purpose into the vortex?!
On December 06 2011 04:42 avilo wrote: Finally glad someone wrote a strategy post outlining how useful/good carriers are. It's a misconception they are bad. They aren't.
It seems like there is no real good hard counter to a maxed out protoss with mass carriers in PvZ imo...just from games i've seen / played before. The only option for Zerg at that point seems to be "make more corruptors" and have a huge resource bank b4 engages, but naturally protoss will have a good resource bank as well, so I think at that point...
It's still a good situation for protoss. Just like TvP, PvZ....if there are vikings left over in the sky after killing all collosus, protoss comes out with an advantage from being able to switch to pure ground remaxes making the remaining vikings useless supply. I'm sure it's the same deal PvZ with carriers vs corruptors. If you lose the carrriers, you remax pure ground and go attack their expansions while they have just the corruptors which don't shoot down...and if you don't lose the carriers...you still win...win win situation.
Nice OP, carriers are baller as hell, literally lol.
Lol Avilo you still managed to QQ about PvT even though this is a PvZ discussion.
I like the concepts Brown has put into play here, honestly macro style with harassment and pressure is the future of PvZ. Timing attacks are risky and don't always work, while strong macro play is overall safer as long as you have good scouting.
I'd like to point out that if Zerg simply SPREAD their units then vortex generally only grabs maybe 5-6 units total, and late game when you have a maxed army that isn't a huge deal. The trick is knowing when you should back off if he got enough units with a vortex or making sure your spread is good. If you allow 10 Brood lords to get vortexed due to a lack of spread then that is your fault for being lazy and attack moving, and yes, you deserve to lose.
I'm obviously not gonna argue with NrGmonk who knows about a hundred times more then I do about this game but I want to throw something in here.I found the effective use of the archon toilet to be a huge dissapointment and for me, it completely ruined the game.
This mechanic has been declared by blizzard to be an exploit and I have to say that I agree. Obvisouly the patch implemented in 1.3.0 was ineffective due to air unit scattering slower then ground units. I thought it took all the depth out of the game and turned a balanced beautiful game into a farce.
I don't understand how people who take this game seriously can think that was a proper ending to the game. I want to honestly ask you NrGmonk, didn't you find the use of the archon toilet deplorable?
Actually they nerfed archon toilet pretty hard a couple of patches ago. It doesn't work anymore except on broodlords because these are to slow and can't spread out well when the archon toilet finishes. It might seem that mothership counters mass brood, but I am still waiting for a zerg who splits his broods. It always pains me to see 15 broods going into 1 vortex, while with some micro it would have been only 4-5. Having played many pvz 's at high lvl, I can say you mothership is the only solution to >10 broods.
It depends on a lot of things... Void Rays are great, but if he has infestors you have to spread them, mass blink stalker do still fine vs 10+ broods if there isn't a fuckton of ground troops around and even then there is often terrain that can be abused.
If you want to see a good broodlords split: stephano vs grubby from "Battle in Berlin" (or whatever it was called)
On December 06 2011 04:58 K3Nyy wrote: I really did not like how Brown went for Colo after taking a 3rd. Isn't Blink + 1 Robo for Immortals, Warp Prism and Obs a much better choice? Good Blink micro with FFs really nullifies Roaches and lings from a defensive position. Then you can transition into Colo or whatever.
But I feel like taking a 3rd then going Colo leaves you really vulnerable to aggressive Zergs. They don't even have to win the battle, if they just trade while teching and expanding, it can really leave the Protoss far behind.
I think a big problem with people on the teamliquid strategy forums is that they either swear by colossi or swear against them. Colossi are just as viable as immortal/blink stalker/templar. It's just that both have their strengths and weaknesses. In Brown's specific scenario, I have to absolutely agree with his choice to go colossi. Against a largely ling/infestor into broodlord composition, colossi are infinitely more useful than immortal/twilight tech. The problem is that templar are much further away on the tech tree and if you went for that path, you wouldn't be able to take a 4th as fast nor would you be able to pressure as much as Brown did with just 1 or 2 colossi. In addition, templar alone are worse versus broodlords than colossi alone, so Brown would have been behind in that way as well.
Nice writeup, I was thinking about writing an article about this game as well, but you've pretty much got in covered
One thing I noticed that you forgot to mention is that Brown uses his first Void Ray along with an Observer to clear Creep Tumors. Along with decreasing Overlord vision, this is a great use for a single Void Ray behind a light Stargate pressure. There's really no reason not to do it, and it at the very least it annoys players who skip Hydra when dealing with Stargate (as Losira does most of the time), and will deter any kind of big Hydra aggression as a followup.
I've been having trouble taking a fast third (8-10 mins) behind a Stargate play against Zergs who do low-drone, 3hatch aggression of some kind (Roach/Ling, Roach, Roach/Hydra). I think the map was a major factor in this game, and that can't be stressed enough. In general, though, I had been trying to go Blink before Robo to try and defend my third, but after watching this game I'm pretty convinced that Robo (eventually 2) is the answer. Lots of Observers, a few Immortals into Collosi and a Prism or two for pressure seems to provide the beefiest army, best scouting and harassment potential.
Agree with all the other points for sure:
Love the aggressive expanding, especially against a rushed Hive with mass Spines.
Mothership is definitely the answer to Broods, especially Losira's style that game in which he just masses them behind Spines and Infestors. Against that many Infestors going for Voids is suicide.
Carriers and the Mothership are the most powerful units against Zerg lategame. I don't think Carriers should be part of your first max, but adding them into a remax when you're on 5-6 bases like Brown started to do is very strong. The synergy of a Templar/Carrier army is actually too much for Zerg to deal with IMO.
After just having watched the game of Brown vs. LosirA I'm going to play the devils advocate. Im nowhere as good as you guys, so I'll make it short.
The Opening On such a big map a 20 supply hatchery seems really late.
The midgame In the midgame (21:15) losira absolutely demolishes the protoss army and then proceeds to what: Max up instead of start punishing the expansions of the protoss. He didn't do well at managing expansions and basically spent the entire game defending instead of trying to hurt the protoss's economy.
Regarding the last engagement
For some reason losira threw additionally units into the vortex. That was a big mistake and probably cost him the game. He's staking too much on beating the deathball without managing. Archon toilet is a bit silly, but zerg players are obviously not spreading out their army enough and should be punished.
The map also plays a BIG factor into how this game went I feel. This map is huuuuuge and this style probably won't work on the smaller maps in the Euro/US tournaments. The ramp before entering Losira's side of the map is also very useful for granting a good platform of attack.
The lategame gets pretty silly once protoss can afford everything, but when the zerg lets the protoss get there it's deserved. Losira is also not using his infestors to kill bases with infested terrans. Brown defends well with cannons, but that's still a huge investment.
On December 06 2011 04:58 K3Nyy wrote: I really did not like how Brown went for Colo after taking a 3rd. Isn't Blink + 1 Robo for Immortals, Warp Prism and Obs a much better choice? Good Blink micro with FFs really nullifies Roaches and lings from a defensive position. Then you can transition into Colo or whatever.
But I feel like taking a 3rd then going Colo leaves you really vulnerable to aggressive Zergs. They don't even have to win the battle, if they just trade while teching and expanding, it can really leave the Protoss far behind.
I think a big problem with people on the teamliquid strategy forums is that they either swear by colossi or swear against them. Colossi are just as viable as immortal/blink stalker/templar. It's just that both have their strengths and weaknesses. In Brown's specific scenario, I have to absolutely agree with his choice to go colossi. Against a largely ling/infestor into broodlord composition, colossi are infinitely more useful than immortal/twilight tech. The problem is that templar are much further away on the tech tree and if you went for that path, you wouldn't be able to take a 4th as fast nor would you be able to pressure as much as Brown did with just 1 or 2 colossi. In addition, templar alone are worse versus broodlords than colossi alone, so Brown would have been behind in that way as well.
Hm you are right. I looked at Brown's build without considering Losira. Since he did go ling/infestor, the better choice is definitely Colo. My apologies.
I don't think this is really revolutionary. Lots of people do early 3rd, it can be punished. Lots of people make motherships; splitting your army defeats vortex. Carriers actually are a waste of money (Adding more void rays would have been better), and it just reinforces the idea that zerg only needs to make 3/3 corruptors and infestors to beat protoss in the late game...
Glad to see another good protoss re-surface but it's not like his play just created a bunch of hard and fast rules overnight. I like the many-observers idea but I don't think it will catch on either - nor are his ideas totally original. The fake 4zealot poke and the light voidray pheonix into a third is standard play on the ladder for weeks.. And like most expand-behind-soft-contain strats the shit crumbles to the correct roach timings so, I guess we'll have to see if there is actually something to be learned in the coming weeks.
On December 06 2011 04:42 avilo wrote: Finally glad someone wrote a strategy post outlining how useful/good carriers are. It's a misconception they are bad. They aren't.
It seems like there is no real good hard counter to a maxed out protoss with mass carriers in PvZ imo...just from games i've seen / played before. The only option for Zerg at that point seems to be "make more corruptors" and have a huge resource bank b4 engages, but naturally protoss will have a good resource bank as well, so I think at that point...
It's still a good situation for protoss. Just like TvP, PvZ....if there are vikings left over in the sky after killing all collosus, protoss comes out with an advantage from being able to switch to pure ground remaxes making the remaining vikings useless supply. I'm sure it's the same deal PvZ with carriers vs corruptors. If you lose the carrriers, you remax pure ground and go attack their expansions while they have just the corruptors which don't shoot down...and if you don't lose the carriers...you still win...win win situation.
Nice OP, carriers are baller as hell, literally lol.
If corruptors ever manage to kill the carriers, they turn into broodlords which shoot down, so supply tied up in corruptors isn't a problem after the air is dead. The problem for Z is that it's almost impossible to kill the carriers with storms and archons and vortexes ripping through your corruptors.
But I haven't yet seen a Z max out on corruptors, attack from multiple angles while storm dodging accepting that they're all going to die, then remax instantly on corruptors and attack again quickly so that there aren't vortexes the second time, then run away and morph them into broodlords, and then push.
That's the kind of craziness that it'd take to fight a carrier/mothership/HT/archon deathball. And that's why it feels so good as Protoss to survive the impossible infinity mutalisk to broodlord to ultralisk stages of the game and to finally complete your deathball that you know will win.
On December 06 2011 04:58 K3Nyy wrote: I really did not like how Brown went for Colo after taking a 3rd. Isn't Blink + 1 Robo for Immortals, Warp Prism and Obs a much better choice? Good Blink micro with FFs really nullifies Roaches and lings from a defensive position. Then you can transition into Colo or whatever.
But I feel like taking a 3rd then going Colo leaves you really vulnerable to aggressive Zergs. They don't even have to win the battle, if they just trade while teching and expanding, it can really leave the Protoss far behind.
I think a big problem with people on the teamliquid strategy forums is that they either swear by colossi or swear against them. Colossi are just as viable as immortal/blink stalker/templar. It's just that both have their strengths and weaknesses. In Brown's specific scenario, I have to absolutely agree with his choice to go colossi. Against a largely ling/infestor into broodlord composition, colossi are infinitely more useful than immortal/twilight tech. The problem is that templar are much further away on the tech tree and if you went for that path, you wouldn't be able to take a 4th as fast nor would you be able to pressure as much as Brown did with just 1 or 2 colossi. In addition, templar alone are worse versus broodlords than colossi alone, so Brown would have been behind in that way as well.
Actually you can do this with ht tech aswell
Ogsvines does stargate into blink/ht with a 9min third pretty often. By going fast blink you can still be aggressive, although vs ling infestor you probably want charge instead.
Just want to say that its completely fine to get cannons, you have a lot of minerals left anyway. It's basically really important to keep using those minerals to expand, and to defend them with cannons.
i wonder how the late game carriers are going to be effective if you are playing mass robo beforehand. where do you take the gas for this and do you actually have enough gas to be getting the air upgrades aswell as the usual ground ones?
i propose favoring shield upgrades along with ground attack and early blink on 2 base would be alot smoother than going double robo.
Fantastic write-up, very well-structured and helped me to learned a lot about mid/late game PvZ. As a zerg player I've lost more than a few late-game battles against the almost indestructable carrier/mothership/HT/archon deathball. It's incredibly difficult to deal with, even when maxed out on corruptor/infestor/brood, and hopefully the viper solves this for us. I think that as soon as zerg gets maxed out, it's time to apply hard pressure to attempt to deny the protoss 3rd/4th expansions. I've seen players get maxed as zerg and begin aggressively spreading creep and a spine/spore wall towards the newer protoss bases and it puts on a lot of pressure.
On December 06 2011 02:06 reikai wrote: I kind of disagree on the voidray into quick third point, if only because of Mondragon. If someone can find the link to that post/pic, you'll know what I'm talking about.
It basically said that if toss uses voids, you can hit a timing and simply make more roaches than that one stargate can even handle.
however, if the zerg plays the counter game like you said and only does the correct UNIT response, then the quick third works. Thoughts?
Well depends on the build of the zerg and the map, but I think Daybreak's layout is good enough?
Great write up Monk. And thanks for pointing out this game, it didn't seem to be too recommended o.o
Edit: lol nvm it is quite recommended =O time to watch!
On December 06 2011 04:58 K3Nyy wrote: I really did not like how Brown went for Colo after taking a 3rd. Isn't Blink + 1 Robo for Immortals, Warp Prism and Obs a much better choice? Good Blink micro with FFs really nullifies Roaches and lings from a defensive position. Then you can transition into Colo or whatever.
But I feel like taking a 3rd then going Colo leaves you really vulnerable to aggressive Zergs. They don't even have to win the battle, if they just trade while teching and expanding, it can really leave the Protoss far behind.
I think a big problem with people on the teamliquid strategy forums is that they either swear by colossi or swear against them. Colossi are just as viable as immortal/blink stalker/templar. It's just that both have their strengths and weaknesses. In Brown's specific scenario, I have to absolutely agree with his choice to go colossi. Against a largely ling/infestor into broodlord composition, colossi are infinitely more useful than immortal/twilight tech. The problem is that templar are much further away on the tech tree and if you went for that path, you wouldn't be able to take a 4th as fast nor would you be able to pressure as much as Brown did with just 1 or 2 colossi. In addition, templar alone are worse versus broodlords than colossi alone, so Brown would have been behind in that way as well.
I've largely moved away from colossi for 2 reasons:
(1) the tech path lacks versatility since it's expensive and isn't useful against mutas; and
(2) colossus builds tend to rely on a lot of stalkers, and stalkers are awful.
I've got a spreadsheet that calculates unit strength based on a (slightly complicated) formula involving health, DPS and cost, and it's pretty impressive how crappy stalkers' stats really are. Granted, the chart ignores range and mobility which are the blink stalker's most important attributes, but check out the efficiency numbers based on the raw stats.
-Zerglings are the most cost-efficient unit in the game when you assume all units stand still and are able to attack at the same time, so I've set zergling efficiency at 1 for a benchmark -Zealots are Protoss's most cost-efficient unit in a straight stand and smash fight at .88, or 88% as cost efficient as a zergling. -Probes and sentries are Protoss's least efficient combat units at .30 and .26 respectively. -Stalkers, at .37, have only slightly better stats vs light units than probes. If you've ever 4-gated in PvP and had your stalkers trapped and forced to fight probes, you know you're making an even trade.
You do need some stalkers in PvZ because they're mobile and they shoot up (the mutalisk's efficiency is .31 which is close to the stalker's .37; compare that to the stimmed marine's .63 and you understand why 50 mutas works against P but not T), but IMO, the best way to play macro PvZ is to make as few stalkers as you can get away with.
That said, colossi are pretty good. Is it possible to go colossi without making a shit-ton of stalkers?
On December 06 2011 06:12 Tobias wrote: Just watched the vod, and I think the major lesson I got out of it was not to throw my entire army into a vortex o_O
lol i just finished can't believe losira did that haha xD
epic archon toilet, although there was 1 sad archon who didn't get to go in
On December 06 2011 06:12 Tobias wrote: Just watched the vod, and I think the major lesson I got out of it was not to throw my entire army into a vortex o_O
lol i just finished can't believe losira did that haha xD
epic archon toilet, although there was 1 sad archon who didn't get to go in
(brown u meanie lol)
uhm.... what else is he going to do with slow ass broodlord who'll die if they try to walk with a cane back to the spines?
Also they can't kill anything since the overseer's in the vortex too. (nor can he see that the archons walked into the vortex -- Hi overseers went into vortex with the corruptors)
On December 06 2011 04:58 K3Nyy wrote: I really did not like how Brown went for Colo after taking a 3rd. Isn't Blink + 1 Robo for Immortals, Warp Prism and Obs a much better choice? Good Blink micro with FFs really nullifies Roaches and lings from a defensive position. Then you can transition into Colo or whatever.
But I feel like taking a 3rd then going Colo leaves you really vulnerable to aggressive Zergs. They don't even have to win the battle, if they just trade while teching and expanding, it can really leave the Protoss far behind.
I think a big problem with people on the teamliquid strategy forums is that they either swear by colossi or swear against them. Colossi are just as viable as immortal/blink stalker/templar. It's just that both have their strengths and weaknesses. In Brown's specific scenario, I have to absolutely agree with his choice to go colossi. Against a largely ling/infestor into broodlord composition, colossi are infinitely more useful than immortal/twilight tech. The problem is that templar are much further away on the tech tree and if you went for that path, you wouldn't be able to take a 4th as fast nor would you be able to pressure as much as Brown did with just 1 or 2 colossi. In addition, templar alone are worse versus broodlords than colossi alone, so Brown would have been behind in that way as well.
I've largely moved away from colossi for 2 reasons:
(1) the tech path lacks versatility since it's expensive and isn't useful against mutas; and
(2) colossus builds tend to rely on a lot of stalkers, and stalkers are awful.
I've got a spreadsheet that calculates unit strength based on a (slightly complicated) formula involving health, DPS and cost, and it's pretty impressive how crappy stalkers' stats really are. Granted, the chart ignores range and mobility which are the blink stalker's most important attributes, but check out the efficiency numbers based on the raw stats.
-Zerglings are the most cost-efficient unit in the game when you assume all units stand still and are able to attack at the same time, so I've set zergling efficiency at 1 for a benchmark -Zealots are Protoss's most cost-efficient unit in a straight stand and smash fight at .88, or 88% as cost efficient as a zergling. -Probes and sentries are Protoss's least efficient combat units at .30 and .26 respectively. -Stalkers, at .37, have only slightly better stats vs light units than probes. If you've ever 4-gated in PvP and had your stalkers trapped and forced to fight probes, you know you're making an even trade.
You do need some stalkers in PvZ because they're mobile and they shoot up (the mutalisk's efficiency is .31 which is close to the stalker's .37; compare that to the stimmed marine's .63 and you understand why 50 mutas works against P but not T), but IMO, the best way to play macro PvZ is to make as few stalkers as you can get away with.
That said, colossi are pretty good. Is it possible to go colossi without making a shit-ton of stalkers?
Care to share the spreadsheet?
I'd like to see a few numbers that I really wonder about, corruptors and immortals for example =)
After just having watched the game of Brown vs. LosirA I'm going to play the devils advocate. Im nowhere as good as you guys, so I'll make it short.
The Opening On such a big map a 20 supply hatchery seems really late.
The midgame In the midgame (21:15) losira absolutely demolishes the protoss army and then proceeds to what: Max up instead of start punishing the expansions of the protoss. He didn't do well at managing expansions and basically spent the entire game defending instead of trying to hurt the protoss's economy.
Regarding the last engagement
For some reason losira threw additionally units into the vortex. That was a big mistake and probably cost him the game. He's staking too much on beating the deathball without managing. Archon toilet is a bit silly, but zerg players are obviously not spreading out their army enough and should be punished.
The map also plays a BIG factor into how this game went I feel. This map is huuuuuge and this style probably won't work on the smaller maps in the Euro/US tournaments. The ramp before entering Losira's side of the map is also very useful for granting a good platform of attack.
The lategame gets pretty silly once protoss can afford everything, but when the zerg lets the protoss get there it's deserved. Losira is also not using his infestors to kill bases with infested terrans. Brown defends well with cannons, but that's still a huge investment.
You can't get a hatch down before 20 supply versus a competent Protoss. Yes, the map did make a huge difference with this strat.
I don't think this is really revolutionary. Lots of people do early 3rd, it can be punished. Lots of people make motherships; splitting your army defeats vortex. Carriers actually are a waste of money (Adding more void rays would have been better), and it just reinforces the idea that zerg only needs to make 3/3 corruptors and infestors to beat protoss in the late game...
Glad to see another good protoss re-surface but it's not like his play just created a bunch of hard and fast rules overnight. I like the many-observers idea but I don't think it will catch on either - nor are his ideas totally original. The fake 4zealot poke and the light voidray pheonix into a third is standard play on the ladder for weeks.. And like most expand-behind-soft-contain strats the shit crumbles to the correct roach timings so, I guess we'll have to see if there is actually something to be learned in the coming weeks.
Ok it's not super revolutionary. I never said it was; it's just a really great game showcasing some important PvZ concepts people tend to forget. Voidrays are not a better choice than carriers in that late game deathball. Your quote about zerg massing corruptors and infestors is just flat out wrong.
On December 06 2011 04:58 K3Nyy wrote: I really did not like how Brown went for Colo after taking a 3rd. Isn't Blink + 1 Robo for Immortals, Warp Prism and Obs a much better choice? Good Blink micro with FFs really nullifies Roaches and lings from a defensive position. Then you can transition into Colo or whatever.
But I feel like taking a 3rd then going Colo leaves you really vulnerable to aggressive Zergs. They don't even have to win the battle, if they just trade while teching and expanding, it can really leave the Protoss far behind.
I think a big problem with people on the teamliquid strategy forums is that they either swear by colossi or swear against them. Colossi are just as viable as immortal/blink stalker/templar. It's just that both have their strengths and weaknesses. In Brown's specific scenario, I have to absolutely agree with his choice to go colossi. Against a largely ling/infestor into broodlord composition, colossi are infinitely more useful than immortal/twilight tech. The problem is that templar are much further away on the tech tree and if you went for that path, you wouldn't be able to take a 4th as fast nor would you be able to pressure as much as Brown did with just 1 or 2 colossi. In addition, templar alone are worse versus broodlords than colossi alone, so Brown would have been behind in that way as well.
Actually you can do this with ht tech aswell
Ogsvines does stargate into blink/ht with a 9min third pretty often. By going fast blink you can still be aggressive, although vs ling infestor you probably want charge instead.
Just want to say that its completely fine to get cannons, you have a lot of minerals left anyway. It's basically really important to keep using those minerals to expand, and to defend them with cannons.
i wonder how the late game carriers are going to be effective if you are playing mass robo beforehand. where do you take the gas for this and do you actually have enough gas to be getting the air upgrades aswell as the usual ground ones?
i propose favoring shield upgrades along with ground attack and early blink on 2 base would be alot smoother than going double robo.
You shouldn't really worry about carriers. They're for when you're on 4+ base and have the game won 95%. If you add carriers, you can turn it into 99%.
On December 06 2011 04:58 K3Nyy wrote: I really did not like how Brown went for Colo after taking a 3rd. Isn't Blink + 1 Robo for Immortals, Warp Prism and Obs a much better choice? Good Blink micro with FFs really nullifies Roaches and lings from a defensive position. Then you can transition into Colo or whatever.
But I feel like taking a 3rd then going Colo leaves you really vulnerable to aggressive Zergs. They don't even have to win the battle, if they just trade while teching and expanding, it can really leave the Protoss far behind.
I think a big problem with people on the teamliquid strategy forums is that they either swear by colossi or swear against them. Colossi are just as viable as immortal/blink stalker/templar. It's just that both have their strengths and weaknesses. In Brown's specific scenario, I have to absolutely agree with his choice to go colossi. Against a largely ling/infestor into broodlord composition, colossi are infinitely more useful than immortal/twilight tech. The problem is that templar are much further away on the tech tree and if you went for that path, you wouldn't be able to take a 4th as fast nor would you be able to pressure as much as Brown did with just 1 or 2 colossi. In addition, templar alone are worse versus broodlords than colossi alone, so Brown would have been behind in that way as well.
I've largely moved away from colossi for 2 reasons:
(1) the tech path lacks versatility since it's expensive and isn't useful against mutas; and
(2) colossus builds tend to rely on a lot of stalkers, and stalkers are awful.
I've got a spreadsheet that calculates unit strength based on a (slightly complicated) formula involving health, DPS and cost, and it's pretty impressive how crappy stalkers' stats really are. Granted, the chart ignores range and mobility which are the blink stalker's most important attributes, but check out the efficiency numbers based on the raw stats.
-Zerglings are the most cost-efficient unit in the game when you assume all units stand still and are able to attack at the same time, so I've set zergling efficiency at 1 for a benchmark -Zealots are Protoss's most cost-efficient unit in a straight stand and smash fight at .88, or 88% as cost efficient as a zergling. -Probes and sentries are Protoss's least efficient combat units at .30 and .26 respectively. -Stalkers, at .37, have only slightly better stats vs light units than probes. If you've ever 4-gated in PvP and had your stalkers trapped and forced to fight probes, you know you're making an even trade.
You do need some stalkers in PvZ because they're mobile and they shoot up (the mutalisk's efficiency is .31 which is close to the stalker's .37; compare that to the stimmed marine's .63 and you understand why 50 mutas works against P but not T), but IMO, the best way to play macro PvZ is to make as few stalkers as you can get away with.
That said, colossi are pretty good. Is it possible to go colossi without making a shit-ton of stalkers?
Care to share the spreadsheet?
I'd like to see a few numbers that I really wonder about, corruptors and immortals for example =)
The formatting is so bad that it'd be illegible.
Immortals are good vs armored (.617) but roaches are actually even better (.654). The numbers don't include the effect of hardened shield or the roach's high supply cost.
Corruptors stats are pretty normal for air units. .377 vs massive and .292 vs regular. These numbers don't include their base 2 armor which is a huge deal against units like phoenixes.
The numbers are mostly just fun and don't tell you much about the game. But they confirm obvious suspicions like the fact that stalkers and hydras are crap and that banshees are unreasonably good combat units given their mobility.
Yeah this type of toss play is finally starting to see light and is really showing how powerful protoss is when playing in a macro game not from behind (by behind I mean doing a 2 base aggression then getting shut down hard where normally they are behind after that).
I think Losira should have won this game, and maybe if he hadn't voluntarily put all his broodlords into the vortex we might all be talking about how this was the most well played late game ZvP ever witnessed, and not the other way around.
Apart from not putting everything into the archon toilet; can the OP add any advice for zerg players trying to deal with this type of Protoss deathball?
On December 06 2011 08:09 barrykp wrote: I think Losira should have won this game, and maybe if he hadn't voluntarily put all his broodlords into the vortex we might all be talking about how this was the most well played late game ZvP ever witnessed, and not the other way around.
Apart from not putting everything into the archon toilet; can the OP add any advice for zerg players trying to deal with this type of Protoss deathball?
what else is he going to do with the broodlords.
attack an invisible army? (you realize the overseers are in the vortex) Go back to the spines that are actually really far away from broodlords?
Also
Q: Vortex was super-effective. In that situation if Zerg’s Broodlords also get sucked it do you thank them? A: All corrupters were sucked it so Zerg player had to also put Broodlords in. But then when I inserted archons in he would’ve regretted it. That is why I had those 6 Archons, it was my plan all along.
- Brown
You *have* to put the broodlords in. you're going to lose them anyways IMO
Plus he can't see the archons go into the vortex. Sure he can assume it's the archon toilet, but you're gonna lose those broodlords anyways.
On December 06 2011 08:09 barrykp wrote: I think Losira should have won this game, and maybe if he hadn't voluntarily put all his broodlords into the vortex we might all be talking about how this was the most well played late game ZvP ever witnessed, and not the other way around.
Apart from not putting everything into the archon toilet; can the OP add any advice for zerg players trying to deal with this type of Protoss deathball?
Losira's biggest problem was that he ran out of overseers. He only had 2 and one got vortex'd the other died. Losira had no other choice but to go into the vortex and thus lose all his broodlords. Imo the best thing Losira can reasonably do better is get more overseers and spread out broodlords.
Losira had the game won, was ahead and in command the entire game then Brown landed a Mother Ship Vortex and it was over. As a Terran, I was blown away with how losira controlled the entire game, made no mistakes, he played flawless.
The Vortex was the game, Losira lost his entire army. There's a reason the Mothership is disappearing in HOTS, there's no way anyone could watch that game and believe that particular spell belongs in the game. The game was on the verge of being over when that happened. And I don't play Zerg or Protoss so I'm coming from an objective perspective.
As far as Protoss not needing to two base all-In every game, everybody has known that Toss strength is late game since the beginning of time. As a Terran i fully expect to lose once the game gets past twenty minutes in TvP, granted I'm not a pro and the game is different at that level, but all the Protoss timing attacks came from Korea where they like to All-In, especially Protoss.
European Protoss play for the late game and do very well even though there are excellent Zergs in Europe. The "Protoss MUST attack early" is nonsense, a meme, its just meta game not being where it should be. Especially PvT, Protoss late game is far superior since the ghost nurf. PvZ is much closer.
I agree with the sentiments that Protoss should watch this game as a guide, but again in this particular game Losira WAS on the verge of winning before getting hit with Vortex, and lost everything. It was a shame to see a player play that well and lose like that.
Losira's biggest problem was that he ran out of overseers. He only had 2 and one got vortex'd the other died. Losira had no other choice but to go into the vortex and thus lose all his broodlords. Imo the best thing Losira can reasonably do better is get more overseers and spread out broodlords.
I'm sorry, but saying he should of had more overseers is ridiculous. All his BroodLords were dying in either case once the Vortex landed. The broodlords were the backbone of his army that he built the entire game, there was no recovering from that. I don't see how a reasonable person can watch that game and come to the conclusion that the better player lost due to a game mechanic rather than being outplayed.
On December 06 2011 08:20 mlspmatt wrote: Losira had the game won, was ahead and in command the entire game then Brown landed a Mother Ship Vortex and it was over. As a Terran, I was blown away with how losira controlled the entire game, made no mistakes, he played flawless.
The Vortex was the game, Losira lost his entire army. There's a reason the Mothership is disappearing in HOTS, there's no way anyone could watch that game and believe that particular spell belongs in the game. The game was on the verge of being over when that happened. And I don't play Zerg or Protoss so I'm coming from an objective perspective.
As far as Protoss not needing to two base all-In every game, everybody has known that Toss strength is late game since the beginning of time. As a Terran i fully expect to lose once the game gets past twenty minutes in TvP, granted I'm not a pro and the game is different at that level, but all the Protoss timing attacks came from Korea where they like to All-In, especially Protoss.
European Protoss play for the late game and do very well even though there are excellent Zergs in Europe. The "Protoss MUST attack early" is nonsense, a meme, its just meta game not being where it should be. Especially PvT, Protoss late game is far superior since the ghost nurf. PvZ is much closer.
I completely disagree that Losira had the game won, was ahead, and in command the entire game. Losira did indeed trade well in the first major battle, but he didn't followup and capitalize on his advantage. Coming from someone who doesn't play a lot of high level PvZ such as yourself or moletrap/Khaldor casting, you might assume that Losira was in control the whole game. However, anyone that has some decent experience with late game PvZ will tell you that once the Protoss can get a mothership with sufficient archons/templar, it's pretty much over for Zerg. Brown played to this, aimed for it, and got it and that is why he won.
Btw a bit off topic but I found moletrap and Khaldor's casting extremely ill-informed in this game and they made wrong calls a lot. Nothing against them and no offense intended at all, but I find it annoying when casters pretend to know what they're talking about but are actually giving the viewers wrong analysis. Personally, a cast is much more enjoyable when either the casters just simply cast without trying to give hard analysis or when they're very familiar with the game. In fact, I think casters should work to learn the game better to provide better analysis for the viewers, especially lower level viewers.
On December 06 2011 08:20 mlspmatt wrote: Losira had the game won, was ahead and in command the entire game then Brown landed a Mother Ship Vortex and it was over. As a Terran, I was blown away with how losira controlled the entire game, made no mistakes, he played flawless.
The Vortex was the game, Losira lost his entire army. There's a reason the Mothership is disappearing in HOTS, there's no way anyone could watch that game and believe that particular spell belongs in the game. The game was on the verge of being over when that happened. And I don't play Zerg or Protoss so I'm coming from an objective perspective.
As far as Protoss not needing to two base all-In every game, everybody has known that Toss strength is late game since the beginning of time. As a Terran i fully expect to lose once the game gets past twenty minutes in TvP, granted I'm not a pro and the game is different at that level, but all the Protoss timing attacks came from Korea where they like to All-In, especially Protoss.
European Protoss play for the late game and do very well even though there are excellent Zergs in Europe. The "Protoss MUST attack early" is nonsense, a meme, its just meta game not being where it should be. Especially PvT, Protoss late game is far superior since the ghost nurf. PvZ is much closer.
I completely disagree that Losira had the game won, was ahead, and in command the entire game. Losira did indeed trade well in the first major battle, but he didn't followup and capitalize on his advantage. Coming from someone who doesn't play a lot of high level PvZ such as yourself or moletrap/Khaldor casting, you might assume that Losira was in control the whole game. However, anyone that has some decent experience with late game PvZ will tell you that once the Protoss can get a mothership with sufficient archons/templar, it's pretty much over for Zerg. Brown played to this, aimed for it, and got it and that is why he won.
Btw a bit off topic but I found moletrap and Khaldor's casting extremely ill-informed in this game and they made wrong calls a lot. Nothing against them and no offense intended at all, but I find it annoying when casters pretend to know what they're talking about but are actually giving the viewers wrong analysis. Personally, a cast is much more enjoyable when either the casters just simply cast without trying to give hard analysis or when they're very familiar with the game. In fact, I think casters should work to learn the game better to provide better analysis for the viewers, especially lower level viewers.
The game was over. Losira played perfect. He was on the verge of crushing what was left of Brown's army, then Losira lost his entire army in 3 seconds. It's comical when people pull the "You don't understand high level play card." That's such juvenile bullshit.
There's no other sport on the planet, football, baseball, hockey, curling, cricket, that a fan who watches a ton of play doesn't "UNDERSTAND" whats happening. But in starcraft, the folks who work for a living and can't play starcraft all day are too feeble minded to understand the technicalities. Typical.
On December 06 2011 08:20 mlspmatt wrote: I agree with the sentiments that Protoss should watch this game as a guide, but again in this particular game Losira WAS on the verge of winning before getting hit with Vortex, and lost everything. It was a shame to see a player play that well and lose like that.
Losira's biggest problem was that he ran out of overseers. He only had 2 and one got vortex'd the other died. Losira had no other choice but to go into the vortex and thus lose all his broodlords. Imo the best thing Losira can reasonably do better is get more overseers and spread out broodlords.
I'm sorry, but saying he should of had more overseers is ridiculous. All his BroodLords were dying in either case once the Vortex landed. The broodlords were the backbone of his army that he built the entire game, there was no recovering from that. I don't see how a reasonable person can watch that game and come to the conclusion that the better player lost due to a game mechanic rather than being outplayed.
How is that answer ridiculous when it's the correct answer? The guy asked what Losira could have done better and I answered it. Getting overseers and spreading corruptors/broodlords is the correct answer. I agree that Brown probably had that game no matter what Losira did but Losria could have minimized loses by spreading and getting more overseers.
On December 06 2011 08:20 mlspmatt wrote: Losira had the game won, was ahead and in command the entire game then Brown landed a Mother Ship Vortex and it was over. As a Terran, I was blown away with how losira controlled the entire game, made no mistakes, he played flawless.
The Vortex was the game, Losira lost his entire army. There's a reason the Mothership is disappearing in HOTS, there's no way anyone could watch that game and believe that particular spell belongs in the game. The game was on the verge of being over when that happened. And I don't play Zerg or Protoss so I'm coming from an objective perspective.
As far as Protoss not needing to two base all-In every game, everybody has known that Toss strength is late game since the beginning of time. As a Terran i fully expect to lose once the game gets past twenty minutes in TvP, granted I'm not a pro and the game is different at that level, but all the Protoss timing attacks came from Korea where they like to All-In, especially Protoss.
European Protoss play for the late game and do very well even though there are excellent Zergs in Europe. The "Protoss MUST attack early" is nonsense, a meme, its just meta game not being where it should be. Especially PvT, Protoss late game is far superior since the ghost nurf. PvZ is much closer.
I completely disagree that Losira had the game won, was ahead, and in command the entire game. Losira did indeed trade well in the first major battle, but he didn't followup and capitalize on his advantage. Coming from someone who doesn't play a lot of high level PvZ such as yourself or moletrap/Khaldor casting, you might assume that Losira was in control the whole game. However, anyone that has some decent experience with late game PvZ will tell you that once the Protoss can get a mothership with sufficient archons/templar, it's pretty much over for Zerg. Brown played to this, aimed for it, and got it and that is why he won.
Btw a bit off topic but I found moletrap and Khaldor's casting extremely ill-informed in this game and they made wrong calls a lot. Nothing against them and no offense intended at all, but I find it annoying when casters pretend to know what they're talking about but are actually giving the viewers wrong analysis. Personally, a cast is much more enjoyable when either the casters just simply cast without trying to give hard analysis or when they're very familiar with the game. In fact, I think casters should work to learn the game better to provide better analysis for the viewers, especially lower level viewers.
The game was over. Losira played perfect. He was on the verge of crushing what was left of Brown's army, then Losira lost his entire army in 3 seconds. It's comical when people pull the "You don't understand high level play card." That's such juvenile bullshit.
As I said and as Brown has said, Brown's entire game plan versus broodlords was going for archon toliet and he did it. Within the confines of the game, Brown was winning and in control, not Losira. You can argue that archon toliet is imbalanced, but you can't say that Losira was winning when Brown had all the tools he needed to win the game.
On December 06 2011 08:36 mlspmatt wrote: There's no other sport on the planet, football, baseball, hockey, curling, cricket, that a fan who watches a ton of play doesn't "UNDERSTAND" whats happening. But in starcraft, the folks who work for a living and can't play starcraft all day are too feeble minded to understand the technicalities. Typical.
Both rude and untrue. A the highest levels, there's tons of stuff in football that a professional football coach or player would understand while the average fan would not.
On December 06 2011 08:20 mlspmatt wrote: Losira had the game won, was ahead and in command the entire game then Brown landed a Mother Ship Vortex and it was over. As a Terran, I was blown away with how losira controlled the entire game, made no mistakes, he played flawless.
The Vortex was the game, Losira lost his entire army. There's a reason the Mothership is disappearing in HOTS, there's no way anyone could watch that game and believe that particular spell belongs in the game. The game was on the verge of being over when that happened. And I don't play Zerg or Protoss so I'm coming from an objective perspective.
As far as Protoss not needing to two base all-In every game, everybody has known that Toss strength is late game since the beginning of time. As a Terran i fully expect to lose once the game gets past twenty minutes in TvP, granted I'm not a pro and the game is different at that level, but all the Protoss timing attacks came from Korea where they like to All-In, especially Protoss.
European Protoss play for the late game and do very well even though there are excellent Zergs in Europe. The "Protoss MUST attack early" is nonsense, a meme, its just meta game not being where it should be. Especially PvT, Protoss late game is far superior since the ghost nurf. PvZ is much closer.
I completely disagree that Losira had the game won, was ahead, and in command the entire game. Losira did indeed trade well in the first major battle, but he didn't followup and capitalize on his advantage. Coming from someone who doesn't play a lot of high level PvZ such as yourself or moletrap/Khaldor casting, you might assume that Losira was in control the whole game. However, anyone that has some decent experience with late game PvZ will tell you that once the Protoss can get a mothership with sufficient archons/templar, it's pretty much over for Zerg. Brown played to this, aimed for it, and got it and that is why he won.
Btw a bit off topic but I found moletrap and Khaldor's casting extremely ill-informed in this game and they made wrong calls a lot. Nothing against them and no offense intended at all, but I find it annoying when casters pretend to know what they're talking about but are actually giving the viewers wrong analysis. Personally, a cast is much more enjoyable when either the casters just simply cast without trying to give hard analysis or when they're very familiar with the game. In fact, I think casters should work to learn the game better to provide better analysis for the viewers, especially lower level viewers.
The game was over. Losira played perfect. He was on the verge of crushing what was left of Brown's army, then Losira lost his entire army in 3 seconds. It's comical when people pull the "You don't understand high level play card." That's such juvenile bullshit.
As I said and as Brown has said, Brown's entire game plan versus broodlords was going for archon toliet and he did it. Within the confines of the game, Brown was winning and in control, not Losira. You can argue that archon toliet is imbalanced, but you can't say that Losira was winning when Brown had all the tools he needed to win the game.
If you think there's nothing wrong with Vortex after watching that game, then i don't know what to say. Get outplayed the entire game, be on the verge of losing, but get saved by 1 spell, that crushes the opponents ENTIRE army in three seconds. OK. Your entitled to your opinion.
On December 06 2011 08:20 mlspmatt wrote: Losira had the game won, was ahead and in command the entire game then Brown landed a Mother Ship Vortex and it was over. As a Terran, I was blown away with how losira controlled the entire game, made no mistakes, he played flawless.
The Vortex was the game, Losira lost his entire army. There's a reason the Mothership is disappearing in HOTS, there's no way anyone could watch that game and believe that particular spell belongs in the game. The game was on the verge of being over when that happened. And I don't play Zerg or Protoss so I'm coming from an objective perspective.
As far as Protoss not needing to two base all-In every game, everybody has known that Toss strength is late game since the beginning of time. As a Terran i fully expect to lose once the game gets past twenty minutes in TvP, granted I'm not a pro and the game is different at that level, but all the Protoss timing attacks came from Korea where they like to All-In, especially Protoss.
European Protoss play for the late game and do very well even though there are excellent Zergs in Europe. The "Protoss MUST attack early" is nonsense, a meme, its just meta game not being where it should be. Especially PvT, Protoss late game is far superior since the ghost nurf. PvZ is much closer.
I completely disagree that Losira had the game won, was ahead, and in command the entire game. Losira did indeed trade well in the first major battle, but he didn't followup and capitalize on his advantage. Coming from someone who doesn't play a lot of high level PvZ such as yourself or moletrap/Khaldor casting, you might assume that Losira was in control the whole game. However, anyone that has some decent experience with late game PvZ will tell you that once the Protoss can get a mothership with sufficient archons/templar, it's pretty much over for Zerg. Brown played to this, aimed for it, and got it and that is why he won.
Btw a bit off topic but I found moletrap and Khaldor's casting extremely ill-informed in this game and they made wrong calls a lot. Nothing against them and no offense intended at all, but I find it annoying when casters pretend to know what they're talking about but are actually giving the viewers wrong analysis. Personally, a cast is much more enjoyable when either the casters just simply cast without trying to give hard analysis or when they're very familiar with the game. In fact, I think casters should work to learn the game better to provide better analysis for the viewers, especially lower level viewers.
The game was over. Losira played perfect. He was on the verge of crushing what was left of Brown's army, then Losira lost his entire army in 3 seconds. It's comical when people pull the "You don't understand high level play card." That's such juvenile bullshit.
As I said and as Brown has said, Brown's entire game plan versus broodlords was going for archon toliet and he did it. Within the confines of the game, Brown was winning and in control, not Losira. You can argue that archon toliet is imbalanced, but you can't say that Losira was winning when Brown had all the tools he needed to win the game.
On December 06 2011 08:36 mlspmatt wrote: There's no other sport on the planet, football, baseball, hockey, curling, cricket, that a fan who watches a ton of play doesn't "UNDERSTAND" whats happening. But in starcraft, the folks who work for a living and can't play starcraft all day are too feeble minded to understand the technicalities. Typical.
Both rude and untrue. A the highest levels, there's tons of stuff in football that a professional football coach or player would understand while the average fan would not.
Stop pulling the "You don't understand card" card. Its what people do when they have no other viable arguments. They resort to "You don't understand the game as well as I do, thus I'm right"
On December 06 2011 08:20 mlspmatt wrote: Losira had the game won, was ahead and in command the entire game then Brown landed a Mother Ship Vortex and it was over. As a Terran, I was blown away with how losira controlled the entire game, made no mistakes, he played flawless.
The Vortex was the game, Losira lost his entire army. There's a reason the Mothership is disappearing in HOTS, there's no way anyone could watch that game and believe that particular spell belongs in the game. The game was on the verge of being over when that happened. And I don't play Zerg or Protoss so I'm coming from an objective perspective.
As far as Protoss not needing to two base all-In every game, everybody has known that Toss strength is late game since the beginning of time. As a Terran i fully expect to lose once the game gets past twenty minutes in TvP, granted I'm not a pro and the game is different at that level, but all the Protoss timing attacks came from Korea where they like to All-In, especially Protoss.
European Protoss play for the late game and do very well even though there are excellent Zergs in Europe. The "Protoss MUST attack early" is nonsense, a meme, its just meta game not being where it should be. Especially PvT, Protoss late game is far superior since the ghost nurf. PvZ is much closer.
I completely disagree that Losira had the game won, was ahead, and in command the entire game. Losira did indeed trade well in the first major battle, but he didn't followup and capitalize on his advantage. Coming from someone who doesn't play a lot of high level PvZ such as yourself or moletrap/Khaldor casting, you might assume that Losira was in control the whole game. However, anyone that has some decent experience with late game PvZ will tell you that once the Protoss can get a mothership with sufficient archons/templar, it's pretty much over for Zerg. Brown played to this, aimed for it, and got it and that is why he won.
Btw a bit off topic but I found moletrap and Khaldor's casting extremely ill-informed in this game and they made wrong calls a lot. Nothing against them and no offense intended at all, but I find it annoying when casters pretend to know what they're talking about but are actually giving the viewers wrong analysis. Personally, a cast is much more enjoyable when either the casters just simply cast without trying to give hard analysis or when they're very familiar with the game. In fact, I think casters should work to learn the game better to provide better analysis for the viewers, especially lower level viewers.
The game was over. Losira played perfect. He was on the verge of crushing what was left of Brown's army, then Losira lost his entire army in 3 seconds. It's comical when people pull the "You don't understand high level play card." That's such juvenile bullshit.
There's no other sport on the planet, football, baseball, hockey, curling, cricket, that a fan who watches a ton of play doesn't "UNDERSTAND" whats happening. But in starcraft, the folks who work for a living and can't play starcraft all day are too feeble minded to understand the technicalities. Typical.
you can't be more wrong, Losira never had the game won.
you know what losira could have done better? 10 (+3) corruptors can take a mothership out in ~ 3 real life seconds... just don't fucking clump all your corruptors so 1 single vortex can grab 20 of them... like losira did, and don't engage the motership with the broodlords that near... you can easily send only corruptors to take out the mothership + colossus and then, you go with broodlord infestor.
takes ~ 4 starcraft minutes to get another mothership with 100 energy
PS: you can always try to neural the mothership and burn it energy by vortexing the protoss army...
On December 06 2011 08:20 mlspmatt wrote: Losira had the game won, was ahead and in command the entire game then Brown landed a Mother Ship Vortex and it was over. As a Terran, I was blown away with how losira controlled the entire game, made no mistakes, he played flawless.
The Vortex was the game, Losira lost his entire army. There's a reason the Mothership is disappearing in HOTS, there's no way anyone could watch that game and believe that particular spell belongs in the game. The game was on the verge of being over when that happened. And I don't play Zerg or Protoss so I'm coming from an objective perspective.
As far as Protoss not needing to two base all-In every game, everybody has known that Toss strength is late game since the beginning of time. As a Terran i fully expect to lose once the game gets past twenty minutes in TvP, granted I'm not a pro and the game is different at that level, but all the Protoss timing attacks came from Korea where they like to All-In, especially Protoss.
European Protoss play for the late game and do very well even though there are excellent Zergs in Europe. The "Protoss MUST attack early" is nonsense, a meme, its just meta game not being where it should be. Especially PvT, Protoss late game is far superior since the ghost nurf. PvZ is much closer.
I completely disagree that Losira had the game won, was ahead, and in command the entire game. Losira did indeed trade well in the first major battle, but he didn't followup and capitalize on his advantage. Coming from someone who doesn't play a lot of high level PvZ such as yourself or moletrap/Khaldor casting, you might assume that Losira was in control the whole game. However, anyone that has some decent experience with late game PvZ will tell you that once the Protoss can get a mothership with sufficient archons/templar, it's pretty much over for Zerg. Brown played to this, aimed for it, and got it and that is why he won.
Btw a bit off topic but I found moletrap and Khaldor's casting extremely ill-informed in this game and they made wrong calls a lot. Nothing against them and no offense intended at all, but I find it annoying when casters pretend to know what they're talking about but are actually giving the viewers wrong analysis. Personally, a cast is much more enjoyable when either the casters just simply cast without trying to give hard analysis or when they're very familiar with the game. In fact, I think casters should work to learn the game better to provide better analysis for the viewers, especially lower level viewers.
The game was over. Losira played perfect. He was on the verge of crushing what was left of Brown's army, then Losira lost his entire army in 3 seconds. It's comical when people pull the "You don't understand high level play card." That's such juvenile bullshit.
As I said and as Brown has said, Brown's entire game plan versus broodlords was going for archon toliet and he did it. Within the confines of the game, Brown was winning and in control, not Losira. You can argue that archon toliet is imbalanced, but you can't say that Losira was winning when Brown had all the tools he needed to win the game.
If you think there's nothing wrong with Vortex after watching that game, then i don't know what to say. Get outplayed the entire game, be on the verge of losing, but get saved by 1 spell, that crushes the opponents ENTIRE army in three seconds. OK. Your entitled to your opinion.
I never said said there's nothing wrong with vortex. I made my argument and you've done nothing to refute it except hurl insults.
On December 06 2011 08:20 mlspmatt wrote: Losira had the game won, was ahead and in command the entire game then Brown landed a Mother Ship Vortex and it was over. As a Terran, I was blown away with how losira controlled the entire game, made no mistakes, he played flawless.
The Vortex was the game, Losira lost his entire army. There's a reason the Mothership is disappearing in HOTS, there's no way anyone could watch that game and believe that particular spell belongs in the game. The game was on the verge of being over when that happened. And I don't play Zerg or Protoss so I'm coming from an objective perspective.
As far as Protoss not needing to two base all-In every game, everybody has known that Toss strength is late game since the beginning of time. As a Terran i fully expect to lose once the game gets past twenty minutes in TvP, granted I'm not a pro and the game is different at that level, but all the Protoss timing attacks came from Korea where they like to All-In, especially Protoss.
European Protoss play for the late game and do very well even though there are excellent Zergs in Europe. The "Protoss MUST attack early" is nonsense, a meme, its just meta game not being where it should be. Especially PvT, Protoss late game is far superior since the ghost nurf. PvZ is much closer.
I completely disagree that Losira had the game won, was ahead, and in command the entire game. Losira did indeed trade well in the first major battle, but he didn't followup and capitalize on his advantage. Coming from someone who doesn't play a lot of high level PvZ such as yourself or moletrap/Khaldor casting, you might assume that Losira was in control the whole game. However, anyone that has some decent experience with late game PvZ will tell you that once the Protoss can get a mothership with sufficient archons/templar, it's pretty much over for Zerg. Brown played to this, aimed for it, and got it and that is why he won.
Btw a bit off topic but I found moletrap and Khaldor's casting extremely ill-informed in this game and they made wrong calls a lot. Nothing against them and no offense intended at all, but I find it annoying when casters pretend to know what they're talking about but are actually giving the viewers wrong analysis. Personally, a cast is much more enjoyable when either the casters just simply cast without trying to give hard analysis or when they're very familiar with the game. In fact, I think casters should work to learn the game better to provide better analysis for the viewers, especially lower level viewers.
The game was over. Losira played perfect. He was on the verge of crushing what was left of Brown's army, then Losira lost his entire army in 3 seconds. It's comical when people pull the "You don't understand high level play card." That's such juvenile bullshit.
As I said and as Brown has said, Brown's entire game plan versus broodlords was going for archon toliet and he did it. Within the confines of the game, Brown was winning and in control, not Losira. You can argue that archon toliet is imbalanced, but you can't say that Losira was winning when Brown had all the tools he needed to win the game.
On December 06 2011 08:36 mlspmatt wrote: There's no other sport on the planet, football, baseball, hockey, curling, cricket, that a fan who watches a ton of play doesn't "UNDERSTAND" whats happening. But in starcraft, the folks who work for a living and can't play starcraft all day are too feeble minded to understand the technicalities. Typical.
Both rude and untrue. A the highest levels, there's tons of stuff in football that a professional football coach or player would understand while the average fan would not.
Stop pulling the "You don't understand card" card. Its what people do when they have no other viable arguments. They resort to "You don't understand the game as well as I do, thus I'm right"
I made my argument. You didn't refute it or try to refute it at all.
It felt like LosirA played into Brown's hands by being so passive early on, if Protoss gets up to 4gas that quickly he becomes unbelievably powerful.
I can see a lot of Zergs switching back to the heavy roach aggressive style with lots of drops again due to lategame ZvP struggles (like when voidray/colossus was popular) and I can't see Brown dealing with that.. he's teching to Colossus off of 1 Voidray and a few sentries while trying to secure a third.
On December 06 2011 08:09 barrykp wrote: I think Losira should have won this game, and maybe if he hadn't voluntarily put all his broodlords into the vortex we might all be talking about how this was the most well played late game ZvP ever witnessed, and not the other way around.
Apart from not putting everything into the archon toilet; can the OP add any advice for zerg players trying to deal with this type of Protoss deathball?
Losira's biggest problem was that he ran out of overseers. He only had 2 and one got vortex'd the other died. Losira had no other choice but to go into the vortex and thus lose all his broodlords. Imo the best thing Losira can reasonably do better is get more overseers and spread out broodlords.
lol losiras problem wasnt having enough overseers, he had plenty of infestors that could fungal and show vision for the broodlords. If losira had split up his broods and corruptors, he would've had a better chance, and Losira was definitely ahead that game and outplayed Brown up to that point. His broodlords were 3/3 with level 3 melee attacks also. He picked off Browns army constantly, but died to an archon toilet.
On December 06 2011 08:20 mlspmatt wrote: Losira had the game won, was ahead and in command the entire game then Brown landed a Mother Ship Vortex and it was over. As a Terran, I was blown away with how losira controlled the entire game, made no mistakes, he played flawless.
The Vortex was the game, Losira lost his entire army. There's a reason the Mothership is disappearing in HOTS, there's no way anyone could watch that game and believe that particular spell belongs in the game. The game was on the verge of being over when that happened. And I don't play Zerg or Protoss so I'm coming from an objective perspective.
As far as Protoss not needing to two base all-In every game, everybody has known that Toss strength is late game since the beginning of time. As a Terran i fully expect to lose once the game gets past twenty minutes in TvP, granted I'm not a pro and the game is different at that level, but all the Protoss timing attacks came from Korea where they like to All-In, especially Protoss.
European Protoss play for the late game and do very well even though there are excellent Zergs in Europe. The "Protoss MUST attack early" is nonsense, a meme, its just meta game not being where it should be. Especially PvT, Protoss late game is far superior since the ghost nurf. PvZ is much closer.
I completely disagree that Losira had the game won, was ahead, and in command the entire game. Losira did indeed trade well in the first major battle, but he didn't followup and capitalize on his advantage. Coming from someone who doesn't play a lot of high level PvZ such as yourself or moletrap/Khaldor casting, you might assume that Losira was in control the whole game. However, anyone that has some decent experience with late game PvZ will tell you that once the Protoss can get a mothership with sufficient archons/templar, it's pretty much over for Zerg. Brown played to this, aimed for it, and got it and that is why he won.
Btw a bit off topic but I found moletrap and Khaldor's casting extremely ill-informed in this game and they made wrong calls a lot. Nothing against them and no offense intended at all, but I find it annoying when casters pretend to know what they're talking about but are actually giving the viewers wrong analysis. Personally, a cast is much more enjoyable when either the casters just simply cast without trying to give hard analysis or when they're very familiar with the game. In fact, I think casters should work to learn the game better to provide better analysis for the viewers, especially lower level viewers.
The game was over. Losira played perfect. He was on the verge of crushing what was left of Brown's army, then Losira lost his entire army in 3 seconds. It's comical when people pull the "You don't understand high level play card." That's such juvenile bullshit.
As I said and as Brown has said, Brown's entire game plan versus broodlords was going for archon toliet and he did it. Within the confines of the game, Brown was winning and in control, not Losira. You can argue that archon toliet is imbalanced, but you can't say that Losira was winning when Brown had all the tools he needed to win the game.
If you think there's nothing wrong with Vortex after watching that game, then i don't know what to say. Get outplayed the entire game, be on the verge of losing, but get saved by 1 spell, that crushes the opponents ENTIRE army in three seconds. OK. Your entitled to your opinion.
Personally I think Vortex is imbalanced and should be removed but you're really exaggerating the game.
Losira did not outplay Brown the whole game and he wasn't on the verge of losing. Having only two overseers at the final engagement and having them sucked in the Vortex really didn't help either.
I still don't understand why Losira put the Broods in the Vortex. To me, that's the most counter intuitive thing to do.. did he not expect Archons? Throwing the Broods in the Vortex was just like giving the game away. Even with no detection, grab a few ovs and morph them and salvage what you can.
On December 06 2011 08:20 mlspmatt wrote: Losira had the game won, was ahead and in command the entire game then Brown landed a Mother Ship Vortex and it was over. As a Terran, I was blown away with how losira controlled the entire game, made no mistakes, he played flawless.
The Vortex was the game, Losira lost his entire army. There's a reason the Mothership is disappearing in HOTS, there's no way anyone could watch that game and believe that particular spell belongs in the game. The game was on the verge of being over when that happened. And I don't play Zerg or Protoss so I'm coming from an objective perspective.
As far as Protoss not needing to two base all-In every game, everybody has known that Toss strength is late game since the beginning of time. As a Terran i fully expect to lose once the game gets past twenty minutes in TvP, granted I'm not a pro and the game is different at that level, but all the Protoss timing attacks came from Korea where they like to All-In, especially Protoss.
European Protoss play for the late game and do very well even though there are excellent Zergs in Europe. The "Protoss MUST attack early" is nonsense, a meme, its just meta game not being where it should be. Especially PvT, Protoss late game is far superior since the ghost nurf. PvZ is much closer.
I completely disagree that Losira had the game won, was ahead, and in command the entire game. Losira did indeed trade well in the first major battle, but he didn't followup and capitalize on his advantage. Coming from someone who doesn't play a lot of high level PvZ such as yourself or moletrap/Khaldor casting, you might assume that Losira was in control the whole game. However, anyone that has some decent experience with late game PvZ will tell you that once the Protoss can get a mothership with sufficient archons/templar, it's pretty much over for Zerg. Brown played to this, aimed for it, and got it and that is why he won.
Btw a bit off topic but I found moletrap and Khaldor's casting extremely ill-informed in this game and they made wrong calls a lot. Nothing against them and no offense intended at all, but I find it annoying when casters pretend to know what they're talking about but are actually giving the viewers wrong analysis. Personally, a cast is much more enjoyable when either the casters just simply cast without trying to give hard analysis or when they're very familiar with the game. In fact, I think casters should work to learn the game better to provide better analysis for the viewers, especially lower level viewers.
The game was over. Losira played perfect. He was on the verge of crushing what was left of Brown's army, then Losira lost his entire army in 3 seconds. It's comical when people pull the "You don't understand high level play card." That's such juvenile bullshit.
There's no other sport on the planet, football, baseball, hockey, curling, cricket, that a fan who watches a ton of play doesn't "UNDERSTAND" whats happening. But in starcraft, the folks who work for a living and can't play starcraft all day are too feeble minded to understand the technicalities. Typical.
The folks who work are not too feeble minded to understand the technicalities. However, a greater understanding is unconditionally built from both experience and time investment. What is ironically more juvenile is ignoring points made against you and claiming that Losira played perfectly to bring in a subtle balance whine.
Reading your points, I believe the assessment of "you don't understand high level play" applies pretty well to you. None of your arguments have any specificity to them. "He was in command, he had the game won," etc. Losira was never so far ahead of Brown that game. Brown kept up economically, and while his saturation wasn't the best, Losira played really passively but never could kill Brown because of the relatively equal economic footing.
I guess you could say that Brown was going to lose that battle, I wouldn't object to that. However, there aren't really amazing ways for Protoss players to deal with mass corrupter/broodlord without something like carrier/templar. I don't think the archon toilet was a big issue, and Losira could have done a better job of producing overseers and splitting his air forces.
losira didn't outplay Brown, lol, he could not even deny Browns expansions, Brown was expanding almost as fast as losira, if anything losira got outplayed because Brown managed to get the tech and the bases he wanted when he wanted. He predicted the gameplan of losira, and won the game.
losira lost when all his corruptors got sucked by a single vortex.
seriously, 15 broodlords is a very silly composition, isn't something like 7 broods 7 ultralisks + infestors good too? (just asking, he had the upgrades...)
So listal brought it up, but 1 voidray into quick third is not new. In fact, Huk used a similar variant of this build against Leenock in group play of the GSL this season. It was on the winter belshir beach. Leenock recognized the build, turtled with the minimum defense, and then went pure muta with air and ling upgrades. He constantly harassed Huk as he increased his muta ball. Huk did not take much damage, but whenever Leenock had the chance, he would engage with mutaling against Huk's stalker ball. Leenock wouldn't lose many mutas, so he was effectively trading lings for stalkers.
How would brown's style deal with a mass muta style? I think that on daybreak, managing the mutaling trades would be better because the distance between your 3rd and natural is smaller and you would be able to fight in chokes most of the time. By the same token, however, it would be easier to get to 6 bases on Daybreak while containing with this muta ball.
(I personally think +1 shields are part of the answer (at least with this aggressive protoss macro style) Cannons never die vs lings, and the +1 shields helps stalkers vs the bounce of the muta. Also, you will probably eventually want archons anyway, which obviously benefit the most from +1shields. )
By the way, Daybreak is especially suited to this style of play. Turtle protoss on Daybreak is so good because of the way the expansions work. As you take more bases and cannon them up, you are limiting zerg's counter attacking ability, because almost every path passes by an expansion (which you will eventually have cannoned up).
On December 06 2011 09:43 Mauzel wrote: So listal brought it up, but 1 voidray into quick third is not new. In fact, Huk used a similar variant of this build against Leenock in group play of the GSL this season. It was on the winter belshir beach. Leenock recognized the build, turtled with the minimum defense, and then went pure muta with air and ling upgrades. He constantly harassed Huk as he increased his muta ball. Huk did not take much damage, but whenever Leenock had the chance, he would engage with mutaling against Huk's stalker ball. Leenock wouldn't lose many mutas, so he was effectively trading lings for stalkers.
How would brown's style deal with a mass muta style? I think that on daybreak, managing the mutaling trades would be better because the distance between your 3rd and natural is smaller and you would be able to fight in chokes most of the time. By the same token, however, it would be easier to get to 6 bases on Daybreak while containing with this muta ball.
(I personally think +1 shields are part of the answer (at least with this aggressive protoss macro style) Cannons never die vs lings, and the +1 shields helps stalkers vs the bounce of the muta. Also, you will probably eventually want archons anyway, which obviously benefit the most from +1shields. )
By the way, Daybreak is especially suited to this style of play. Turtle protoss on Daybreak is so good because of the way the expansions work. As you take more bases and cannon them up, you are limiting zerg's counter attacking ability, because almost every path passes by an expansion (which you will eventually have cannoned up).
Yes, I mention that Huk has done a similar build before in my article. I would imagine you play versus ling/muta like with any other opening. Cannons, blink stalker, templar.
On December 06 2011 09:43 Mauzel wrote: So listal brought it up, but 1 voidray into quick third is not new. In fact, Huk used a similar variant of this build against Leenock in group play of the GSL this season. It was on the winter belshir beach. Leenock recognized the build, turtled with the minimum defense, and then went pure muta with air and ling upgrades. He constantly harassed Huk as he increased his muta ball. Huk did not take much damage, but whenever Leenock had the chance, he would engage with mutaling against Huk's stalker ball. Leenock wouldn't lose many mutas, so he was effectively trading lings for stalkers.
How would brown's style deal with a mass muta style? I think that on daybreak, managing the mutaling trades would be better because the distance between your 3rd and natural is smaller and you would be able to fight in chokes most of the time. By the same token, however, it would be easier to get to 6 bases on Daybreak while containing with this muta ball.
(I personally think +1 shields are part of the answer (at least with this aggressive protoss macro style) Cannons never die vs lings, and the +1 shields helps stalkers vs the bounce of the muta. Also, you will probably eventually want archons anyway, which obviously benefit the most from +1shields. )
By the way, Daybreak is especially suited to this style of play. Turtle protoss on Daybreak is so good because of the way the expansions work. As you take more bases and cannon them up, you are limiting zerg's counter attacking ability, because almost every path passes by an expansion (which you will eventually have cannoned up).
Yes, I mention that Huk has done a similar build before in my article. I would imagine you play versus ling/muta like with any other opening. Cannons, blink stalker, templar.
Brown's style puts him in a position where he can respond to what his opponent is doing, which is a point you indirectly made with the 2 robos only being available on an as-needed or as-applicable basis. upon scouting spire tech while harassing with the void ray, i think the obvious response to a spire would be faster blink stalker tech.
furthermore, Brown uses high templar. high templar and archons with the initial gateway blob tear up muta/ling styles. the longer a game goes in zvp when the zerg player is using muta/ling, the more the game swings into the protoss player's favor.
i think that two obvious and connected differences from the game Monk outlined here against muta/ling are: two robos don't make sense, and you can forget about attempts to do warp prism harassment. cannons, sim city, high templar defense, and a strong gateway ball are what it takes to shut down muta/ling. blink stalkers get you there, and with Brown's style, i think that blink stalker defense isn't too rough to pull off to get you to the end game.
On December 06 2011 06:12 Tobias wrote: Just watched the vod, and I think the major lesson I got out of it was not to throw my entire army into a vortex o_O
lol i just finished can't believe losira did that haha xD
epic archon toilet, although there was 1 sad archon who didn't get to go in
(brown u meanie lol)
uhm.... what else is he going to do with slow ass broodlord who'll die if they try to walk with a cane back to the spines?
Also they can't kill anything since the overseer's in the vortex too. (nor can he see that the archons walked into the vortex -- Hi overseers went into vortex with the corruptors)
Watching the has really made me think anew of vortex. That 1 spell, that game changing. Its definitely strong an maybe needs a little re work but I don't think it's that imbalanced, I mean, considering you can only have 1, and the tech/money to get it. That game really was worth the time though
On December 06 2011 06:12 Tobias wrote: Just watched the vod, and I think the major lesson I got out of it was not to throw my entire army into a vortex o_O
lol i just finished can't believe losira did that haha xD
epic archon toilet, although there was 1 sad archon who didn't get to go in
(brown u meanie lol)
uhm.... what else is he going to do with slow ass broodlord who'll die if they try to walk with a cane back to the spines?
Also they can't kill anything since the overseer's in the vortex too. (nor can he see that the archons walked into the vortex -- Hi overseers went into vortex with the corruptors)
Oh ok, didn't realize he had no detection xD
yeah, sorry for sounding a bit pissed, it's just I was up late watching that game (4-5 am ftw o_t) and then people on the #GSL irc channel were saying stupid shit about those stuff, and have been continuously seeing that...that it kinda annoyed me o_o oh well.
t.t
Yeah he had 2 overseers, but on the same hotkey as the corruptors. I guess they should've been on the same hotkey as the broods? xD t.t
I tried this myself today after watching the games and seeing your article. It went quite well. It wasn't well executed by my diamond self but the early third put me in control the whole time and really let me keep a macro evenness and at times lead.
The mothership was super useful and in the end the carriers got a good number of kills as well. The only thing I find bothersome is that vortexes eat your interceptors so they end up being useless making the carriers dead weight for the time that the vortex is in play. Though this isn't a flaw of the strategy instead just a frustrating point to deal with with regards to mothership play.
Also, the void ray while taking a third isn't technically new it is novel to some of us on these forums so its nice you put that in . Neither queens nor hydras can attack you across map so if you aren't in close positions that 3rd base ends up being really really safe especially with zealot sentry there to try and help defend it. Also 2 robo is awesome I loved always having collossus production and still always having a warp prism somewhere on the map.
I just want to bring up a point of comparison for people who QQ so goddamn hard about the mothership, and vortex.
Is stasis omfgbbq imba in BW? And why not, cause the answer is no (we assume)? In that game you're even allowed to have several "vortexes" on hand. Let's go over the matchups separately. And first, to clarify, stasis is "not as powerful" because it's a one-shot capture, and it doesn't clump air units for you to create the potential for juicy archon splash.
Stasis is only really used in PvT, and in that matchup the terran gets sci vessels to EMP off the arbiter energy. So there's a direct way to combat the threat. Nevertheless, arbiters are a common tech choice, even fast arbiters, despite facing a "direct counter". The functionality of shutting off a portion of the terran army is good enough, because much of the time you can cleanup or push away the remaining terran force, and then pounce with a squad of zealots and goons when the tanks and goliaths in the stasis wake up. I would submit that the piling up function of vortex is nice but it's not really the backbreaker; just creating a situation where you can move your units in and surround is good enough. The archon toilet is really good but a stasis with archons underneath broodlords would be really damn good too.
Arbiters are basically never used in PvZ in BW though. Why? They get shot down hard by scourge and mutas. Scourge. Yeah, how does that word feel in your mouth. Based on the strength of stasis in general, if it was possible I'm sure it would be used, at least in the late game.
kcdc has mentioned in multiple posts in this thread about the stupidity of how zergs engage the vortex-ready protoss army. It's like they actively refuse to change their tactical approach in the face of overwhelming failure. The method he describes with corrupter assaults is probably the best first step towards the "correct" way to fight a mothership atop a good protoss ball. The idea that it's unfair that you can't engage head on... of course... that's the point. Abusing the strength of larvae banking provides more than a few options for dismantling the protoss pyramid. To say nothing of zerg's excellent mobility options.
Finally, I hate to theorycraft about an expansion whose new units aren't final, but I assume the viper would make it silly to rely on a mothership, so I don't see why the unit has to be removed because it's too powerful. + Show Spoiler +
Let alone replaced with the epitome of herp derp a-move.
Although it's conjecture, I think it's a very poor choice to rely on taking a fast 3rd behind 'fake stargate' (1 voidray...)
I understand it is a great strategy to have, and use from time to time (mindgames), but I would like to see a fast 3rd holding against some heavy 3base zerg timings.
Or proof of '1 voidray, fast 3rd' holding some heavy 3base zerg timings.
On December 06 2011 08:20 mlspmatt wrote: Losira had the game won, was ahead and in command the entire game then Brown landed a Mother Ship Vortex and it was over. As a Terran, I was blown away with how losira controlled the entire game, made no mistakes, he played flawless.
The Vortex was the game, Losira lost his entire army. There's a reason the Mothership is disappearing in HOTS, there's no way anyone could watch that game and believe that particular spell belongs in the game. The game was on the verge of being over when that happened. And I don't play Zerg or Protoss so I'm coming from an objective perspective.
As far as Protoss not needing to two base all-In every game, everybody has known that Toss strength is late game since the beginning of time. As a Terran i fully expect to lose once the game gets past twenty minutes in TvP, granted I'm not a pro and the game is different at that level, but all the Protoss timing attacks came from Korea where they like to All-In, especially Protoss.
European Protoss play for the late game and do very well even though there are excellent Zergs in Europe. The "Protoss MUST attack early" is nonsense, a meme, its just meta game not being where it should be. Especially PvT, Protoss late game is far superior since the ghost nurf. PvZ is much closer.
I completely disagree that Losira had the game won, was ahead, and in command the entire game. Losira did indeed trade well in the first major battle, but he didn't followup and capitalize on his advantage. Coming from someone who doesn't play a lot of high level PvZ such as yourself or moletrap/Khaldor casting, you might assume that Losira was in control the whole game. However, anyone that has some decent experience with late game PvZ will tell you that once the Protoss can get a mothership with sufficient archons/templar, it's pretty much over for Zerg. Brown played to this, aimed for it, and got it and that is why he won.
Btw a bit off topic but I found moletrap and Khaldor's casting extremely ill-informed in this game and they made wrong calls a lot. Nothing against them and no offense intended at all, but I find it annoying when casters pretend to know what they're talking about but are actually giving the viewers wrong analysis. Personally, a cast is much more enjoyable when either the casters just simply cast without trying to give hard analysis or when they're very familiar with the game. In fact, I think casters should work to learn the game better to provide better analysis for the viewers, especially lower level viewers.
The game was over. Losira played perfect. He was on the verge of crushing what was left of Brown's army, then Losira lost his entire army in 3 seconds. It's comical when people pull the "You don't understand high level play card." That's such juvenile bullshit.
There's no other sport on the planet, football, baseball, hockey, curling, cricket, that a fan who watches a ton of play doesn't "UNDERSTAND" whats happening. But in starcraft, the folks who work for a living and can't play starcraft all day are too feeble minded to understand the technicalities. Typical.
User was warned for this post
Dude you need to quit while you're way way behind.
First off, I played football in College and I can tell you, yes 99% of the people who watch a ton of football and think they "understand" what's going on have absolutely no freaking clue what the hell they are talking about and you exhibit the very same combination of ignorance and arrogance that they do.
Everything that I've ever dedicated myself to mastering in life, the closer i've gotten to the very pinnacle of it, the more I've learned how little i knew before - this holds true in every profession, sport, and in this case, competitive video game.
Most complicated activities and competitions takes place in layers, spectators will only see the very finished layer - the final build order, reactions after a mind game - the incomplete pass or throw. What they don't see is the processes that it took to get there, and the various branches that the game/competition could've taken place but didn't. The reason you have to be a high level player of a sport/game to fully understand the game is because you don't know about the branches that did not happen, you only see what did; thus, you basically rely on the commentators and analysts to tell you - analysts that may very well be wrong because their job isn't easy either, and they could easily miss things due to factors behind the scenes that no one else knows (if you've worked in production/TV business you would know what its like for talents when producers are screaming in their ear).
Show some respect man. They have a term for people like you - its called "armchair general" for a reason.
On December 06 2011 08:20 mlspmatt wrote: Losira had the game won, was ahead and in command the entire game then Brown landed a Mother Ship Vortex and it was over. As a Terran, I was blown away with how losira controlled the entire game, made no mistakes, he played flawless.
The Vortex was the game, Losira lost his entire army. There's a reason the Mothership is disappearing in HOTS, there's no way anyone could watch that game and believe that particular spell belongs in the game. The game was on the verge of being over when that happened. And I don't play Zerg or Protoss so I'm coming from an objective perspective.
As far as Protoss not needing to two base all-In every game, everybody has known that Toss strength is late game since the beginning of time. As a Terran i fully expect to lose once the game gets past twenty minutes in TvP, granted I'm not a pro and the game is different at that level, but all the Protoss timing attacks came from Korea where they like to All-In, especially Protoss.
European Protoss play for the late game and do very well even though there are excellent Zergs in Europe. The "Protoss MUST attack early" is nonsense, a meme, its just meta game not being where it should be. Especially PvT, Protoss late game is far superior since the ghost nurf. PvZ is much closer.
I completely disagree that Losira had the game won, was ahead, and in command the entire game. Losira did indeed trade well in the first major battle, but he didn't followup and capitalize on his advantage. Coming from someone who doesn't play a lot of high level PvZ such as yourself or moletrap/Khaldor casting, you might assume that Losira was in control the whole game. However, anyone that has some decent experience with late game PvZ will tell you that once the Protoss can get a mothership with sufficient archons/templar, it's pretty much over for Zerg. Brown played to this, aimed for it, and got it and that is why he won.
Btw a bit off topic but I found moletrap and Khaldor's casting extremely ill-informed in this game and they made wrong calls a lot. Nothing against them and no offense intended at all, but I find it annoying when casters pretend to know what they're talking about but are actually giving the viewers wrong analysis. Personally, a cast is much more enjoyable when either the casters just simply cast without trying to give hard analysis or when they're very familiar with the game. In fact, I think casters should work to learn the game better to provide better analysis for the viewers, especially lower level viewers.
The game was over. Losira played perfect. He was on the verge of crushing what was left of Brown's army, then Losira lost his entire army in 3 seconds. It's comical when people pull the "You don't understand high level play card." That's such juvenile bullshit.
There's no other sport on the planet, football, baseball, hockey, curling, cricket, that a fan who watches a ton of play doesn't "UNDERSTAND" whats happening. But in starcraft, the folks who work for a living and can't play starcraft all day are too feeble minded to understand the technicalities. Typical.
User was warned for this post
Dude you need to quit while you're way way behind.
First off, I played football in College and I can tell you, yes 99% of the people who watch a ton of football and think they "understand" what's going on have absolutely no freaking clue what the hell they are talking about and you exhibit the very same combination of ignorance and arrogance that they do.
Everything that I've ever dedicated myself to mastering in life, the closer i've gotten to the very pinnacle of it, the more I've learned how little i knew before - this holds true in every profession, sport, and in this case, competitive video game.
Most complicated activities and competitions takes place in layers, spectators will only see the very finished layer - the final build order, reactions after a mind game - the incomplete pass or throw. What they don't see is the processes that it took to get there, and the various branches that the game/competition could've taken place but didn't. The reason you have to be a high level player of a sport/game to fully understand the game is because you don't know about the branches that did not happen, you only see what did; thus, you basically rely on the commentators and analysts to tell you - analysts that may very well be wrong because their job isn't easy either, and they could easily miss things due to factors behind the scenes that no one else knows.
Show some respect man. They have a term for people like you - its called "armchair general" for a reason.
mlspmatt - I'm gonna back up this guy and Monk and say that you need to learn to be more level-headed and quite the childish remarks. Monk has demonstrated a billion times he has well-thought out explanations behind what he says - just look at some of his guides at cover almost every possiblity u can think of. He specifically addresses your comments with objective proof...you instead come back with your own pure opinions that have no substance behind it.
You probably still disagree on reading this because ur so caught up in anger and just want to be stubborn in giving up ground and admitting your wrong.
Why do I waste my time typing this post? Its to encourage those ppl that contribute to the TL community and earned respect. Your comments discourage him, and I don't want to see that happen.
On December 06 2011 08:20 mlspmatt wrote: Losira had the game won, was ahead and in command the entire game then Brown landed a Mother Ship Vortex and it was over. As a Terran, I was blown away with how losira controlled the entire game, made no mistakes, he played flawless.
The Vortex was the game, Losira lost his entire army. There's a reason the Mothership is disappearing in HOTS, there's no way anyone could watch that game and believe that particular spell belongs in the game. The game was on the verge of being over when that happened. And I don't play Zerg or Protoss so I'm coming from an objective perspective.
As far as Protoss not needing to two base all-In every game, everybody has known that Toss strength is late game since the beginning of time. As a Terran i fully expect to lose once the game gets past twenty minutes in TvP, granted I'm not a pro and the game is different at that level, but all the Protoss timing attacks came from Korea where they like to All-In, especially Protoss.
European Protoss play for the late game and do very well even though there are excellent Zergs in Europe. The "Protoss MUST attack early" is nonsense, a meme, its just meta game not being where it should be. Especially PvT, Protoss late game is far superior since the ghost nurf. PvZ is much closer.
I completely disagree that Losira had the game won, was ahead, and in command the entire game. Losira did indeed trade well in the first major battle, but he didn't followup and capitalize on his advantage. Coming from someone who doesn't play a lot of high level PvZ such as yourself or moletrap/Khaldor casting, you might assume that Losira was in control the whole game. However, anyone that has some decent experience with late game PvZ will tell you that once the Protoss can get a mothership with sufficient archons/templar, it's pretty much over for Zerg. Brown played to this, aimed for it, and got it and that is why he won.
Btw a bit off topic but I found moletrap and Khaldor's casting extremely ill-informed in this game and they made wrong calls a lot. Nothing against them and no offense intended at all, but I find it annoying when casters pretend to know what they're talking about but are actually giving the viewers wrong analysis. Personally, a cast is much more enjoyable when either the casters just simply cast without trying to give hard analysis or when they're very familiar with the game. In fact, I think casters should work to learn the game better to provide better analysis for the viewers, especially lower level viewers.
The game was over. Losira played perfect. He was on the verge of crushing what was left of Brown's army, then Losira lost his entire army in 3 seconds. It's comical when people pull the "You don't understand high level play card." That's such juvenile bullshit.
There's no other sport on the planet, football, baseball, hockey, curling, cricket, that a fan who watches a ton of play doesn't "UNDERSTAND" whats happening. But in starcraft, the folks who work for a living and can't play starcraft all day are too feeble minded to understand the technicalities. Typical.
User was warned for this post
Dude you need to quit while you're way way behind.
First off, I played football in College and I can tell you, yes 99% of the people who watch a ton of football and think they "understand" what's going on have absolutely no freaking clue what the hell they are talking about and you exhibit the very same combination of ignorance and arrogance that they do.
Everything that I've ever dedicated myself to mastering in life, the closer i've gotten to the very pinnacle of it, the more I've learned how little i knew before - this holds true in every profession, sport, and in this case, competitive video game.
Most complicated activities and competitions takes place in layers, spectators will only see the very finished layer - the final build order, reactions after a mind game - the incomplete pass or throw. What they don't see is the processes that it took to get there, and the various branches that the game/competition could've taken place but didn't. The reason you have to be a high level player of a sport/game to fully understand the game is because you don't know about the branches that did not happen, you only see what did; thus, you basically rely on the commentators and analysts to tell you - analysts that may very well be wrong because their job isn't easy either, and they could easily miss things due to factors behind the scenes that no one else knows (if you've worked in production/TV business you would know what its like for talents when producers are screaming in their ear).
Show some respect man. They have a term for people like you - its called "armchair general" for a reason.
So true! Really, the idea of understanding SC2 or any other activity with armchair coaches just by watching without actually playing it at the highest level is as absurd as understanding math just by looking at the answer to a problem without going through the process of figuring it out.
On December 06 2011 14:07 W2 wrote: Mothership is being removed in HotS, I don't see a point in practicing vortex/archon toilet micro.
I wanted to post something like this. It's what's been stopping me from making mamaships lategame and has been costing me quite a few late game pvz's I have a massive advantage in (stupid, I know).
So are carriers... Two best way to deal with BLs afaik
I really like point #2. Hadn't really thought about how getting stargate is probably the best route to taking your third. I'm still a little skeptical, but I'll definitely have to try some more stargate play.
On December 06 2011 02:19 listal wrote: motherships and the archon toilet are absolutely the counter to brood lords, no doubt about it. adding in carriers seems questionable though. as a game-ending unit, sure, they're good. but i don't think they beat mothership/colossus/archon/stalker against any zerg unit composition. carriers are beautiful at maintaining your lead, since they're impossible to take down once you lose your supply lead against a protoss player. point being, i think that by advertising carriers as the ultimate protoss death ball, you're short-changing the original composition that enabled you to produce carriers.
You're underselling the AA range carriers give you. Without carriers, you're fighting siege-range broodlords with archons and void rays. Void rays have to move into fungal range in order to attack the broodlords, so they get owned. And archons rely on big vortexes to get in range. If for any reason you're unable to vortex a big chunk of Z's broodlord/corruptor/infestor army, you're screwed if you don't have carriers.
That said, carriers wind up being the last piece of the puzzle you add because otherwise, you die. But they are important.
Really good point. Especially if you aren't able to get a good vortex off, or lost the mothership, you need the carriers against a good air deathball of zerg.
On December 06 2011 14:07 W2 wrote: Mothership is being removed in HotS, I don't see a point in practicing vortex/archon toilet micro.
I wanted to post something like this. It's what's been stopping me from making mamaships lategame and has been costing me quite a few late game pvz's I have a massive advantage in (stupid, I know).
So are carriers... Two best way to deal with BLs afaik
Hopefully the Tempest will fill that role, maybe better than "I really hope I get a perfect Vortex!"
On December 06 2011 08:20 mlspmatt wrote: Losira had the game won, was ahead and in command the entire game then Brown landed a Mother Ship Vortex and it was over. As a Terran, I was blown away with how losira controlled the entire game, made no mistakes, he played flawless.
The Vortex was the game, Losira lost his entire army. There's a reason the Mothership is disappearing in HOTS, there's no way anyone could watch that game and believe that particular spell belongs in the game. The game was on the verge of being over when that happened. And I don't play Zerg or Protoss so I'm coming from an objective perspective.
As far as Protoss not needing to two base all-In every game, everybody has known that Toss strength is late game since the beginning of time. As a Terran i fully expect to lose once the game gets past twenty minutes in TvP, granted I'm not a pro and the game is different at that level, but all the Protoss timing attacks came from Korea where they like to All-In, especially Protoss.
European Protoss play for the late game and do very well even though there are excellent Zergs in Europe. The "Protoss MUST attack early" is nonsense, a meme, its just meta game not being where it should be. Especially PvT, Protoss late game is far superior since the ghost nurf. PvZ is much closer.
I completely disagree that Losira had the game won, was ahead, and in command the entire game. Losira did indeed trade well in the first major battle, but he didn't followup and capitalize on his advantage. Coming from someone who doesn't play a lot of high level PvZ such as yourself or moletrap/Khaldor casting, you might assume that Losira was in control the whole game. However, anyone that has some decent experience with late game PvZ will tell you that once the Protoss can get a mothership with sufficient archons/templar, it's pretty much over for Zerg. Brown played to this, aimed for it, and got it and that is why he won.
Btw a bit off topic but I found moletrap and Khaldor's casting extremely ill-informed in this game and they made wrong calls a lot. Nothing against them and no offense intended at all, but I find it annoying when casters pretend to know what they're talking about but are actually giving the viewers wrong analysis. Personally, a cast is much more enjoyable when either the casters just simply cast without trying to give hard analysis or when they're very familiar with the game. In fact, I think casters should work to learn the game better to provide better analysis for the viewers, especially lower level viewers.
The game was over. Losira played perfect. He was on the verge of crushing what was left of Brown's army, then Losira lost his entire army in 3 seconds. It's comical when people pull the "You don't understand high level play card." That's such juvenile bullshit.
As I said and as Brown has said, Brown's entire game plan versus broodlords was going for archon toliet and he did it. Within the confines of the game, Brown was winning and in control, not Losira. You can argue that archon toliet is imbalanced, but you can't say that Losira was winning when Brown had all the tools he needed to win the game.
If you think there's nothing wrong with Vortex after watching that game, then i don't know what to say. Get outplayed the entire game, be on the verge of losing, but get saved by 1 spell, that crushes the opponents ENTIRE army in three seconds. OK. Your entitled to your opinion.
This notion of Losira being ahead is one that I wish someone would quantify for me. In long PvZs, I see a pattern where Zerg often are able to take more bases quickly and throw away units due to the fast expos and the larva mechanic (faster saturation). In other words, Zerg routinely look like they are ahead in these games. Toss on the other hand has to resiliently fight off swarms and harass as they more slowly mass. Zerg usually get an early supply advantage, max more quickly, and have an easier time staying maxed.
I can see how some people might see the 30 minute point in a PvZ and just assume the Zerg is winning based on these rhythms. Yet in this game (and recently in the popular HuK vs Aria game) we see that there comes a point where the tide turns. If that has to be a Mothership/Archon Toilet, I'll agree, that's a bit of an odd mechanic. However, the presence of that mechanic should make a Zerg think twice before massing blords. Casters have this habit of jizzing over the number of blords being produced. Perhaps, in the face of an archon toilet, a zerg who morphs 15 blords has over-extended himself?
tl;dr The archon toilet would look less OP if Losira wasn't so heavily infested in achingly slow moving blords and imo, long PvZs routinely look like games where the Z has the advantage.
i was only able to watch teh 1st game.. being as im not stupid enough to actually pay for vods... I don't see your point whatsoever. This game was won by a godly perfect vortex- had nothing to do with air play whatsoever... time wasted.
On December 06 2011 08:20 mlspmatt wrote: Losira had the game won, was ahead and in command the entire game then Brown landed a Mother Ship Vortex and it was over. As a Terran, I was blown away with how losira controlled the entire game, made no mistakes, he played flawless.
The Vortex was the game, Losira lost his entire army. There's a reason the Mothership is disappearing in HOTS, there's no way anyone could watch that game and believe that particular spell belongs in the game. The game was on the verge of being over when that happened. And I don't play Zerg or Protoss so I'm coming from an objective perspective.
As far as Protoss not needing to two base all-In every game, everybody has known that Toss strength is late game since the beginning of time. As a Terran i fully expect to lose once the game gets past twenty minutes in TvP, granted I'm not a pro and the game is different at that level, but all the Protoss timing attacks came from Korea where they like to All-In, especially Protoss.
European Protoss play for the late game and do very well even though there are excellent Zergs in Europe. The "Protoss MUST attack early" is nonsense, a meme, its just meta game not being where it should be. Especially PvT, Protoss late game is far superior since the ghost nurf. PvZ is much closer.
I completely disagree that Losira had the game won, was ahead, and in command the entire game. Losira did indeed trade well in the first major battle, but he didn't followup and capitalize on his advantage. Coming from someone who doesn't play a lot of high level PvZ such as yourself or moletrap/Khaldor casting, you might assume that Losira was in control the whole game. However, anyone that has some decent experience with late game PvZ will tell you that once the Protoss can get a mothership with sufficient archons/templar, it's pretty much over for Zerg. Brown played to this, aimed for it, and got it and that is why he won.
Btw a bit off topic but I found moletrap and Khaldor's casting extremely ill-informed in this game and they made wrong calls a lot. Nothing against them and no offense intended at all, but I find it annoying when casters pretend to know what they're talking about but are actually giving the viewers wrong analysis. Personally, a cast is much more enjoyable when either the casters just simply cast without trying to give hard analysis or when they're very familiar with the game. In fact, I think casters should work to learn the game better to provide better analysis for the viewers, especially lower level viewers.
The game was over. Losira played perfect. He was on the verge of crushing what was left of Brown's army, then Losira lost his entire army in 3 seconds. It's comical when people pull the "You don't understand high level play card." That's such juvenile bullshit.
As I said and as Brown has said, Brown's entire game plan versus broodlords was going for archon toliet and he did it. Within the confines of the game, Brown was winning and in control, not Losira. You can argue that archon toliet is imbalanced, but you can't say that Losira was winning when Brown had all the tools he needed to win the game.
If you think there's nothing wrong with Vortex after watching that game, then i don't know what to say. Get outplayed the entire game, be on the verge of losing, but get saved by 1 spell, that crushes the opponents ENTIRE army in three seconds. OK. Your entitled to your opinion.
This notion of Losira being ahead is one that I wish someone would quantify for me. In long PvZs, I see a pattern where Zerg often are able to take more bases quickly and throw away units due to the fast expos and the larva mechanic (faster saturation). In other words, Zerg routinely look like they are ahead in these games. Toss on the other hand has to resiliently fight off swarms and harass as they more slowly mass. Zerg usually get an early supply advantage, max more quickly, and have an easier time staying maxed.
I can see how some people might see the 30 minute point in a PvZ and just assume the Zerg is winning based on these rhythms. Yet in this game (and recently in the popular HuK vs Aria game) we see that there comes a point where the tide turns. If that has to be a Mothership/Archon Toilet, I'll agree, that's a bit of an odd mechanic. However, the presence of that mechanic should make a Zerg think twice before massing blords. Casters have this habit of jizzing over the number of blords being produced. Perhaps, in the face of an archon toilet, a zerg who morphs 15 blords has over-extended himself?
tl;dr The archon toilet would look less OP if Losira wasn't so heavily infested in achingly slow moving blords and imo, long PvZs routinely look like games where the Z has the advantage.
Yes, morphing 15 BL's is overextending in that context. But what's a zerg to do otherwise? Maybe ultras (especially in Hots, where they will actually be viable) but really the toss deathball at that point can defeat pretty much any zerg army and level bases before the zerg can remax. Broods are generally viewed as the only viable late-game comp for zerg, and now they just don't work. It's hard to face.
It seems perfectly understandable that protoss SHOULD be playing macrostyle versus Zerg, and I'm surprised it has taken this long for pros to really start to shine using it. I mean, going for a fast deathball and attacking works, but what's even better? Getting a huge economy and thus forcing the zerg to attack into your deathball. The basic idea has always been that the zerg army melts to the deathball, but since the zerg has many more bases, he can in theory replenish fast enough to stop the deathball push... but if the toss has half the map, how will that even matter?
This is definitely the future of the matchup, and I hope that HotS doesn't screw that up.
On December 06 2011 15:00 MyTHicaL wrote: i was only able to watch teh 1st game.. being as im not stupid enough to actually pay for vods... I don't see your point whatsoever. This game was won by a godly perfect vortex- had nothing to do with air play whatsoever... time wasted.
In your first breath you call paying customers stupid and in the next discredit a well thought out post without addressing any of his points. Well done, you'll last long here.
This win was only Losira's fault, because he didnt micro well. Losira was ahead in eco and Upgrates and as Zerg, he is able to reproduce his army faster.
Without much pressure, its realy hard to win against Zerg in a macro game and you realy need alot of luck!
That game made me feel like HotS is coming too soon. The Mothership and the Carrier both seem to be finding a niche in PvZ, and they're both going to be gone before that role can really be explored if the current plans to drop them go through.
Watched the game, it was interesting, but I can't help but think: what would have happened if Losira was less shy, and pushed with his BL + infestors army when he reached 200/200.. instead of turtling for 6 more mins, getting upgrades, etc.. ?
To me it looks like there was a huge timing window where Brown had no good answer to his BL army. No MS/vortex yet, no templars/archons, only stalkers+colossi. So why didn't Losira push earlier, and just.. like.. win the game ?
On December 06 2011 17:31 Tobberoth wrote: It seems perfectly understandable that protoss SHOULD be playing macrostyle versus Zerg, and I'm surprised it has taken this long for pros to really start to shine using it. I mean, going for a fast deathball and attacking works, but what's even better? Getting a huge economy and thus forcing the zerg to attack into your deathball. The basic idea has always been that the zerg army melts to the deathball, but since the zerg has many more bases, he can in theory replenish fast enough to stop the deathball push... but if the toss has half the map, how will that even matter?
This is definitely the future of the matchup, and I hope that HotS doesn't screw that up.
you can't play the way Brown played in some maps..., and losira was playing for the late game, we don't really know how it would have beem, if losira decided to put some real pressure earlier...
On December 06 2011 17:31 Tobberoth wrote: It seems perfectly understandable that protoss SHOULD be playing macrostyle versus Zerg, and I'm surprised it has taken this long for pros to really start to shine using it. I mean, going for a fast deathball and attacking works, but what's even better? Getting a huge economy and thus forcing the zerg to attack into your deathball. The basic idea has always been that the zerg army melts to the deathball, but since the zerg has many more bases, he can in theory replenish fast enough to stop the deathball push... but if the toss has half the map, how will that even matter?
This is definitely the future of the matchup, and I hope that HotS doesn't screw that up.
you can't play the way Brown played in some maps..., and losira was playing for the late game, we don't really know how it would have beem, if losira decided to put some real pressure earlier...
Thing is though, we have been so used to the dogma being that zergs expand, protoss pressure. If protoss don't pressure, the zerg outmacro them. Isn't it kind of nice to imagine a matchup where it can be the other way around as well... where the zerg is forced to pressure the protoss.
It might indeed not work on all maps, but I don't think the point should be that Losira didn't pressure so an impossible build worked, the point should be that you can play protoss successfully in such a way that the zerg is forced to pressure the toss to not be outgamed.
On December 06 2011 16:04 Belisarius wrote: This thread makes me indescribably depressed about HotS.
Too true
To think that after a year and a half we are only just beginning to figure out how PvZ should look in the late game, and within a year all that will be flushed out and people have to start all over. And then two years after that the same thing happens. ='(
Should be fun in 5 years when we finally have a developed game though...
Tried this on ladder with pretty good succes. At first i was kinda unsure if this dies to a hydrapush but i managed to defend one so i think is quite safe too,
I'm obviously not gonna argue with NrGmonk who knows about a hundred times more then I do about this game but I want to throw something in here.I found the effective use of the archon toilet to be a huge dissapointment and for me, it completely ruined the game.
This mechanic has been declared by blizzard to be an exploit and I have to say that I agree. Obvisouly the patch implemented in 1.3.0 was ineffective due to air unit scattering slower then ground units. I thought it took all the depth out of the game and turned a balanced beautiful game into a farce.
I don't understand how people who take this game seriously can think that was a proper ending to the game. I want to honestly ask you NrGmonk, didn't you find the use of the archon toilet deplorable?
Archon Toilet deters Z from just running around with a 30 pack of Blord/Infestor and rolling everything P has. It is abusive indeed, but until you fix Protoss' shitty AA options then you really don't have a choice but to keep Archon Toilet in the game. HOTS will try and fix that with the Tempest, but I see that as being a huge failure likely.
Finally got a chance to see the VOD--really impressive how wrong the casters were about who was ahead. They were acting like Brown had next to no chance, when the game was actually dead even. Have they just never seen late-game PvZ?
Also, Losira's control in the big fight was awful. Non-GM NA ladder Zergs know better than to A-move all of their corruptors and overseers in 1 group on a mothership with archon support. Just splitting them up in 2 groups or sending the corruptors before the broodlords would have kept the game pretty even. It was like Losira had never seen late-game PvZ either.
I watched the first game. I think it's way way too early to think this is the "future of PvZ" or anything of the sort. I'm still pretty skeptical how such a build would hold up vs 3-base roach -> muta. The issue with Protoss macro has always been the difficulty in securing your 3rd base and beyond and defending multiple fronts with your relatively immobile army. Losira basically did no real harassment or flanking or multi-pronged attacks and was content to just macro up and try to fight head-on with max armies which is basically what a Protoss player wants.
As an aside, as a Protoss player, I think Vortex is a bit ridiculous. The Mothership is essentially a super Arbiter, so why not make Vortex an AoE Stasis? Even as an AoE Stasis I believe it would still serve its purpose as an effective counter to mass Broodlords. Sometimes it seems to me Blizzard just made units slightly different in Starcraft 2 just to be different so that it didn't seem like it was just a remake of BW to the detriment of game balance.
On December 07 2011 02:45 Skyro wrote: I watched the first game. I think it's way way too early to think this is the "future of PvZ" or anything of the sort. I'm still pretty skeptical how such a build would hold up vs 3-base roach -> muta. The issue with Protoss macro has always been the difficulty in securing your 3rd base and beyond and defending multiple fronts with your relatively immobile army. Losira basically did no real harassment or flanking or multi-pronged attacks and was content to just macro up and try to fight head-on with max armies which is basically what a Protoss player wants.
As an aside, as a Protoss player, I think Vortex is a bit ridiculous. The Mothership is essentially a super Arbiter, so why not make Vortex an AoE Stasis? Even as an AoE Stasis I believe it would still serve its purpose as an effective counter to mass Broodlords. Sometimes it seems to me Blizzard just made units slightly different in Starcraft 2 just to be different so that it didn't seem like it was just a remake of BW to the detriment of game balance.
Never said any of this was the future of PvZ. All of these "lessons" are just possibilities meant to widen the scope of PvZ.
On December 07 2011 01:59 kcdc wrote: Finally got a chance to see the VOD--really impressive how wrong the casters were about who was ahead. They were acting like Brown had next to no chance, when the game was actually dead even. Have they just never seen late-game PvZ?
Also, Losira's control in the big fight was awful. Non-GM NA ladder Zergs know better than to A-move all of their corruptors and overseers in 1 group on a mothership with archon support. Just splitting them up in 2 groups or sending the corruptors before the broodlords would have kept the game pretty even. It was like Losira had never seen late-game PvZ either.
I'm just a plat-diamond player so I'm gonna assume I'm wrong but it seems to me that off an equal economoy like in this game protoss has ways to counter broodlord infestor. Naming three:
a. Mass HT - feedback plus stroms kills the 1st army into archons for the follow up b. Voidray + HT - feedback the infestors and laugh at the exploding broodlords. c. Browns exact army in this game without the archon exploit - vortex half the army, kill the 1st half, wait, kill 2nd half.
It seems to me that most of Protoss experiance against broodlord/infestor is from an economical disadvantage, going 3base against 4 or 5. With the style of play shown by Brown here you reach the end game on at least 4 bases and at equal ground with the zerg. With 8-10 gas geysers the match up becomes very different.
Now, I want to make one thing clear, Brown played amazingly and as a pro-player he should use every single advantage he can get. I hold nothing against him for using the archon toilet exploit. However, I still think this mechanic is deeply flawed and should be removed, heck, blizzard supposedly removed it in 1.3.0 with the invulnrabillity patch to units leaving the vortex, I don't know if the fact that broodlords still don't scatter fast enough is intended or an oversight but I find it very unsatisfing to watch.
On December 07 2011 02:45 Skyro wrote: I watched the first game. I think it's way way too early to think this is the "future of PvZ" or anything of the sort. I'm still pretty skeptical how such a build would hold up vs 3-base roach -> muta. The issue with Protoss macro has always been the difficulty in securing your 3rd base and beyond and defending multiple fronts with your relatively immobile army. Losira basically did no real harassment or flanking or multi-pronged attacks and was content to just macro up and try to fight head-on with max armies which is basically what a Protoss player wants.
As an aside, as a Protoss player, I think Vortex is a bit ridiculous. The Mothership is essentially a super Arbiter, so why not make Vortex an AoE Stasis? Even as an AoE Stasis I believe it would still serve its purpose as an effective counter to mass Broodlords. Sometimes it seems to me Blizzard just made units slightly different in Starcraft 2 just to be different so that it didn't seem like it was just a remake of BW to the detriment of game balance.
I agree that vortex is unreasonably strong, but Zerg has some unreasonably strong advantages in the match-up as well. Zerg can easily secure a economic advantage, they have roaches which are insanely cost-efficient against every equal-cost Protoss ground composition, they have mutas which are almost impossible to deal with, and they have a production mechanic which allows them to completely flip their composition less than a minute's game time.
Because Zerg can get so far ahead in bases and send endless waves of whatever composition they choose, Protoss needs some "over-powered" end-game stuff that is cost-efficient against anything Z throws at them.
On December 07 2011 01:59 kcdc wrote: Finally got a chance to see the VOD--really impressive how wrong the casters were about who was ahead. They were acting like Brown had next to no chance, when the game was actually dead even. Have they just never seen late-game PvZ?
Also, Losira's control in the big fight was awful. Non-GM NA ladder Zergs know better than to A-move all of their corruptors and overseers in 1 group on a mothership with archon support. Just splitting them up in 2 groups or sending the corruptors before the broodlords would have kept the game pretty even. It was like Losira had never seen late-game PvZ either.
I'm just a plat-diamond player so I'm gonna assume I'm wrong but it seems to me that off an equal economoy like in this game protoss has ways to counter broodlord infestor. Naming three:
a. Mass HT - feedback plus stroms kills the 1st army into archons for the follow up b. Voidray + HT - feedback the infestors and laugh at the exploding broodlords. c. Browns exact army in this game without the archon exploit - vortex half the army, kill the 1st half, wait, kill 2nd half.
It seems to me that most of Protoss experiance against broodlord/infestor is from an economical disadvantage, going 3base against 4 or 5. With the style of play shown by Brown here you reach the end game on at least 4 bases and at equal ground with the zerg. With 8-10 gas geysers the match up becomes very different.
Now, I want to make one thing clear, Brown played amazingly and as a pro-player he should use every single advantage he can get. I hold nothing against him for using the archon toilet exploit. However, I still think this mechanic is deeply flawed and should be removed, heck, blizzard supposedly removed it in 1.3.0 with the invulnrabillity patch to units leaving the vortex, I don't know if the fact that broodlords still don't scatter fast enough is intended or an oversight but I find it very unsatisfing to watch.
Yes, Protoss does have ways to deal with that composition besides the super archon toilet that Brown managed to land in that game (although your suggestions aren't the best ways to do it--feedback doesn't have as much range as you'd need), but you have to remember that those sorts of archon toilets are a mistake on the Zerg's part. If Zerg controls better, those archon toilets can't happen. People see archon toilets like that and think it's way overpowered, but what really happened is that Losira made a huge micro mistake, and Brown simply punished that mistake.
A good analogy for that level of micro mistake might be in ZvZ where one player goes muta and the other goes roach-infestor. If the mass muta player screws up horribly and lets 20 mutas get caught in a fungal, he quickly loses. The lesson here isn't that mutas don't work in ZvZ--it's that you shouldn't micro them badly and lose them all in 1 spell.
On December 07 2011 02:45 Skyro wrote: I watched the first game. I think it's way way too early to think this is the "future of PvZ" or anything of the sort. I'm still pretty skeptical how such a build would hold up vs 3-base roach -> muta. The issue with Protoss macro has always been the difficulty in securing your 3rd base and beyond and defending multiple fronts with your relatively immobile army. Losira basically did no real harassment or flanking or multi-pronged attacks and was content to just macro up and try to fight head-on with max armies which is basically what a Protoss player wants.
As an aside, as a Protoss player, I think Vortex is a bit ridiculous. The Mothership is essentially a super Arbiter, so why not make Vortex an AoE Stasis? Even as an AoE Stasis I believe it would still serve its purpose as an effective counter to mass Broodlords. Sometimes it seems to me Blizzard just made units slightly different in Starcraft 2 just to be different so that it didn't seem like it was just a remake of BW to the detriment of game balance.
I agree that vortex is unreasonably strong, but Zerg has some unreasonably strong advantages in the match-up as well. Zerg can easily secure a economic advantage, they have roaches which are insanely cost-efficient against every equal-cost Protoss ground composition, they have mutas which are almost impossible to deal with, and they have a production mechanic which allows them to completely flip their composition less than a minute's game time.
Because Zerg can get so far ahead in bases and send endless waves of whatever composition they choose, Protoss needs some "over-powered" end-game stuff that is cost-efficient against anything Z throws at them.
I agree with all your points. My point was that Broodlord clumping + Archon splash makes it too strong and is obviously not intended by Blizzard as evidenced by their attempt to remove it with the invulnerability fix. If it were a simple stasis effect ala the Arbiter spell which did not auto-clump units, it would still be an incrediblely powerful spell but not one that is simple "I win" button.
And in my mind all the talk of "attacking from multiple fronts with multiple control groups" is not actually going to be that effective in practice. Broodlords move at a snail's pace, and their strength is really from attacking from a united front. If they are split and used to attack from different fronts the mobility of Blink Stalkers can abuse that. I'm also skeptical you could just sacrifice waves of corruptors to kill the mothership as that will be a hugely inefficient trade although it could possibly work if the zerg had an enormous bank, but there is just too many variables that play against the zerg here, i.e. the protoss player could just make a metric ton of cannons and sit there until his next mothership spawns or something.
edit: I also agree with the other people who say people are overemphasizing Losira's apparent "mistake." No he shouldn't have thrown his Broodlords into the Vortex, but ask yourself this question, "would it have made any difference if he didn't"? The game was already lost the moment the Vortex hit, regardless of what Losira's following decisions were.
On December 07 2011 02:45 Skyro wrote: I watched the first game. I think it's way way too early to think this is the "future of PvZ" or anything of the sort. I'm still pretty skeptical how such a build would hold up vs 3-base roach -> muta. The issue with Protoss macro has always been the difficulty in securing your 3rd base and beyond and defending multiple fronts with your relatively immobile army. Losira basically did no real harassment or flanking or multi-pronged attacks and was content to just macro up and try to fight head-on with max armies which is basically what a Protoss player wants.
As an aside, as a Protoss player, I think Vortex is a bit ridiculous. The Mothership is essentially a super Arbiter, so why not make Vortex an AoE Stasis? Even as an AoE Stasis I believe it would still serve its purpose as an effective counter to mass Broodlords. Sometimes it seems to me Blizzard just made units slightly different in Starcraft 2 just to be different so that it didn't seem like it was just a remake of BW to the detriment of game balance.
I agree that vortex is unreasonably strong, but Zerg has some unreasonably strong advantages in the match-up as well. Zerg can easily secure a economic advantage, they have roaches which are insanely cost-efficient against every equal-cost Protoss ground composition, they have mutas which are almost impossible to deal with, and they have a production mechanic which allows them to completely flip their composition less than a minute's game time.
Because Zerg can get so far ahead in bases and send endless waves of whatever composition they choose, Protoss needs some "over-powered" end-game stuff that is cost-efficient against anything Z throws at them.
I agree with all your points. My point was that Broodlord clumping + Archon splash makes it too strong and is obviously not intended by Blizzard as evidenced by their attempt to remove it with the invulnerability fix. If it were a simple stasis effect ala the Arbiter spell which did not auto-clump units, it would still be an incrediblely powerful spell but not one that is simple "I win" button.
And in my mind all the talk of "attacking from multiple fronts with multiple control groups" is not actually going to be that effective in practice. Broodlords move at a snail's pace, and their strength is really from attacking from a united front. If they are split and used to attack from different fronts the mobility of Blink Stalkers can abuse that. I'm also skeptical you could just sacrifice waves of corruptors to kill the mothership as that will be a hugely inefficient trade although it could possibly work if the zerg had an enormous bank, but there is just too many variables that play against the zerg here, i.e. the protoss player could just make a metric ton of cannons and sit there until his next mothership spawns or something.
edit: I also agree with the other people who say people are overemphasizing Losira's apparent "mistake." No he shouldn't have thrown his Broodlords into the Vortex, but ask yourself this question, "would it have made any difference if he didn't"? The game was already lost the moment the Vortex hit, regardless of what Losira's following decisions were.
Splitting broods and blink stalker mobility really have nothing to do with each other, if you had a point elaborate a bit more. The basic premise is that just before or during an engagement make sure that your broodlords are positioned in such a way that a vortex doesn't end the game for you. Having your broodlords separated by itself doesn't really accomplish much.
The cannon point doesn't make a lot of sense to me, zerg could do the same thing, except move the spines across the map or just expand again and begin to stockpile larva/resources.
The obvious answer to your question of "would it have made any difference if he didn't?" is yes. He had two infestors, which did have energy for two fungals. Throwing everything into the vortex meant guaranteed death for the rest of his units. Had he kept them out he would have traded WAY more efficiently by dropping a couple fungals and letting the brood lords do damage. Sending them into the vortex just ensures that they die instantly. Also the trade would have gone way worse for Brown if Losira had kept an overseer out of the vortex or just made more of them and controlled them better.
On December 06 2011 03:24 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: this reminds me a lot of incontrol's play such an amazing ZvP although incontrol is probably above this level
LOL incontrol above brown? nice one ^^ this style of PvZ needs to gain some mainstream appeal, too bad mothership won't be available in HotS
On December 07 2011 02:45 Skyro wrote: I watched the first game. I think it's way way too early to think this is the "future of PvZ" or anything of the sort. I'm still pretty skeptical how such a build would hold up vs 3-base roach -> muta. The issue with Protoss macro has always been the difficulty in securing your 3rd base and beyond and defending multiple fronts with your relatively immobile army. Losira basically did no real harassment or flanking or multi-pronged attacks and was content to just macro up and try to fight head-on with max armies which is basically what a Protoss player wants.
As an aside, as a Protoss player, I think Vortex is a bit ridiculous. The Mothership is essentially a super Arbiter, so why not make Vortex an AoE Stasis? Even as an AoE Stasis I believe it would still serve its purpose as an effective counter to mass Broodlords. Sometimes it seems to me Blizzard just made units slightly different in Starcraft 2 just to be different so that it didn't seem like it was just a remake of BW to the detriment of game balance.
I agree that vortex is unreasonably strong, but Zerg has some unreasonably strong advantages in the match-up as well. Zerg can easily secure a economic advantage, they have roaches which are insanely cost-efficient against every equal-cost Protoss ground composition, they have mutas which are almost impossible to deal with, and they have a production mechanic which allows them to completely flip their composition less than a minute's game time.
Because Zerg can get so far ahead in bases and send endless waves of whatever composition they choose, Protoss needs some "over-powered" end-game stuff that is cost-efficient against anything Z throws at them.
I agree with all your points. My point was that Broodlord clumping + Archon splash makes it too strong and is obviously not intended by Blizzard as evidenced by their attempt to remove it with the invulnerability fix. If it were a simple stasis effect ala the Arbiter spell which did not auto-clump units, it would still be an incrediblely powerful spell but not one that is simple "I win" button.
And in my mind all the talk of "attacking from multiple fronts with multiple control groups" is not actually going to be that effective in practice. Broodlords move at a snail's pace, and their strength is really from attacking from a united front. If they are split and used to attack from different fronts the mobility of Blink Stalkers can abuse that. I'm also skeptical you could just sacrifice waves of corruptors to kill the mothership as that will be a hugely inefficient trade although it could possibly work if the zerg had an enormous bank, but there is just too many variables that play against the zerg here, i.e. the protoss player could just make a metric ton of cannons and sit there until his next mothership spawns or something.
edit: I also agree with the other people who say people are overemphasizing Losira's apparent "mistake." No he shouldn't have thrown his Broodlords into the Vortex, but ask yourself this question, "would it have made any difference if he didn't"? The game was already lost the moment the Vortex hit, regardless of what Losira's following decisions were.
Splitting broods and blink stalker mobility really have nothing to do with each other, if you had a point elaborate a bit more. The basic premise is that just before or during an engagement make sure that your broodlords are positioned in such a way that a vortex doesn't end the game for you. Having your broodlords separated by itself doesn't really accomplish much.
The cannon point doesn't make a lot of sense to me, zerg could do the same thing, except move the spines across the map or just expand again and begin to stockpile larva/resources.
The obvious answer to your question of "would it have made any difference if he didn't?" is yes. He had two infestors, which did have energy for two fungals. Throwing everything into the vortex meant guaranteed death for the rest of his units. Had he kept them out he would have traded WAY more efficiently by dropping a couple fungals and letting the brood lords do damage. Sending them into the vortex just ensures that they die instantly. Also the trade would have gone way worse for Brown if Losira had kept an overseer out of the vortex or just made more of them and controlled them better.
My point was Broodlords that are too spread out can be picked off by blink stalkers, too clumped up they are owned by vortex. Sure there is probably an optimal middle-ground, but IMO the Protoss army is just going to win if they don't mess up their Vortex.
And yes, there are things Losira could have done better that would have made a difference in perhap the units lost tab or what have you, but you don't honestly believe Losira had any chance of winning, which is the only stat that matters, after that vortex hit, do you? Before the Vortex yes, but after? No chance.
The point about the cannons is just speculation on my part. As a Protoss player I have no idea how a Zerg who just suicides waves of Corruptors to kill a Mothership would play out as I've never actually seen it or have it done to me. I just remain skeptical that highly inefficient trades to kill a Mothership would play out in the Zerg's favor as this was a suggested "counter" to the Mothership in this thread.
And remember, I completely agree the only truly effective way to deal with BL/Infestor is Vortex. The only issue I have is that right now you can abuse a clearly unintended mechanic of Vortex via auto-clumping + Archon splash. The Mothership is clearly SC2's version of the Arbiter, and IMO Vortex was simply Blizzard's way of being cute and trying to add a coolness factor to Stasis. Vortex is basically a Stasis which auto-clumps units. If I were Blizzard I would simply make Vortex not auto-clump units and return them to their original positions when they were Vortex'ed and remove the current invulnerability period for units coming out of the Vortex. If this were implemented Vortex would still be a highly effective counter to mass Broodlords IMO and it wouldn't be nearly as ridiculous as it currently is.
AoE stasis would be much weaker. It would change the balance of the MU. But maybe that's necessary--tough to say for now. And HotS will change everything anyway.
As for whether vortex is OP, I think we need to see Zerg players practice against it a lot before deciding that they don't have a good way to deal with it. I spent a while getting a mothership in most of my PvZ's trying to exploit the archon toilet, and I was surprised at how differently Zerg players handled it. Some had no idea how to play against it and I just rolled them, but others clearly had experience and split their units and sent in corruptors first to absorb the vortexes.
Corruptors, for the most part, don't die if they get vortexed. Z loses a chunk of them, but the invulnerability period spreads them out enough that most get away even against big archon balls. All Z has to do is force P to spend his vortex energy on corruptors before Z engages.
Few people were doing those strategies at the time, so you can really tell which Zerg players had experience and which didn't. The Zergs that had practice against mothership held their ground just fine while those who didn't know what to do crumbled quickly.
On December 07 2011 05:26 kcdc wrote: AoE stasis would be much weaker. It would change the balance of the MU. But maybe that's necessary--tough to say for now. And HotS will change everything anyway.
As for whether vortex is OP, I think we need to see Zerg players practice against it a lot before deciding that they don't have a good way to deal with it. I spent a while getting a mothership in most of my PvZ's trying to exploit the archon toilet, and I was surprised at how differently Zerg players handled it. Some had no idea how to play against it and I just rolled them, but others clearly had experience and split their units and sent in corruptors first to absorb the vortexes.
Corruptors, for the most part, don't die if they get vortexed. Z loses a chunk of them, but the invulnerability period spreads them out enough that most get away even against big archon balls. All Z has to do is force P to spend his vortex energy on corruptors before Z engages.
Few people were doing those strategies at the time, so you can really tell which Zerg players had experience and which didn't. The Zergs that had practice against mothership held their ground just fine while those who didn't know what to do crumbled quickly.
I agree with this. We are just barely getting consistent long ZvP's with motherships so it's really way too soon to say whether it's completely broken or not. Losira handled it in the worst way possible that game.
Losira just didn't seem to play well or adapt to Brown's style. He tried a few ling run bys but never tried to punish the fast 3rd or 4ths. He didn't send in roaches to the new bases, or use mutas, drops, or nydus for harassment or to split up Brown's army. I'm not saying he should have done all those things but at least one so he the Protoss wouldn't be on equal or close to equal bases. And of course he ran his entire broodlord fleet into a vortex.
I'd like to see people playing the same style and having zergs react in a variety of ways so we can tell how this style works or does not work. I will check out those rsvp replays if he plays like Brown against a bunch of high level zergs.
On December 06 2011 03:54 kcdc wrote: send ALL of their units into a single vortex, and then everything explodes. That's the micro equivalent of sending 70 banelings next to a tank line and then hitting hold position. Of course it looks one-sided.
I am curious how Brown deals with a roach spam off of 3 bases, or just more aggressive zergs in general. Are there any more replays/vods available of Brown holding off heavy aggression while he is taking those early 3rds and 4ths?
It's not that Vortex is really good, its that Leenock threw all his stuff into the vortex. I mean zerg has two options against vortex: A) Lose half your army B) Lose all of your army In this case, Leenock chose B. Doesn't matter, if you lose one half of your army to vortex then the other half will die instantly. Can't wait until HOTS. Removing the mothership is good because the design of the mothership is flawed. Too long have people thought that the mothership was a joke. Its really not, the only issue I see it is having it so slow. That doesnt even matter anyway, Protoss has one of the most mobile units in the game (blink stalkers) so they can deal with harass very well should the situation arise. Also, I dont think this should only be used in PvZ. Why not PvT? Vortex the vikings and, as you know, Colossus does pretty well against bio. In PvP, there is the rare macro game. Most people see it as whoever has the most colossus. While, honestly, that is true, you can remove half of the opponents colossus for 400/400. Pretty big deal.
On December 07 2011 10:21 Lebzetu wrote: It's not that Vortex is really good, its that Leenock threw all his stuff into the vortex. I mean zerg has two options against vortex: A) Lose half your army B) Lose all of your army In this case, Leenock chose B.
On December 07 2011 02:45 Skyro wrote: I watched the first game. I think it's way way too early to think this is the "future of PvZ" or anything of the sort. I'm still pretty skeptical how such a build would hold up vs 3-base roach -> muta. The issue with Protoss macro has always been the difficulty in securing your 3rd base and beyond and defending multiple fronts with your relatively immobile army. Losira basically did no real harassment or flanking or multi-pronged attacks and was content to just macro up and try to fight head-on with max armies which is basically what a Protoss player wants.
As an aside, as a Protoss player, I think Vortex is a bit ridiculous. The Mothership is essentially a super Arbiter, so why not make Vortex an AoE Stasis? Even as an AoE Stasis I believe it would still serve its purpose as an effective counter to mass Broodlords. Sometimes it seems to me Blizzard just made units slightly different in Starcraft 2 just to be different so that it didn't seem like it was just a remake of BW to the detriment of game balance.
I agree that vortex is unreasonably strong, but Zerg has some unreasonably strong advantages in the match-up as well. Zerg can easily secure a economic advantage, they have roaches which are insanely cost-efficient against every equal-cost Protoss ground composition, they have mutas which are almost impossible to deal with, and they have a production mechanic which allows them to completely flip their composition less than a minute's game time.
Because Zerg can get so far ahead in bases and send endless waves of whatever composition they choose, Protoss needs some "over-powered" end-game stuff that is cost-efficient against anything Z throws at them.
I agree with all your points. My point was that Broodlord clumping + Archon splash makes it too strong and is obviously not intended by Blizzard as evidenced by their attempt to remove it with the invulnerability fix. If it were a simple stasis effect ala the Arbiter spell which did not auto-clump units, it would still be an incrediblely powerful spell but not one that is simple "I win" button.
And in my mind all the talk of "attacking from multiple fronts with multiple control groups" is not actually going to be that effective in practice. Broodlords move at a snail's pace, and their strength is really from attacking from a united front. If they are split and used to attack from different fronts the mobility of Blink Stalkers can abuse that. I'm also skeptical you could just sacrifice waves of corruptors to kill the mothership as that will be a hugely inefficient trade although it could possibly work if the zerg had an enormous bank, but there is just too many variables that play against the zerg here, i.e. the protoss player could just make a metric ton of cannons and sit there until his next mothership spawns or something.
edit: I also agree with the other people who say people are overemphasizing Losira's apparent "mistake." No he shouldn't have thrown his Broodlords into the Vortex, but ask yourself this question, "would it have made any difference if he didn't"? The game was already lost the moment the Vortex hit, regardless of what Losira's following decisions were.
Splitting broods and blink stalker mobility really have nothing to do with each other, if you had a point elaborate a bit more. The basic premise is that just before or during an engagement make sure that your broodlords are positioned in such a way that a vortex doesn't end the game for you. Having your broodlords separated by itself doesn't really accomplish much.
The cannon point doesn't make a lot of sense to me, zerg could do the same thing, except move the spines across the map or just expand again and begin to stockpile larva/resources.
The obvious answer to your question of "would it have made any difference if he didn't?" is yes. He had two infestors, which did have energy for two fungals. Throwing everything into the vortex meant guaranteed death for the rest of his units. Had he kept them out he would have traded WAY more efficiently by dropping a couple fungals and letting the brood lords do damage. Sending them into the vortex just ensures that they die instantly. Also the trade would have gone way worse for Brown if Losira had kept an overseer out of the vortex or just made more of them and controlled them better.
My point was Broodlords that are too spread out can be picked off by blink stalkers, too clumped up they are owned by vortex. Sure there is probably an optimal middle-ground, but IMO the Protoss army is just going to win if they don't mess up their Vortex.
And yes, there are things Losira could have done better that would have made a difference in perhap the units lost tab or what have you, but you don't honestly believe Losira had any chance of winning, which is the only stat that matters, after that vortex hit, do you? Before the Vortex yes, but after? No chance.
The point about the cannons is just speculation on my part. As a Protoss player I have no idea how a Zerg who just suicides waves of Corruptors to kill a Mothership would play out as I've never actually seen it or have it done to me. I just remain skeptical that highly inefficient trades to kill a Mothership would play out in the Zerg's favor as this was a suggested "counter" to the Mothership in this thread.
And remember, I completely agree the only truly effective way to deal with BL/Infestor is Vortex. The only issue I have is that right now you can abuse a clearly unintended mechanic of Vortex via auto-clumping + Archon splash. The Mothership is clearly SC2's version of the Arbiter, and IMO Vortex was simply Blizzard's way of being cute and trying to add a coolness factor to Stasis. Vortex is basically a Stasis which auto-clumps units. If I were Blizzard I would simply make Vortex not auto-clump units and return them to their original positions when they were Vortex'ed and remove the current invulnerability period for units coming out of the Vortex. If this were implemented Vortex would still be a highly effective counter to mass Broodlords IMO and it wouldn't be nearly as ridiculous as it currently is.
I see what you mean about the broodlord spread now. I believe however, what people are talking about is spreading them so that during the fight they don't get destroyed. Not necessarily just keeping them way apart. I still think that if losira hadn't got ALL of his corruptors vortexed it would have been fine. Perhaps in that game specifically it was over since all his corruptors were going to die and the mothership would be able to shield the ground units since both of the overseers went down as well. I can't however say that he would not have been in a better position had he saved his broodlords and just traded armies instead of losing his so inefficiently.
I have to disagree with the point regarding zergs trading inefficiently. If you look at a resources lost tab in a pvz, a lot of the time you see it way in favor of the protoss yet zergs are still winning. I feel like zerg need to better use their ability to stockpile production and the ability to swap tech more effectively as a whole. In brown vs losira, this didn't come into play much, but had losira just forced a vortex early on from the mothership by harassing with his corruptors, the fight with his broods would have been much better for him.
I think vortex is possibly game ending, but i also feel that maxed pure corruptor broodlord is almost impossible to deal with as protoss. This is largely due to protoss ground units being inefficient after a certain point, yet toss can't swap to air as fast as zerg can.
At the moment, I feel that vortex is not that much different from forcefields in the mid/late game. If you fuck it up, you're likely to lose, if not, you'll win pretty convincingly.
I can't comment on the broodwar/stasis things as I don't have much broodwar experience.
On December 07 2011 10:21 Lebzetu wrote: It's not that Vortex is really good, its that Leenock threw all his stuff into the vortex. I mean zerg has two options against vortex: A) Lose half your army B) Lose all of your army In this case, Leenock chose B.
Err...Losira, not Leenock.
whoops, my bad. They both begin with L? Thats my excuse ^.^
I have to say, I just can't agree with this analysis of the game.
When it comes down to it, the taking of extra expansions was dangerous, and he let Losira get to a HUGE macro level with ENORMOUS upgrades and a very large bank. I don't think that the proof is in the pudding in this case.
While Brown won, I have to agree with Moletrap and Kaldor in saying that Brown was only able to win because he had that amazing Archon toilet which DESTROYED every broodlord and corruptor Losira had. If Losira had been more responsible (try microing) the act of letting Losira build up infinitely would not have been a wise one. While I appreciate the analysis of the game, and I do think that there's much to learn from Brown, I just still can't fully agree with you that no two-base timing is wise. I don't think it needs to be any kind of all in timing, but I do think it's unwise to let a Zerg player build up like Losira did. Don't get me wrong, I think that this style is valuable, but if Losira had not decided to let Brown macro up, it would have been difficult for him, I think. I CERTAINLY don't think that this style can be used as the new end-all-be-all of ZvP. It has simply too many dangers, I believe, in agreement with Tasteless, Artosis, Moletrap, and Kaldor.
Don't get me wrong though, nice guide and I learned a lot.
I liked this analysis but I think you should also take in to account that the way brown played, there were a lot of moments given his army size with his quick expansions that he seemed very very vulnerable. This build seems like it takes perfect defense and could be a bit fragile to more in your face zerg aggression.
Its really tough to say too much about this passive macro style until we see more than just this game so I'm looking forward to more brown vs zerg games. It could also be that brown choose to never be aggressive as the game progressed rather than pre-emptively plan to play passive vs zerg. He may have some tells/reads/scouts that would influence his tech and expo choices that we aren't completely aware of yet.
On December 07 2011 12:28 Nuclease wrote: I have to say, I just can't agree with this analysis of the game.
When it comes down to it, the taking of extra expansions was dangerous, and he let Losira get to a HUGE macro level with ENORMOUS upgrades and a very large bank. I don't think that the proof is in the pudding in this case.
While Brown won, I have to agree with Moletrap and Kaldor in saying that Brown was only able to win because he had that amazing Archon toilet which DESTROYED every broodlord and corruptor Losira had. If Losira had been more responsible (try microing) the act of letting Losira build up infinitely would not have been a wise one. While I appreciate the analysis of the game, and I do think that there's much to learn from Brown, I just still can't fully agree with you that no two-base timing is wise. I don't think it needs to be any kind of all in timing, but I do think it's unwise to let a Zerg player build up like Losira did. Don't get me wrong, I think that this style is valuable, but if Losira had not decided to let Brown macro up, it would have been difficult for him, I think. I CERTAINLY don't think that this style can be used as the new end-all-be-all of ZvP. It has simply too many dangers, I believe, in agreement with Tasteless, Artosis, Moletrap, and Kaldor.
Don't get me wrong though, nice guide and I learned a lot.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Still enjoying this conversation. I don't have the upper-level experience/authority to weigh in. I generally prefer HT to colossus, but Monk's point about the roach/bling switch is well taken. Vortex/carriers is working wonders for me in diamond if the game goes to 3.5-4 base.
I feel like 3 base+ you should start relying on templar almost exclusively to try and do damage. They aren't as easily countered and can't be killed by a zerg production cycle of units.
Great guide btw.
Also
On December 09 2011 15:54 Seeker wrote: Off Topic:
Why are some people posting with blue backgrounds?
BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T GIVE A F@#!
Jokes aside, the posters with blue backgrounds are the higher rated players with a good posting history. Usually backed up by guides and a good amount of play experience.
On December 09 2011 15:57 CaptainHaz wrote: I feel like 3 base+ you should start relying on templar almost exclusively to try and do damage. They aren't as easily countered and can't be killed by a zerg production cycle of units.
On December 09 2011 15:54 Seeker wrote: Off Topic:
Why are some people posting with blue backgrounds?
BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T GIVE A F@#!
Jokes aside, the posters with blue backgrounds are the higher rated players with a good posting history. Usually backed up by guides and a good amount of play experience.
Who determines all these factors are true for said person?
On December 09 2011 15:57 CaptainHaz wrote: I feel like 3 base+ you should start relying on templar almost exclusively to try and do damage. They aren't as easily countered and can't be killed by a zerg production cycle of units.
Great guide btw.
Also
On December 09 2011 15:54 Seeker wrote: Off Topic:
Why are some people posting with blue backgrounds?
BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T GIVE A F@#!
Jokes aside, the posters with blue backgrounds are the higher rated players with a good posting history. Usually backed up by guides and a good amount of play experience.
Who determines all these factors are true for said person?
It is a mixture of the strategy forum mods and community recommendations.
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.
I agree with monk here, kcdc's assertion that HT are generally better vs zerg is off imo. HT can be great but there are many situations where colossi are just better. The problem with HT imo is that they require to be mixed with zealots because of gas constraints. Zealots can be fine in PvZ but against roach based compositions they just suck balls. 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.
When I play zealot/immortal/ht style against zerg it works fine unless they switch to full ranged unit usage (roach/infestor with later broods and some hydra). Pushing against them on creep is really hard because of kiting roaches (you lack the colossi to deal with that properly) and when they finally reach hive you have a problem: you need lots of immortals to deal with roach but you also need enough stalkers to deal with broods, just a very difficult balance imo. Either way it is a viable playstyle perhaps but I just don't like it too much when i'm still in the dark if they are going roach or zergling based. If they end up going roach you'll probably need dual robo for enough immortals anyway at which point I think: why not simply go some colossi instead of ht then?
The overall lack of synergy between zealots and sentries against zerg is also a reason I just prefer stalker/sentry/colo styles. Colo play might be more vulnerable to muta but if you open stargate first with some phoenix for harass you already get a slight edge against that.
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.
I agree with monk here, kcdc's assertion that HT are generally better vs zerg is off imo. HT can be great but there are many situations where colossi are just better. The problem with HT imo is that they require to be mixed with zealots because of gas constraints. Zealots can be fine in PvZ but against roach based compositions they just suck balls. 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.
When I play zealot/immortal/ht style against zerg it works fine unless they switch to full ranged unit usage (roach/infestor with later broods and some hydra). Pushing against them on creep is really hard because of kiting roaches (you lack the colossi to deal with that properly) and when they finally reach hive you have a problem: you need lots of immortals to deal with roach but you also need enough stalkers to deal with broods, just a very difficult balance imo. Either way it is a viable playstyle perhaps but I just don't like it too much when i'm still in the dark if they are going roach or zergling based. If they end up going roach you'll probably need dual robo for enough immortals anyway at which point I think: why not simply go some colossi instead of ht then?
The overall lack of synergy between zealots and sentries against zerg is also a reason I just prefer stalker/sentry/colo styles. Colo play might be more vulnerable to muta but if you open stargate first with some phoenix for harass you already get a slight edge against that.
I think that late game exchanges really favor IST more than SSC since zealots are basically supplementing sentries as melee forcefields. IST allows you to actually engage more cost effectively IMO since either the zerg is going to be eating storms, or moving out of them effectively reducing his army DPS. I do think a healthy stalker count is important though. After about 140 supply or so zealots stop being efficient even with charge. In addition to efficiency, corruptors become completely useless against this composition, there is no hard counter that zerg has for templar.
Basically the zealot count shouldn't be so high to make it your primary damage dealer. You want immortals/stalker/templars for that. This is also speaking 3+bases, I think stalker/colossus is quite fine when your gas income is limited.
@ captainhaz, I guess it really depends on the map, the zerg composition and your preference with either style. I find SSC much better against roach based play because it lets me get and defend my third much easier, you do rely on good forcefields more with it though. With IST you don't really need forcefields and the playstyle thus feels relatively better on open maps like tal darim. Zealot pressure also transitions much better into IST than SSC. If you want to use carriers/mothership IST is also better than SSC perhaps because corruptors become harder to use for them. SSC forces them into some corruptors anyway while IST makes choosing the right number of corruptors very hard for them. IST also has more templars thus archons to abuse the mothership too.
I guess I have to practice straight IST more but I find it difficult to hold a third with it against potential roach pressure, perhaps quick immortals do the trick. Immortals can hit roaches from behind a wall since they got range 6 without being hit themselves.. Perhaps that's the trick to abuse to making that style work.
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.
On December 06 2011 05:27 darkscream wrote: I don't think this is really revolutionary. Lots of people do early 3rd, it can be punished. Lots of people make motherships; splitting your army defeats vortex. Carriers actually are a waste of money (Adding more void rays would have been better), and it just reinforces the idea that zerg only needs to make 3/3 corruptors and infestors to beat protoss in the late game...
Glad to see another good protoss re-surface but it's not like his play just created a bunch of hard and fast rules overnight. I like the many-observers idea but I don't think it will catch on either - nor are his ideas totally original. The fake 4zealot poke and the light voidray pheonix into a third is standard play on the ladder for weeks.. And like most expand-behind-soft-contain strats the shit crumbles to the correct roach timings so, I guess we'll have to see if there is actually something to be learned in the coming weeks.
No, just no. His fast 3rd is hard to punish without him seeing it coming, and carriers are NOT a waste of money in any sense. For you to do ANYTHING against 4-5 carriers you need to be focus firing with your corruptors which lets the Toss easily vortex them. They're weak by themselves but when added to a composition that counters hydras (colossus) and corruptors (vortex/archons) they're insanely strong. Void rays are so, so, so, SO much worse late-game that it pains me to see Protoss players still build them as a counter.
3+ obs should be standard, with good control the small investment in 1-2 more obs is easily worth it.
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.
Well they are virtually equal. Roaches have 1 armor on their entire hp, zealots only on 2/3rd. Also gas intake is about as fast as mineral intake so you can't really say minerals are 'cheaper'. The point is pretty moot though, i only stated it to show that storming on top of roaches fighting zealots is usually not going to do much good, because you are likely to hit as much zealots as roaches often. Unlike zealots vs marines where storming both is a pretty good deal given marines have 110 hp for 100 mins vs 150 for zeals with 100 min.
On December 09 2011 20:18 Markwerf wrote: The problem with HT imo is that they require to be mixed with zealots because of gas constraints. Zealots can be fine in PvZ but against roach based compositions they just suck balls. 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.
When I play zealot/immortal/ht style against zerg it works fine unless they switch to full ranged unit usage (roach/infestor with later broods and some hydra). Pushing against them on creep is really hard because of kiting roaches (you lack the colossi to deal with that properly) and when they finally reach hive you have a problem: you need lots of immortals to deal with roach but you also need enough stalkers to deal with broods, just a very difficult balance imo. Either way it is a viable playstyle perhaps but I just don't like it too much when i'm still in the dark if they are going roach or zergling based. If they end up going roach you'll probably need dual robo for enough immortals anyway at which point I think: why not simply go some colossi instead of ht then?
The overall lack of synergy between zealots and sentries against zerg is also a reason I just prefer stalker/sentry/colo styles. Colo play might be more vulnerable to muta but if you open stargate first with some phoenix for harass you already get a slight edge against that.
First, I should say that I play macro PvZ without sentries if at all possible. My though process is that they're wasted spending if Z goes mutas or infestors, so I avoid spending on them in early game before I know Z's tech path. In mid-game, they're fine if Z commits to roaches, but by that point, I think there's better options for your gas (void rays, immortals, templar, upgrades, tech).
If you play that style, zealots are one of P's best units vs roaches. They tank and do a ton of DPS. It's a misconception to say zealots suck against roaches. People say that because they don't give their zealots void ray support.
Against roach+infestor, colossi are probably better. But you can handle that comp with a mixture of chargelots, immortals, templar, and blink stalkers to snipe infestors.
Your issue with hive tech seems ill-formed. Immortals are bad against broodlords, sure, but so are blink stalkers. If you're fighting broodlords with blink stalkers, you've let Z hit a timing window where you don't have the right unit composition to deal with his. You want to drop your fleet beacon as soon as you see Z going hive.
I'll say that I copied my PvZ style from rsvp (one of the best NA Protoss and whose strongest MU is PvZ), and I was terrible at the MU before I started dropping the sentries and relying on zealot+void. Now PvZ might be my strongest MU. I think that given enough time, we'll see the metagame shift toward this style because it's better able to adapt to the variety of looks that Z can give you in the mid-game, and it's more efficiently geared to end-game.
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.
Well they are virtually equal. Roaches have 1 armor on their entire hp, zealots only on 2/3rd. Also gas intake is about as fast as mineral intake so you can't really say minerals are 'cheaper'. The point is pretty moot though, i only stated it to show that storming on top of roaches fighting zealots is usually not going to do much good, because you are likely to hit as much zealots as roaches often. Unlike zealots vs marines where storming both is a pretty good deal given marines have 110 hp for 100 mins vs 150 for zeals with 100 min.
Storm isn't for the roaches--it's for the hydras. Voids protect the zealots, templar protect the voids, and zealots protect the templar. Immortals boost the DPS.
On December 10 2011 00:19 kcdc wrote: First, I should say that I play macro PvZ without sentries if at all possible. My though process is that they're wasted spending if Z goes mutas or infestors, so I avoid spending on them in early game before I know Z's tech path. In mid-game, they're fine if Z commits to roaches, but by that point, I think there's better options for your gas (void rays, immortals, templar, upgrades, tech).
Isn't guardian shield more or less OP against mutas? It cuts the damage hardcore.
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.
Ht are much harder to get out than colossi. The first problem is that you have to do a specific tech pattern to get HT out. Every high level HT opener I've seen starts with a stargate. On the other hand, there's an innumerable number of ways to get out Colossi.
Secondly, while I think 4 templar with full energy are worth about 3-4 colossi in an end game death ball, your first 4 templar(which is about the right number for your initial warpin of templar) is not as good at holding off roach/hydra or roach/corruptor attacks as just 1 colossi without range, which actually comes faster than those 4 templar. You may damage the roaches a bit, but you don't have the consistent AoE to kill the reinforcement roaches.
All this combined has led to the following problem: It's very hard to get templar out fast on any medium sized maps such as metal, shattered, or Antiga. In fact, in pro games, the only maps where Ht are gotten are the first tech include Daybreak and Talderim.(I'm not saying, however, that they're not viable on other maps.)
So to sum it up, I do think ht are overall better if you can safely get them out. However, both colossi and ht have their individual strengths and weaknesses and one of the biggest Colossi advantages over ht is how easy it is to safely get them out in comparison.
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 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..
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.
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 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 01:50 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Just as a question of the "ethics of utilizing bugs," if a Zerg were to drone-drill to destroy Protoss pylons, would you defame them and claim that drone-drill needs to be removed? Remember, drone-drill is a bug, similar to the Archon Toilet.
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.
Do you know how slow brood lords are? They take forever to spread out and if you spread them out too much blink stalkers can just blink right under them, snipe them then gtfo. It's a lose-lose situation if you see a mothership, it seems. Granted, I once fungaled a mothership out of range of my brood lords but that is really hard to do. Whether it surprises you or not, it is an instant cast spell that you never know when its coming. You have to spread out your brood lords a LOT, which, like i said, will get killed by blink stalkers if they spread out too much. It's simply not fair that Vortex is so incredibly strong when abused correctly. Some say to spread out your corruptors which is an even worse idea, they just die to blink stalkers. And before you say to fungal to prevent the stalkers from blinking, thats not possible because any smart protoss will keep their stalkers back and let their colossus prevent the infestor from coming forward too much.
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.
Just as a question of the "ethics of utilizing bugs," if a Zerg were to drone-drill to destroy Protoss pylons, would you defame them and claim that drone-drill needs to be removed? Remember, drone-drill is a bug, similar to the Archon Toilet.
That is abusing a mechanic in the game as well. Why do you think depots are on MLG Maps? because thats cheap as hell, you can win the game without risking anything. Besides, I never go 15hatch and any zerg that does is a fool. (in zvp only)
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.
Do you know how slow brood lords are? They take forever to spread out and if you spread them out too much blink stalkers can just blink right under them, snipe them then gtfo. It's a lose-lose situation if you see a mothership, it seems. Granted, I once fungaled a mothership out of range of my brood lords but that is really hard to do. Whether it surprises you or not, it is an instant cast spell that you never know when its coming. You have to spread out your brood lords a LOT, which, like i said, will get killed by blink stalkers if they spread out too much. It's simply not fair that Vortex is so incredibly strong when abused correctly. Some say to spread out your corruptors which is an even worse idea, they just die to blink stalkers. And before you say to fungal to prevent the stalkers from blinking, thats not possible because any smart protoss will keep their stalkers back and let their colossus prevent the infestor from coming forward too much.
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.
Just as a question of the "ethics of utilizing bugs," if a Zerg were to drone-drill to destroy Protoss pylons, would you defame them and claim that drone-drill needs to be removed? Remember, drone-drill is a bug, similar to the Archon Toilet.
That is abusing a mechanic in the game as well. Why do you think depots are on MLG Maps? because thats cheap as hell, you can win the game without risking anything. Besides, I never go 15hatch and any zerg that does is a fool. (in zvp only)
The point is that you know its coming, and because of the nature of the Mothership in comparison to other casters with Instant AoE spells, its a lot easier to see coming. You can hide other casters in dropships, hide them on ledges, and other various ways of concealing them to your opponent. Broodlords are slow, and you certainly would have to use fungal in conjunction with good Brood/Corrupter management, but I think it could work.
That's a cute double-standard that you have there ^^ made me giggle that you honestly responded to that question in that way and basically discredited everything you've been saying by making yourself sound like a hypocrite.
And NesTea, LosirA, CoCa, and plenty of other top tier ZvPers all do Hatch first (not every game, but certainly a lot of games), so I guess they're all fools. Maybe you're some closet ZvP genius, but Hatch first is a necessary build especially with the rise in popularity of FFE builds. You should really think before posting, but thanks for the laughs! :D
The point is that you know its coming, and because of the nature of the Mothership in comparison to other casters with Instant AoE spells, its a lot easier to see coming. You can hide other casters in dropships, hide them on ledges, and other various ways of concealing them to your opponent. Broodlords are slow, and you certainly would have to use fungal in conjunction with good Brood/Corrupter management, but I think it could work.
That's a cute double-standard that you have there ^^ made me giggle that you honestly responded to that question in that way and basically discredited everything you've been saying by making yourself sound like a hypocrite.
And NesTea, LosirA, CoCa, and plenty of other top tier ZvPers all do Hatch first (not every game, but certainly a lot of games), so I guess they're all fools. Maybe you're some closet ZvP genius, but Hatch first is a necessary build especially with the rise in popularity of FFE builds. You should really think before posting, but thanks for the laughs! :D
Yes, I realize the nature of the mothership makes it stick out from other units. I'm just saying the ways you are suggesting to avoid being vortexed are actually going to send you to your own doom anyway. NesTea, LosirA, CoCa and "plenty of other top tier ZvPers" do hatch first because A) Theres a depot at the bottom of the ramp or B) Hes not going FFE. Go hatch first on shakuras, see what happens. That's all im saying.
The point is that you know its coming, and because of the nature of the Mothership in comparison to other casters with Instant AoE spells, its a lot easier to see coming. You can hide other casters in dropships, hide them on ledges, and other various ways of concealing them to your opponent. Broodlords are slow, and you certainly would have to use fungal in conjunction with good Brood/Corrupter management, but I think it could work.
That's a cute double-standard that you have there ^^ made me giggle that you honestly responded to that question in that way and basically discredited everything you've been saying by making yourself sound like a hypocrite.
And NesTea, LosirA, CoCa, and plenty of other top tier ZvPers all do Hatch first (not every game, but certainly a lot of games), so I guess they're all fools. Maybe you're some closet ZvP genius, but Hatch first is a necessary build especially with the rise in popularity of FFE builds. You should really think before posting, but thanks for the laughs! :D
Yes, I realize the nature of the mothership makes it stick out from other units. I'm just saying the ways you are suggesting to avoid being vortexed are actually going to send you to your own doom anyway. NesTea, LosirA, CoCa and "plenty of other top tier ZvPers" do hatch first because A) Theres a depot at the bottom of the ramp or B) Hes not going FFE. Go hatch first on shakuras, see what happens. That's all im saying.
You can stop the standard cannon-at-the-ramp rush by just patrolling a drone at the bottom of the ramp. Yes, it will make your economy slightly less effective, but the return of getting a fairly safe expo up should make it worth it in my eyes. And almost every ZvP I watch in Korea begins with a FFE. Ps do it on every map, and frankly Zs are fairly accustomed to seeing it.
Lebzetu, try making 12 corruptors and A-moving them at the mothership while the rest of your army hangs back safely. Stalkers and even archons can't kill corruptors nearly in time to save the mothership, so the mothership will have to spend its vortexes. If the deathball is really strong with more archons, storms and carriers, use more corruptors and split them into groups so they can't be hit by 1 vortex. Then you retreat with whatever corruptors are left, and you attack with your full army.
This is the easiest way to deal with a mothership, and it's a good reason that P can't rely on only mothership+archon as their end-game composition. Without vortexes, the melee-ranged army is garbage vs even smaller armies of infestor+broodlord. Here's some relevant quotes from rsvp's thread about his mothership replay pack:
The other thing is that mothership isn't actually a requirement for this deathball, although it helps immensely. Most of my earlier games focused on getting mothership + archons for an archon toilet, but then I realized that that is way too risky because of how easy it is to lose the entire game because you can't pull off the archon toilet (i.e. losing the mothership). My later games focused more so on building up the carrier fleet, and I found that to be much more safer. Carrier + colossus + HT/archon can deal with infestor/corruptor/BL by itself - carriers outrange everything, and if corruptors try to come in you can storm/use archons. This is another reason why carriers are preferable over void rays (range advantage) even though on their own void rays are better vs corruptors than carriers.
The question of storm vs archon - I've actually been leaning more towards storm recently. When I face good zergs who spread out their units and don't throw everything into vortex, then archons actually get killed by broodlords who are outside the vortex. Thus storm becomes much better for you to defend your carriers against corruptors.
Or in Huargh's mothership thread, rsvp commented:
Mothership is an excellent unit, but I'm beginning to realize that one of its strengths is that a lot of zerg players are just clueless in how to deal with it. For example, upon seeing vortex a lot of zerg players try to "save" their army by throwing everything into it. Well of course that's suicide for the zerg. But if the zerg just ignores what gets caught in the vortex, they can simply fight out the battle, kill some of your army, and then remax and kill your entire army now that you no longer have a vortex (or even mothership).
. . .
There is actually a lot of micro regarding the mothership/archon versus broodlord/infestor/corruptor 200/200 battle. With no micro on either side the protoss wins easy. But if the zerg spreads out his units and doesn't throw everything into the vortex, when archons come out they still have to deal with unvortexed broodlords/broodlings and infestors casting fungal. Not to mention that if the zerg immediately runs away the corruptors that get caught in the vortex, they will NOT all die even if you have 10 archons in there. They will only all die if the zerg is slow and doesn't move them immediately upon the vortex ending.
Huargh argues for a few pages that Z can't realistically micro against it, but having played the style quite a lot, I found that all Z has to do is weather 2 vortexes and P's army is useless unless he has a bunch of carriers. Supporting this position, the last comment in the thread is:
Is this build working for anyone anymore? I've been using it for a while but it barely seems to work as Zergs just play against it much better now.
On December 10 2011 08:05 Lebzetu wrote: Yeah, you need a drone patrolling the bottom of the ramp, the back of your mineral line and one to chase the probe. Three drones are a big deal.
Chasing the probe and having one patrol behind the mineral lines aren't anything that GSL maps somehow exempt players from having to do while going hatch first, yet Zergs don't do it and do hatch first. You can go hatch first and not be a "fool," as you put it.
Lebzetu, try making 12 corruptors and A-moving them at the mothership while the rest of your army hangs back safely. Stalkers and even archons can't kill corruptors nearly in time to save the mothership, so the mothership will have to spend its vortexes. If the deathball is really strong with more archons, storms and carriers, use more corruptors and split them into groups so they can't be hit by 1 vortex. Then you retreat with whatever corruptors are left, and you attack with your full army.
Kcdc i just tried this on unit test map. 12 corruptors attacking a mothership, with 24 stalkers and 3 archons (which is way less than a maxed toss army) under the mothership. What happened is that corruptors died before killing mothership (left with less than 100 hp)... U protoss guys seem no to realise that mothership has a decent amount of health, that 12 corru cost SO much more than a mother ship and that even if they killed it, Z better have some corru remaining to take care of colossus etc.
This be a great thread, don't wanna off-topic it too much but i can't help but say everytime i read the title I think, "Lessons learned from Brown vs Board of education." lol.
Lebzetu, try making 12 corruptors and A-moving them at the mothership while the rest of your army hangs back safely. Stalkers and even archons can't kill corruptors nearly in time to save the mothership, so the mothership will have to spend its vortexes. If the deathball is really strong with more archons, storms and carriers, use more corruptors and split them into groups so they can't be hit by 1 vortex. Then you retreat with whatever corruptors are left, and you attack with your full army.
Kcdc i just tried this on unit test map. 12 corruptors attacking a mothership, with 24 stalkers and 3 archons (which is way less than a maxed toss army) under the mothership. What happened is that corruptors died before killing mothership (left with less than 100 hp)... U protoss guys seem no to realise that mothership has a decent amount of health, that 12 corru cost SO much more than a mother ship and that even if they killed it, Z better have some corru remaining to take care of colossus etc.
Minerals/gas at that point in the game are a non-issue. Only supply and time matter. Try 13 corruptors and scoot-and-shoot micro away from the archons. Just make enough to kill the mothership and you'll be fine.
Also in an engagement if you run a few lings with your corrupters, the Stalkers and Archons will auto-target the Lings first. Since units like Roaches or Zerglings have a higher priority, unless the Protoss is doing ridiculous target firing/micro, the corrupters will do better than they probably did in your artificial scenario. You shouldn't have only your corrupters engaging, sacrifice some lings, use corrupt, and pray that the Protoss you're facing isn't some godly, Korean level micro player.
Lebzetu, try making 12 corruptors and A-moving them at the mothership while the rest of your army hangs back safely. Stalkers and even archons can't kill corruptors nearly in time to save the mothership, so the mothership will have to spend its vortexes. If the deathball is really strong with more archons, storms and carriers, use more corruptors and split them into groups so they can't be hit by 1 vortex. Then you retreat with whatever corruptors are left, and you attack with your full army.
Kcdc i just tried this on unit test map. 12 corruptors attacking a mothership, with 24 stalkers and 3 archons (which is way less than a maxed toss army) under the mothership. What happened is that corruptors died before killing mothership (left with less than 100 hp)... U protoss guys seem no to realise that mothership has a decent amount of health, that 12 corru cost SO much more than a mother ship and that even if they killed it, Z better have some corru remaining to take care of colossus etc.
Minerals/gas at that point in the game are a non-issue. Only supply and time matter. Try 13 corruptors and scoot-and-shoot micro away from the archons. Just make enough to kill the mothership and you'll be fine.
So what is preventing the protoss from vortexing the ~16 corruptors I'll need to two shot a mothership ( 3/3/3 mothership versus 2/0 corruptors with corrupt ) and then throwing archons in, killing all the corruptors at zero cost - then engaging a 30 defecint zerg army. Or do you think that a 200 protoss army can't beat a 170 broodlordf/infestor zerg army?
cant believe so many zergs cry about archon toilet.. rofl its like the only counter to brood/infesto/(roach/hydra/ling) composition
w/o mothership i dont think its even possible to stop zergs maxed army, i even remember on some pro vod the guy said that its best to just base race and never engage broods because ull never win w/o archon toilet
i tried engaging zergs army with storm+vr+blink, and got destroyed while killing like only 10 of his supply, not only that but i was on 5bases and had like 20gates+4sg, so i remaxed almost instantly - went back to fight again - lost everything again in seconds while killing almost nothing
so yeah, IMO its only archon toilet, or kite like crazy
broodlords are shooting moving forcefields called broodlings... and it is sad that "i hope my mothership coms in time and i can vortex all his broodlords" is the only strat against it.
On December 06 2011 02:06 reikai wrote: I kind of disagree on the voidray into quick third point, if only because of Mondragon. If someone can find the link to that post/pic, you'll know what I'm talking about.
It basically said that if toss uses voids, you can hit a timing and simply make more roaches than that one stargate can even handle.
however, if the zerg plays the counter game like you said and only does the correct UNIT response, then the quick third works. Thoughts?
Yeah. A voidray somehow guaranteeing you a third base makes 0 sense. I think Brown got kinda lucky Losira just elected not to react aggressive to the third.
On December 06 2011 02:06 reikai wrote: I kind of disagree on the voidray into quick third point, if only because of Mondragon. If someone can find the link to that post/pic, you'll know what I'm talking about.
It basically said that if toss uses voids, you can hit a timing and simply make more roaches than that one stargate can even handle.
however, if the zerg plays the counter game like you said and only does the correct UNIT response, then the quick third works. Thoughts?
This makes perfect sense, you cant make enough voiderays to deal with as many roaches that the Zerg can make. I understand where you were coming with by saying that voides were a guarantee'd third, but the reality is most people playing wouldn't react the same way as a top tier Zerg player would. I feel like this is putting way to much trust into a possibility.
As for the rest of the post, I saw the game also and it was amazing, but I just don't know how realistic it is to actually try and go with this. I know that it seemed awesome but the reality is it is incredibly hard to get that unit composition. Also Losira had a maxed army for about 10 minutes before any major engagement happened. I feel like if losira just attacked Brown before he had the mothership and all that other stuff he definitely would have won. I'm not discrediting Brown from being a amazing player, That game was quite possibly the best game I have ever seen in the GSL, But I just feel like way too many things went perfectly for Brown. If anyone were to try to copy this game in any other PvZ I think they would just get rolled. If I am wrong and people have done it I would love to admit I am wrong and watch a replay of a game.
Also I am not saying that macro games vs Zerg is a bad idea. I think it is a awesome Idea to macro against Zergs if you can keep up with them, but if you cant you are just going to get roflstomped. I think it will take a little longer for some of the pros to really find a solid way to play macro/late games against Zerg and not have a ton of "luck" on their side. Like I have said I feel like Brown just got extremely lucky that losira didn't just go and kill him when he was maxed with 18 broods (I think thats the correct number). I could be wrong though! I would love it if I were.
I want to agree that besides all the analysis of the OP, that the toilet really was a gamebreaker in this game so i would like to see more games like this to see how much the strategies by Brown really play out whichout such a critical bad engagement. Losira knew the danger of losing his whole armee to the Archon toilet, so i dont know what he was thinking at that point. Im not to say what he should have done but for instance even sacrifing a significant number of Corruptors to snipe the Mothership would seem better.
All zergs should watch Stephano Vs grubby to see how you engage those mothership templar archon stalker compositions with broodlord infestor corruptor. --> broodlord spreading!
Lebzetu, try making 12 corruptors and A-moving them at the mothership while the rest of your army hangs back safely. Stalkers and even archons can't kill corruptors nearly in time to save the mothership, so the mothership will have to spend its vortexes. If the deathball is really strong with more archons, storms and carriers, use more corruptors and split them into groups so they can't be hit by 1 vortex. Then you retreat with whatever corruptors are left, and you attack with your full army.
Kcdc i just tried this on unit test map. 12 corruptors attacking a mothership, with 24 stalkers and 3 archons (which is way less than a maxed toss army) under the mothership. What happened is that corruptors died before killing mothership (left with less than 100 hp)... U protoss guys seem no to realise that mothership has a decent amount of health, that 12 corru cost SO much more than a mother ship and that even if they killed it, Z better have some corru remaining to take care of colossus etc.
Minerals/gas at that point in the game are a non-issue. Only supply and time matter. Try 13 corruptors and scoot-and-shoot micro away from the archons. Just make enough to kill the mothership and you'll be fine.
So what is preventing the protoss from vortexing the ~16 corruptors I'll need to two shot a mothership ( 3/3/3 mothership versus 2/0 corruptors with corrupt ) and then throwing archons in, killing all the corruptors at zero cost - then engaging a 30 defecint zerg army. Or do you think that a 200 protoss army can't beat a 170 broodlordf/infestor zerg army?
Well first off-- why in the world would protoss have 3/3 air upgrades and 3 shields while the zerg has only +2 air ups? Regardless, corruptors have enough health to spread and not ALL die instantly (unlike broodlords), so you can save a handful. But in that case you'd want to send in like 10 from 2 directions and force 2 vortexes or kill the mothership. From that point if the Protoss doesn't have carriers/vortex you can remax on corruptors as you morph any surviving corruptors (you can probably get around 8 out alive with low health) into broodlords (healing them). Even with a supply deficit infestor/bl/corruptor crushes non-carrier compositions.
Lebzetu, try making 12 corruptors and A-moving them at the mothership while the rest of your army hangs back safely. Stalkers and even archons can't kill corruptors nearly in time to save the mothership, so the mothership will have to spend its vortexes. If the deathball is really strong with more archons, storms and carriers, use more corruptors and split them into groups so they can't be hit by 1 vortex. Then you retreat with whatever corruptors are left, and you attack with your full army.
Kcdc i just tried this on unit test map. 12 corruptors attacking a mothership, with 24 stalkers and 3 archons (which is way less than a maxed toss army) under the mothership. What happened is that corruptors died before killing mothership (left with less than 100 hp)... U protoss guys seem no to realise that mothership has a decent amount of health, that 12 corru cost SO much more than a mother ship and that even if they killed it, Z better have some corru remaining to take care of colossus etc.
Minerals/gas at that point in the game are a non-issue. Only supply and time matter. Try 13 corruptors and scoot-and-shoot micro away from the archons. Just make enough to kill the mothership and you'll be fine.
So what is preventing the protoss from vortexing the ~16 corruptors I'll need to two shot a mothership ( 3/3/3 mothership versus 2/0 corruptors with corrupt ) and then throwing archons in, killing all the corruptors at zero cost - then engaging a 30 defecint zerg army. Or do you think that a 200 protoss army can't beat a 170 broodlordf/infestor zerg army?
Well first off-- why in the world would protoss have 3/3 air upgrades and 3 shields while the zerg has only +2 air ups? Regardless, corruptors have enough health to spread and not ALL die instantly (unlike broodlords), so you can save a handful. But in that case you'd want to send in like 10 from 2 directions and force 2 vortexes or kill the mothership. From that point if the Protoss doesn't have carriers/vortex you can remax on corruptors as you morph any surviving corruptors (you can probably get around 8 out alive with low health) into broodlords (healing them). Even with a supply deficit infestor/bl/corruptor crushes non-carrier compositions.
Broodlord/Corruptor/Infestor vs Protoss nonAir compositions is a battle of control and positioning. Colossi and HT can keep the complete zerg groundforce and Infestors out of the battle until the broodlords have done enough damage to the Protoss ball. But that again means that the Broodlords have to fight very exposed and have to be handled extremly carefully. (spread broodlords can be sniped by stalkers, nonspread broodlords fall like flies to storms) It is an extreme battle of patience for both players, as there are a lot of synergies between the units of each composition that force your army to ball up, but the balled army gets decimated by the opponents splash (colossi & HT vs Infestors). The mothership is a great addition for the Protoss Army in that scenario, Carries might be OK, but I'm not exactly sure they are really worth it or even better than some well spread void rays. (if anything, like the OP wrote they are the last piece in the puzzle) For the zerg there are also some possibilities to improve his composition. Hydras>Roaches in high supply (at least as some roaches). A small number of ultras (~2) can help immensly, as they can tank the damage for your broodlords and infestors, which are the units you want to end up on after the battle.
(as you might note, I really love to play those battles, as they are one of the few highlights in PvZ, in which I don't feel like the game was won by some stupid allin, or as my protoss opponents like to call them "necessary timing pushes", but rather by a very chesslike battle of control that can take 1-2mins if fought the right way by both players - very patient, not panicking just because the opponents artillery has started to fire at your units)
On December 10 2011 12:06 avilo wrote: This be a great thread, don't wanna off-topic it too much but i can't help but say everytime i read the title I think, "Lessons learned from Brown vs Board of education." lol.
Separate but not equal is not ok? plessy vs ferguson is wrong?
On December 06 2011 02:06 reikai wrote: I kind of disagree on the voidray into quick third point, if only because of Mondragon. If someone can find the link to that post/pic, you'll know what I'm talking about.
It basically said that if toss uses voids, you can hit a timing and simply make more roaches than that one stargate can even handle.
however, if the zerg plays the counter game like you said and only does the correct UNIT response, then the quick third works. Thoughts?
Yeah. A voidray somehow guaranteeing you a third base makes 0 sense. I think Brown got kinda lucky Losira just elected not to react aggressive to the third.
If you look at Brown's build carefully, you'll notice how this makes sense. Each individual unit and timing is designed to stop any aggression in the early game. A heavy zealot/sentry composition is designed to stop mass ling attacks early game. The voidray/phenoix combination clears out scouting overlords and lings that might scout the main base or natural. The voidray is designed to stop any early game roach based attacks The voidray when parked at a good location can spot any incoming attacks. The phenoix is able to scout for tech from the zerg. Any extremely early robotics/robo bay stops any roach/hydra, ling hydra, or later mass roach attacks. For reference, the nexus goes down at 9:50 and the first colossi pops out at 12:25. Brown's unit at 12:25 include 1 voidray, 1 phoenix, 1 colossi, 2 observers, 6 sentries, 6 zealots, and 2 stalkers. Assuming Losira scouted Brown's expansion ASAP AND he had a hydra den up, it would take a full 2 minutes just to produce one round of hydras and walk them across the map. The map size helps a lot.
I think the total lack of ultralisks in the zerg end-game is a mistake. I'm saying something like 3-4 ultras in the brood,infestor corruptor mix should do wonders... why zergs love to overmake broodlords?
On December 11 2011 01:03 rpgalon wrote: I think the total lack of ultralisks in the zerg end-game is a mistake. I'm saying something like 3-4 ultras in the brood,infestor corruptor mix should do wonders... why zergs love to overmake broodlords?
you can't overmake broodlords as long as your opponent has ground units and you want to win the game by a direct engagement... You can overmake the wrong support units for them (which means any unit in the zerg arsenal that is not a broodlord)
The thing with ultralisks is that you usually don't have any spare supply for them with roaches in the composition once you already hit broodlords and you don't have any gas for them before. Still I don't disagree, I think very small amounts of ultras (4might already be too much = 24supply, ultras are also extremly supplyheavy) are good to tank damage for everything else.
On December 11 2011 01:03 rpgalon wrote: I think the total lack of ultralisks in the zerg end-game is a mistake. I'm saying something like 3-4 ultras in the brood,infestor corruptor mix should do wonders... why zergs love to overmake broodlords?
Because there is little point in making ultras when the protoss has a ton of gates up and running. A round of zealot warpins would make the exchage favor the protoss when fighting ultralisks. Also archons are amazing.
On December 10 2011 12:06 avilo wrote: This be a great thread, don't wanna off-topic it too much but i can't help but say everytime i read the title I think, "Lessons learned from Brown vs Board of education." lol.
Separate but not equal is not ok? plessy vs ferguson is wrong?
As soon as zergs get frustrated losing to something like this, they'll just 2 base all in and the game will never get there. Enough roaches with burrow, speed and burrow move and the game is over.
On December 11 2011 01:34 zVooky wrote: As soon as zergs get frustrated losing to something like this, they'll just 2 base all in and the game will never get there. Enough roaches with burrow, speed and burrow move and the game is over.
Zergs will pretty much always be on 3 base versus a forge fe.
On December 11 2011 01:03 rpgalon wrote: I think the total lack of ultralisks in the zerg end-game is a mistake. I'm saying something like 3-4 ultras in the brood,infestor corruptor mix should do wonders... why zergs love to overmake broodlords?
Because 4x6 supply = 24 supply. If you ever want to lose, just make Ultralisks. They are pretty terrible against everything.
On December 11 2011 01:03 rpgalon wrote: I think the total lack of ultralisks in the zerg end-game is a mistake. I'm saying something like 3-4 ultras in the brood,infestor corruptor mix should do wonders... why zergs love to overmake broodlords?
Because 4x6 supply = 24 supply. If you ever want to lose, just make Ultralisks. They are pretty terrible against everything.
Yea, this. Also, why would you want 4 ultras when you can have 6 more broodlords?
On December 11 2011 01:34 zVooky wrote: As soon as zergs get frustrated losing to something like this, they'll just 2 base all in and the game will never get there. Enough roaches with burrow, speed and burrow move and the game is over.
Zergs will pretty much always be on 3 base versus a forge fe.
I never go 3 base against a FFE. Everyone thinks I'm dumb but I saturate my bases faster and start producing units WAY before the protoss. Dropping about 12 roaches and 30 lings in their main at around the 9:30-10 min mark and have a nydus behind it to help reinforce the attack and it NEVER gets held. Not sure why more zergs don't do this or maybe I'm just playing the most god awful protosses.
On December 11 2011 01:03 rpgalon wrote: I think the total lack of ultralisks in the zerg end-game is a mistake. I'm saying something like 3-4 ultras in the brood,infestor corruptor mix should do wonders... why zergs love to overmake broodlords?
Because 4x6 supply = 24 supply. If you ever want to lose, just make Ultralisks. They are pretty terrible against everything.
Yea, this. Also, why would you want 4 ultras when you can have 6 more broodlords?
Exactly. The only purpose Ultralisks have is after you forced a lot of Vikings in ZvT. Even then, your overlords are defenseless Ultra/Bane is pretty good ZvT.
Lebzetu, try making 12 corruptors and A-moving them at the mothership while the rest of your army hangs back safely. Stalkers and even archons can't kill corruptors nearly in time to save the mothership, so the mothership will have to spend its vortexes. If the deathball is really strong with more archons, storms and carriers, use more corruptors and split them into groups so they can't be hit by 1 vortex. Then you retreat with whatever corruptors are left, and you attack with your full army.
Kcdc i just tried this on unit test map. 12 corruptors attacking a mothership, with 24 stalkers and 3 archons (which is way less than a maxed toss army) under the mothership. What happened is that corruptors died before killing mothership (left with less than 100 hp)... U protoss guys seem no to realise that mothership has a decent amount of health, that 12 corru cost SO much more than a mother ship and that even if they killed it, Z better have some corru remaining to take care of colossus etc.
Minerals/gas at that point in the game are a non-issue. Only supply and time matter. Try 13 corruptors and scoot-and-shoot micro away from the archons. Just make enough to kill the mothership and you'll be fine.
So what is preventing the protoss from vortexing the ~16 corruptors I'll need to two shot a mothership ( 3/3/3 mothership versus 2/0 corruptors with corrupt ) and then throwing archons in, killing all the corruptors at zero cost - then engaging a 30 defecint zerg army. Or do you think that a 200 protoss army can't beat a 170 broodlordf/infestor zerg army?
The point is that you force P to spend his vortexes before the big fight so that your army wins when you remax and fight a minute later. Also, a 170 supply broodlord/infestor army will trade decently against a 200 supply Protoss army if P doesn't have a vortex. It's much more favorable to Z than a 200 vs 200 fight with vortexes where Z will drop 130 supply and P will drop 20.
You should also know that archon toilets don't kill corruptors. They spread quickly enough to not take too mcuh archon splash and if you move click them right away, the 1.5 second invulnerability period allows them to get away with just a few dying.
Lastly, I build a mothership in probably about a third of my PvZ's, and I don't think I've ever had a 3/3/3 mothership.
On December 11 2011 01:34 zVooky wrote: As soon as zergs get frustrated losing to something like this, they'll just 2 base all in and the game will never get there. Enough roaches with burrow, speed and burrow move and the game is over.
Zergs will pretty much always be on 3 base versus a forge fe.
I never go 3 base against a FFE. Everyone thinks I'm dumb but I saturate my bases faster and start producing units WAY before the protoss. Dropping about 12 roaches and 30 lings in their main at around the 9:30-10 min mark and have a nydus behind it to help reinforce the attack and it NEVER gets held. Not sure why more zergs don't do this or maybe I'm just playing the most god awful protosses.
Pretty much any build can hold this if they power units. It's just an unsensical time to attack, which is probably why you can catch tosses offguard with it.
Lebzetu, try making 12 corruptors and A-moving them at the mothership while the rest of your army hangs back safely. Stalkers and even archons can't kill corruptors nearly in time to save the mothership, so the mothership will have to spend its vortexes. If the deathball is really strong with more archons, storms and carriers, use more corruptors and split them into groups so they can't be hit by 1 vortex. Then you retreat with whatever corruptors are left, and you attack with your full army.
Kcdc i just tried this on unit test map. 12 corruptors attacking a mothership, with 24 stalkers and 3 archons (which is way less than a maxed toss army) under the mothership. What happened is that corruptors died before killing mothership (left with less than 100 hp)... U protoss guys seem no to realise that mothership has a decent amount of health, that 12 corru cost SO much more than a mother ship and that even if they killed it, Z better have some corru remaining to take care of colossus etc.
Minerals/gas at that point in the game are a non-issue. Only supply and time matter. Try 13 corruptors and scoot-and-shoot micro away from the archons. Just make enough to kill the mothership and you'll be fine.
So what is preventing the protoss from vortexing the ~16 corruptors I'll need to two shot a mothership ( 3/3/3 mothership versus 2/0 corruptors with corrupt ) and then throwing archons in, killing all the corruptors at zero cost - then engaging a 30 defecint zerg army. Or do you think that a 200 protoss army can't beat a 170 broodlordf/infestor zerg army?
The point is that you force P to spend his vortexes before the big fight so that your army wins when you remax and fight a minute later. Also, a 170 supply broodlord/infestor army will trade decently against a 200 supply Protoss army if P doesn't have a vortex. It's much more favorable to Z than a 200 vs 200 fight with vortexes where Z will drop 130 supply and P will drop 20.
You should also know that archon toilets don't kill corruptors. They spread quickly enough to not take too mcuh archon splash and if you move click them right away, the 1.5 second invulnerability period allows them to get away with just a few dying.
Lastly, I build a mothership in probably about a third of my PvZ's, and I don't think I've ever had a 3/3/3 mothership.
Aghaa, I really messed that comment up. Thanks for the serious reply anyway. What I meant was mothership with +3 shields upgrade. Now, I keep hearing how insanely powerful broodlord/infestor is against protoss but every replay I've seen has protoss on an economical disadvantage or army worth disadvantage when engaging with said army. It seems that protoss run into the same wall that a zerg player runs into when playing roach/hydra against protoss, there is a point where your opponents tech and army worth advantage means that his 200 supply are much better then your 200 supply, for zerg it's once protoss has 5+ colossus if he's going roach/hydra. Isn't the same applicable for a protoss going stalker/colossus against zerg?
After all broodlord/infestor/corruptor is literally the most gas intensive per supply you can get as zerg, Can't protoss counter with 200 supply of carrier/archon/HT?
I don't think zerg can trade cost effectively against that.
Lebzetu, try making 12 corruptors and A-moving them at the mothership while the rest of your army hangs back safely. Stalkers and even archons can't kill corruptors nearly in time to save the mothership, so the mothership will have to spend its vortexes. If the deathball is really strong with more archons, storms and carriers, use more corruptors and split them into groups so they can't be hit by 1 vortex. Then you retreat with whatever corruptors are left, and you attack with your full army.
Kcdc i just tried this on unit test map. 12 corruptors attacking a mothership, with 24 stalkers and 3 archons (which is way less than a maxed toss army) under the mothership. What happened is that corruptors died before killing mothership (left with less than 100 hp)... U protoss guys seem no to realise that mothership has a decent amount of health, that 12 corru cost SO much more than a mother ship and that even if they killed it, Z better have some corru remaining to take care of colossus etc.
Minerals/gas at that point in the game are a non-issue. Only supply and time matter. Try 13 corruptors and scoot-and-shoot micro away from the archons. Just make enough to kill the mothership and you'll be fine.
So what is preventing the protoss from vortexing the ~16 corruptors I'll need to two shot a mothership ( 3/3/3 mothership versus 2/0 corruptors with corrupt ) and then throwing archons in, killing all the corruptors at zero cost - then engaging a 30 defecint zerg army. Or do you think that a 200 protoss army can't beat a 170 broodlordf/infestor zerg army?
The point is that you force P to spend his vortexes before the big fight so that your army wins when you remax and fight a minute later. Also, a 170 supply broodlord/infestor army will trade decently against a 200 supply Protoss army if P doesn't have a vortex. It's much more favorable to Z than a 200 vs 200 fight with vortexes where Z will drop 130 supply and P will drop 20.
You should also know that archon toilets don't kill corruptors. They spread quickly enough to not take too mcuh archon splash and if you move click them right away, the 1.5 second invulnerability period allows them to get away with just a few dying.
Lastly, I build a mothership in probably about a third of my PvZ's, and I don't think I've ever had a 3/3/3 mothership.
Aghaa, I really messed that comment up. Thanks for the serious reply anyway. What I meant was mothership with +3 shields upgrade. Now, I keep hearing how insanely powerful broodlord/infestor is against protoss but every replay I've seen has protoss on an economical disadvantage or army worth disadvantage when engaging with said army. It seems that protoss run into the same wall that a zerg player runs into when playing roach/hydra against protoss, there is a point where your opponents tech and army worth advantage means that his 200 supply are much better then your 200 supply, for zerg it's once protoss has 5+ colossus if he's going roach/hydra. Isn't the same applicable for a protoss going stalker/colossus against zerg?
After all broodlord/infestor/corruptor is literally the most gas intensive per supply you can get as zerg, Can't protoss counter with 200 supply of carrier/archon/HT?
I don't think zerg can trade cost effectively against that.
Gladly the game is designed in a way that at least it looks like zerg can. To the given example, corruptor > Carrier, Ultralisk > Archon+HT in terms of cost. And broodlord/infestor/corruptor should still be even with this, if controlled properly (spread broodlords/corruptors!).
But I agree. All the Protoss "can't deal with Broodlord/Infestor" usually comes from a big economic disadvantage early on, that they only survive because they bunker with mass low tier (gateway units) + ground superiority units (colossus), while the zerg sets up for a mass hightier (Infestor+broodlord+corruptor) air composition. In the lategame supplies are even because of this, but the overall worth of the zerg composition (especially the sum of the implicated tech/upgrade costs) usually beats the Protoss costs. And I also agree with "it was the same with roach/hydra against collossus". Zergs went even economy low-mid tier universal composition against Protoss low-high tier antiground composition. Naturally Protoss had a good time back in those days.
I think it's extremely relevant to this discussion to plug in the following game: Haypro vs WhiteRa.
Part 1:
Part 2:
The main difference here is that WR doesn't go voidrays to take a fast third, but uses a lot of sentries for defense instead. The timing is really early ( 7'20 ) for a third; no Zerg that has gone for a fast third will have a lot of units at this time. I just love it. IMO it's even better than Brown's build.
He then goes prism harass and continues to macro like a god. The rest of the game looks like a ripoff of Browns vs Losira, with the Zerg turtling hard, the Protoss going for templars, DTs harass, and MS+carriers to handle the brood lords at the end.
Lebzetu, try making 12 corruptors and A-moving them at the mothership while the rest of your army hangs back safely. Stalkers and even archons can't kill corruptors nearly in time to save the mothership, so the mothership will have to spend its vortexes. If the deathball is really strong with more archons, storms and carriers, use more corruptors and split them into groups so they can't be hit by 1 vortex. Then you retreat with whatever corruptors are left, and you attack with your full army.
Kcdc i just tried this on unit test map. 12 corruptors attacking a mothership, with 24 stalkers and 3 archons (which is way less than a maxed toss army) under the mothership. What happened is that corruptors died before killing mothership (left with less than 100 hp)... U protoss guys seem no to realise that mothership has a decent amount of health, that 12 corru cost SO much more than a mother ship and that even if they killed it, Z better have some corru remaining to take care of colossus etc.
I did a unit test also with the same units and they killed the mothership just fine, once with 0 upgrades once with maxed. Were your corruptors bunched up? Did you give the toss superior upgrades?
The main difference here is that WR doesn't go voidrays to take a fast third, but uses a lot of sentries for defense instead. The timing is really early ( 7'20 ) for a third; no Zerg that has gone for a fast third will have a lot of units at this time. I just love it. IMO it's even better than Brown's build.
He then goes prism harass and continues to macro like a god. The rest of the game looks like a ripoff of Browns vs Losira, with the Zerg turtling hard, the Protoss going for templars, DTs harass, and MS+carriers to handle the brood lords at the end.
That's the future of PvZ !
Yea, it's a very similar game showing a lot of the same concepts. Good find. However, I wouldn't call white-ra's build definitively better than brown's build. Both definitely have their individual strengths and weaknesses, but as I've been saying throughout this whole thread, one build or style is seldom just flat out better than another.
On December 11 2011 01:34 zVooky wrote: As soon as zergs get frustrated losing to something like this, they'll just 2 base all in and the game will never get there. Enough roaches with burrow, speed and burrow move and the game is over.
Zergs will pretty much always be on 3 base versus a forge fe.
I never go 3 base against a FFE. Everyone thinks I'm dumb but I saturate my bases faster and start producing units WAY before the protoss. Dropping about 12 roaches and 30 lings in their main at around the 9:30-10 min mark and have a nydus behind it to help reinforce the attack and it NEVER gets held. Not sure why more zergs don't do this or maybe I'm just playing the most god awful protosses.
Pretty much any build can hold this if they power units. It's just an unsensical time to attack, which is probably why you can catch tosses offguard with it.
Most protoss that FFE dont get the scouting information they need so they go, Oh i took a 2nd fast theyll take a 3rd fast and play it that way. Theyll assume they have more time to tech or they throw up a bunch of cannons at the front to stop my push if they see units. I drop the main and clean that up then hit from both the front and whats left at the top and its an easy win. The protoss will never have enough to stop this, unless the zerg misses some injects or the protoss continously kills the nydus and has incredible micro to clean up the drop and not lose all his units. It always ends up with the protoss BARELY holding the first drop as he pulls probes and the reinforcements are just to much.
Carriers you kidding me? Carriers are Scouts of sc2. Its an insult. He had 1 Carrier that didnt do anything. Carrier is option if you need AA, and you have LOTS of time LOTS (very LOTS) of Money LOTS of supply. But when you are going to have 5+ minutes of downtime lategame PvZ? No time.
Otherwise I tottaly agree. Stargate is still great and all Z can really produce at to shut down is Roaches and Lings. Guess what ? Roach is killed by Vray (even 1 ) and Lings get demolished by Zealots +1. Great great strategy!!!!
On December 16 2011 17:25 Corsica wrote: Carriers you kidding me? Carriers are Scouts of sc2. Its an insult. He had 1 Carrier that didnt do anything. Carrier is option if you need AA, and you have LOTS of time LOTS (very LOTS) of Money LOTS of supply. But when you are going to have 5+ minutes of downtime lategame PvZ? No time.
Otherwise I tottaly agree. Stargate is still great and all Z can really produce at to shut down is Roaches and Lings. Guess what ? Roach is killed by Vray (even 1 ) and Lings get demolished by Zealots +1. Great great strategy!!!!
If you read carefully both my initial post and the resulting discussion, you'll see that I only recommend carriers once you've got everything else you want, can max easily, and have lots of money. It's just that they are part of the ultimate late game PvZ army.
Also, yes it might be a great strategy but that wasn't the point of this post as I noted in the disclaimer in the very beginning of my post.
But I think building carriers even late game its like buying an expensive laptop like macbook pro (2000$) and then buying useless stuff in apple store like pens, covers, mices (You can get cheaper/better result) with other stuff
Lebzetu, try making 12 corruptors and A-moving them at the mothership while the rest of your army hangs back safely. Stalkers and even archons can't kill corruptors nearly in time to save the mothership, so the mothership will have to spend its vortexes. If the deathball is really strong with more archons, storms and carriers, use more corruptors and split them into groups so they can't be hit by 1 vortex. Then you retreat with whatever corruptors are left, and you attack with your full army.
Kcdc i just tried this on unit test map. 12 corruptors attacking a mothership, with 24 stalkers and 3 archons (which is way less than a maxed toss army) under the mothership. What happened is that corruptors died before killing mothership (left with less than 100 hp)... U protoss guys seem no to realise that mothership has a decent amount of health, that 12 corru cost SO much more than a mother ship and that even if they killed it, Z better have some corru remaining to take care of colossus etc.
I did a unit test also with the same units and they killed the mothership just fine, once with 0 upgrades once with maxed. Were your corruptors bunched up? Did you give the toss superior upgrades?
Upgrades were 0-0 for both sides. Yes my corruptors were slightly clumped. Let's keep it real, gentlemen, and think about a real game situation. I dont see myself having control group 1) for lings to deflect drops/harass or run by 2) broodlords 3) corru 4) corru 5) corru 6) infestors 7+) hatches and queens
If u dont have 3 control groups for ur corru, they're going to clump. Else u have to prepare a big deal before the engagement and can never use ur control group for corru even once or they're going to clump. The op might speak about splitting corru while attacking etc., I think it's simply BS because he doesnt want to plainly admit vortex is op so he would try to talk about how zerg should micro far better than the toss amoving, how Zerg should throw away 5K ressources to kill the mother ship taking extreme risk and forcing a vortex that will not even happen since, as he said himself, there is no point vortexing (it will not be very effective, corru can nearly get out of range of the archons in time). And I didnt even use half the units a Maxed toss would have in my unit test map test. So I think i'm not exagerating while i'm saying that except if toss do something realy wrong it would take 20+ corru to take out the mothership if not 30+. 20 corru: 3K minerals 2K gas lol. And LOLOLOLOL when the op is saying that ressources dont matter in late game :D
English is not my mother language and I dont know how to say it, but we have a word for it in french: mauvaise foi! If we take that seriously, that means the advantage Z have with their macro ability should disapear since a maxed Z army ask far more ressources than a Toss army. If u max on broods/infestors/corru u're at an army value of an easy 8k minerals and a ton of gas (not sure of the numnber here, but far more than toss anyway), while a maxed toss army of motherhip colo stalker void will be at something like 6k minerals (and not that much gas compared to the Z).
My opinion (cant prove it by any facts) is that the op refuses to admit how far too good archon toilet is, how imbalanced and how clearly it is an exploit by talking about such non realistic things as throw away so much corru in a non sens kamikaze mission. Notice he didnt answer to what i said about doing the test with far less units than a protoss army could have.
The pov of the op, to summarize and slightly caricaturize it, is something like : You Z are screwed in the late game while Brown build allow toss to be safely going into late game. But cmon, take it easy!!
It's an exploit but I don't see how the toilet is imbalanced. Zerg lategame compositions with BL and infestors are stupidly powerful and easier to control than their Protoss counterparts.
I'll trade you the mothership if you take away collision on broodlings, make them similar to mineralwalking workers
What u actually do to avoid the death of your broodlords is that u throw as much infested terrans eggs as possible into the side of the vortex that is at the opposite of the protoss army The infested terrans will push the archons afar from the broodlords, and if u spam ur broodlords group control and tell them to move, they should not die. I did it on unit test map, using 5 archons fully upgraded. My broodlords escaped with 2/3 of their life, which is more than needed. What is pretty cool with this technique from the Z point of view is that there seems to be not much things the protoss can do to avoid it. Targetting broodlords with archons doesnt seem to change anything.
On December 17 2011 10:55 Natalya wrote: Actually Day9 seems to have break it down for us.
What u actually do to avoid the death of your broodlords is that u throw as much infested terrans eggs as possible into the side of the vortex that is at the opposite of the protoss army The infested terrans will push the archons afar from the broodlords, and if u spam ur broodlords group control and tell them to move, they should not die. I did it on unit test map, using 5 archons fully upgraded. My broodlords escaped with 2/3 of their life, which is more than needed. What is pretty cool with this technique from the Z point of view is that there seems to be not much things the protoss can do to avoid it. Targetting broodlords with archons doesnt seem to change anything.
Could it be the end of archons toilet?
This is still extremely situational, and is also assuming your infestors don't die in that time. You can easily drop a vortex and blink into the infestors to try to kill off as many as you can.
On December 17 2011 10:55 Natalya wrote: Actually Day9 seems to have break it down for us.
What u actually do to avoid the death of your broodlords is that u throw as much infested terrans eggs as possible into the side of the vortex that is at the opposite of the protoss army The infested terrans will push the archons afar from the broodlords, and if u spam ur broodlords group control and tell them to move, they should not die. I did it on unit test map, using 5 archons fully upgraded. My broodlords escaped with 2/3 of their life, which is more than needed. What is pretty cool with this technique from the Z point of view is that there seems to be not much things the protoss can do to avoid it. Targetting broodlords with archons doesnt seem to change anything.
Lebzetu, try making 12 corruptors and A-moving them at the mothership while the rest of your army hangs back safely. Stalkers and even archons can't kill corruptors nearly in time to save the mothership, so the mothership will have to spend its vortexes. If the deathball is really strong with more archons, storms and carriers, use more corruptors and split them into groups so they can't be hit by 1 vortex. Then you retreat with whatever corruptors are left, and you attack with your full army.
Kcdc i just tried this on unit test map. 12 corruptors attacking a mothership, with 24 stalkers and 3 archons (which is way less than a maxed toss army) under the mothership. What happened is that corruptors died before killing mothership (left with less than 100 hp)... U protoss guys seem no to realise that mothership has a decent amount of health, that 12 corru cost SO much more than a mother ship and that even if they killed it, Z better have some corru remaining to take care of colossus etc.
I did a unit test also with the same units and they killed the mothership just fine, once with 0 upgrades once with maxed. Were your corruptors bunched up? Did you give the toss superior upgrades?
Upgrades were 0-0 for both sides. Yes my corruptors were slightly clumped. Let's keep it real, gentlemen, and think about a real game situation. I dont see myself having control group 1) for lings to deflect drops/harass or run by 2) broodlords 3) corru 4) corru 5) corru 6) infestors 7+) hatches and queens
If u dont have 3 control groups for ur corru, they're going to clump. Else u have to prepare a big deal before the engagement and can never use ur control group for corru even once or they're going to clump. The op might speak about splitting corru while attacking etc., I think it's simply BS because he doesnt want to plainly admit vortex is op so he would try to talk about how zerg should micro far better than the toss amoving, how Zerg should throw away 5K ressources to kill the mother ship taking extreme risk and forcing a vortex that will not even happen since, as he said himself, there is no point vortexing (it will not be very effective, corru can nearly get out of range of the archons in time). And I didnt even use half the units a Maxed toss would have in my unit test map test. So I think i'm not exagerating while i'm saying that except if toss do something realy wrong it would take 20+ corru to take out the mothership if not 30+. 20 corru: 3K minerals 2K gas lol. And LOLOLOLOL when the op is saying that ressources dont matter in late game :D
English is not my mother language and I dont know how to say it, but we have a word for it in french: mauvaise foi! If we take that seriously, that means the advantage Z have with their macro ability should disapear since a maxed Z army ask far more ressources than a Toss army. If u max on broods/infestors/corru u're at an army value of an easy 8k minerals and a ton of gas (not sure of the numnber here, but far more than toss anyway), while a maxed toss army of motherhip colo stalker void will be at something like 6k minerals (and not that much gas compared to the Z).
My opinion (cant prove it by any facts) is that the op refuses to admit how far too good archon toilet is, how imbalanced and how clearly it is an exploit by talking about such non realistic things as throw away so much corru in a non sens kamikaze mission. Notice he didnt answer to what i said about doing the test with far less units than a protoss army could have.
The pov of the op, to summarize and slightly caricaturize it, is something like : You Z are screwed in the late game while Brown build allow toss to be safely going into late game. But cmon, take it easy!!
Don't know what you want me to say. I do think archon toilet is a bit silly in that one spell can decide the game. However, Zerg does have options versus mothership archon toilet. For example, in this game, if Losira had enough overseers and didn't throw his somewhat decently split broodlords into the vortex, he could have had a fighting chance.
I wanted to throw in a game I saw on stream between Nestea and HongUn, mainly because this was a macro style game (third taken at almost exactly 10 minute mark for protoss) while Nestea was going Mutas. I do believe this applies a lot of the same concepts that this thread is talking about though geared more towards anti-muta play.
On December 18 2011 07:37 wklbishop wrote: I wanted to throw in a game I saw on stream between Nestea and HongUn, mainly because this was a macro style game (third taken at almost exactly 10 minute mark for protoss) while Nestea was going Mutas. I do believe this applies a lot of the same concepts that this thread is talking about though geared more towards anti-muta play.
Correct me if I'm wrong as I openly acknowledge my knowledge of the game isn't as good as others here.
Hm how did you find that replay? And how do you know it's HongUn?
The build the Protoss used in that game is pretty much the FFE into 7-Gate +2 Blink Stalker build that is so popular except it doesn't get the 6th and 7th Gate to get a Nexus up @ 10 mins. It's completely different from how Brown secured his 3rd vs Losira. Which one is better however I have no clue.
Actually is that why you thought it was HongUn since the 7-Gate Blink Stalker build is the only PvZ build he seems to know? Haha
On December 18 2011 07:37 wklbishop wrote: I wanted to throw in a game I saw on stream between Nestea and HongUn, mainly because this was a macro style game (third taken at almost exactly 10 minute mark for protoss) while Nestea was going Mutas. I do believe this applies a lot of the same concepts that this thread is talking about though geared more towards anti-muta play.
Correct me if I'm wrong as I openly acknowledge my knowledge of the game isn't as good as others here.
Hm how did you find that replay? And how do you know it's HongUn?
The build the Protoss used in that game is pretty much the FFE into 7-Gate +2 Blink Stalker build that is so popular except it doesn't get the 6th and 7th Gate to get a Nexus up @ 10 mins. It's completely different from how Brown secured his 3rd vs Losira. Which one is better however I have no clue.
Actually is that why you thought it was HongUn since the 7-Gate Blink Stalker build is the only PvZ build he seems to know? Haha
I watched it on HongUn's stream because he is my favorite player and I always believed he would make his funky style work one day and rise to the top again though that's might just be me being a fanboy....
Not sure if you can still call it the FFE into 7 Gate +2 Blink though if he doesn't get the 6th or 7th gate and that amount of gates really make the difference between all-inning or just expanding which is a big difference, but what do I know. LOL. xD Once again, correct me if I'm wrong because I fear I might be biased here... plus, as you would probably understand, watching it live and on stream feels a lot different with the amount of excitement generated that I might end up overhyping this game.
On December 18 2011 07:37 wklbishop wrote: I wanted to throw in a game I saw on stream between Nestea and HongUn, mainly because this was a macro style game (third taken at almost exactly 10 minute mark for protoss) while Nestea was going Mutas. I do believe this applies a lot of the same concepts that this thread is talking about though geared more towards anti-muta play.
Correct me if I'm wrong as I openly acknowledge my knowledge of the game isn't as good as others here.
Hm how did you find that replay? And how do you know it's HongUn?
The build the Protoss used in that game is pretty much the FFE into 7-Gate +2 Blink Stalker build that is so popular except it doesn't get the 6th and 7th Gate to get a Nexus up @ 10 mins. It's completely different from how Brown secured his 3rd vs Losira. Which one is better however I have no clue.
Actually is that why you thought it was HongUn since the 7-Gate Blink Stalker build is the only PvZ build he seems to know? Haha
I watched it on HongUn's stream because he is my favorite player and I always believed he would make his funky style work one day and rise to the top again though that's might just be me being a fanboy....
Not sure if you can still call it the FFE into 7 Gate +2 Blink though if he doesn't get the 6th or 7th gate and that amount of gates really make the difference between all-inning or just expanding which is a big difference, but what do I know. LOL. xD Once again, correct me if I'm wrong because I fear I might be biased here... plus, as you would probably understand, watching it live and on stream feels a lot different with the amount of excitement generated that I might end up overhyping this game.
I called it that because everything pretty much went down at roughly the standard 7-Gate Blink Stalker timings. Whether this is an actual build HongUn uses to get a fast 3rd or just something he did on the fly after scouting something in particular I do not know. I will say that it is pretty interesting because with a 7-Gate Blink Stalker build you throw down your last couple of Gates and cut Probes right around the same time, so essentially you can go 8-9 mins into the game before you have to commit one way or the other.
Also I don't necessarily consider 7-Gate Blink Stalker all-in. You need to do damage with the build yes, but you don't have to outright kill the Zerg with it. If you can take out their 3rd for example you can then fall back and expand and the game more or less "resets" so to speak. A 1/1/1 on the other hand is what I would consider an all-in, because if your all-in fails your only option is to all-in again.
Lebzetu, try making 12 corruptors and A-moving them at the mothership while the rest of your army hangs back safely. Stalkers and even archons can't kill corruptors nearly in time to save the mothership, so the mothership will have to spend its vortexes. If the deathball is really strong with more archons, storms and carriers, use more corruptors and split them into groups so they can't be hit by 1 vortex. Then you retreat with whatever corruptors are left, and you attack with your full army.
Kcdc i just tried this on unit test map. 12 corruptors attacking a mothership, with 24 stalkers and 3 archons (which is way less than a maxed toss army) under the mothership. What happened is that corruptors died before killing mothership (left with less than 100 hp)... U protoss guys seem no to realise that mothership has a decent amount of health, that 12 corru cost SO much more than a mother ship and that even if they killed it, Z better have some corru remaining to take care of colossus etc.
I did a unit test also with the same units and they killed the mothership just fine, once with 0 upgrades once with maxed. Were your corruptors bunched up? Did you give the toss superior upgrades?
Upgrades were 0-0 for both sides. Yes my corruptors were slightly clumped. Let's keep it real, gentlemen, and think about a real game situation. I dont see myself having control group
I have done the test many times and my corruptors are somewhat clumped too. Corruptors win for me.......
I have done the test many times and my corruptors are somewhat clumped too. Corruptors win for me.......
Maybe you miscounted?
I said the mothership had less than 100hp remaining. Could be that my corruption came just after the first hit of the corruptors, could be that when u were running the test the mothership was in front of the army, knowing that I placed it in the back of the army. 100 hp is not that much and i took it as a reference. What i meant is that with 3 archons and 24 stalkers, 12 corru more or less kill the mothership.
Lebzetu, try making 12 corruptors and A-moving them at the mothership while the rest of your army hangs back safely. Stalkers and even archons can't kill corruptors nearly in time to save the mothership, so the mothership will have to spend its vortexes. If the deathball is really strong with more archons, storms and carriers, use more corruptors and split them into groups so they can't be hit by 1 vortex. Then you retreat with whatever corruptors are left, and you attack with your full army.
Kcdc i just tried this on unit test map. 12 corruptors attacking a mothership, with 24 stalkers and 3 archons (which is way less than a maxed toss army) under the mothership. What happened is that corruptors died before killing mothership (left with less than 100 hp)... U protoss guys seem no to realise that mothership has a decent amount of health, that 12 corru cost SO much more than a mother ship and that even if they killed it, Z better have some corru remaining to take care of colossus etc.
I did a unit test also with the same units and they killed the mothership just fine, once with 0 upgrades once with maxed. Were your corruptors bunched up? Did you give the toss superior upgrades?
Upgrades were 0-0 for both sides. Yes my corruptors were slightly clumped. Let's keep it real, gentlemen, and think about a real game situation. I dont see myself having control group 1) for lings to deflect drops/harass or run by 2) broodlords 3) corru 4) corru 5) corru 6) infestors 7+) hatches and queens
If u dont have 3 control groups for ur corru, they're going to clump. Else u have to prepare a big deal before the engagement and can never use ur control group for corru even once or they're going to clump. The op might speak about splitting corru while attacking etc., I think it's simply BS because he doesnt want to plainly admit vortex is op so he would try to talk about how zerg should micro far better than the toss amoving, how Zerg should throw away 5K ressources to kill the mother ship taking extreme risk and forcing a vortex that will not even happen since, as he said himself, there is no point vortexing (it will not be very effective, corru can nearly get out of range of the archons in time). And I didnt even use half the units a Maxed toss would have in my unit test map test. So I think i'm not exagerating while i'm saying that except if toss do something realy wrong it would take 20+ corru to take out the mothership if not 30+. 20 corru: 3K minerals 2K gas lol. And LOLOLOLOL when the op is saying that ressources dont matter in late game :D
English is not my mother language and I dont know how to say it, but we have a word for it in french: mauvaise foi! If we take that seriously, that means the advantage Z have with their macro ability should disapear since a maxed Z army ask far more ressources than a Toss army. If u max on broods/infestors/corru u're at an army value of an easy 8k minerals and a ton of gas (not sure of the numnber here, but far more than toss anyway), while a maxed toss army of motherhip colo stalker void will be at something like 6k minerals (and not that much gas compared to the Z).
My opinion (cant prove it by any facts) is that the op refuses to admit how far too good archon toilet is, how imbalanced and how clearly it is an exploit by talking about such non realistic things as throw away so much corru in a non sens kamikaze mission. Notice he didnt answer to what i said about doing the test with far less units than a protoss army could have.
The pov of the op, to summarize and slightly caricaturize it, is something like : You Z are screwed in the late game while Brown build allow toss to be safely going into late game. But cmon, take it easy!!
Don't know what you want me to say. I do think archon toilet is a bit silly in that one spell can decide the game. However, Zerg does have options versus mothership archon toilet. For example, in this game, if Losira had enough overseers and didn't throw his somewhat decently split broodlords into the vortex, he could have had a fighting chance.
Ofcourse i agree there were obvious mistakes on Losira's part. I understand it that you are trying to find ways for the Zerg to kill the mothership, even if the situation become a little absurd. I guess I shoudnt be mad at you, even if I'm not really mad, but it's kinda irritating to read most of your posts where you try to adress the problem as if there were no balance problems. Well, i guess whining about balance has never help anyone and my mindset will always be to focus myself on the task of finding solution rather than whining. I think it is your mindset as well, as you are not a blizzard employee. Can I ask you what change would you make if you were a developper (I know it's maybe an impossible question lol)?
I've been trying this and it works wonders against any zerg who is forced into hydras. To ensure this, I try to get 2 void rays out and surprise him, which often will force hydras. The problem i foresee with getting your 3rd at about 10 minutes though and going stargate is.. what if he just turtles with spores and pops a ton of mutas? How will you defend your 3rd from ling run bys, your main from mutas, etc.
Also what do you think about the 2 void rays instead of one, as 1 never really does damage while 2 void rays with some phoenix after can kill tons of queens, spawning pools etc.. It is 250/150 more but after I do damage / force hydras you can just pull them back and defend your 3rd with them. 2>1 for defending against roach aggression.
I have done the test many times and my corruptors are somewhat clumped too. Corruptors win for me.......
Maybe you miscounted?
I said the mothership had less than 100hp remaining. Could be that my corruption came just after the first hit of the corruptors, could be that when u were running the test the mothership was in front of the army, knowing that I placed it in the back of the army. 100 hp is not that much and i took it as a reference. What i meant is that with 3 archons and 24 stalkers, 12 corru more or less kill the mothership.
Lebzetu, try making 12 corruptors and A-moving them at the mothership while the rest of your army hangs back safely. Stalkers and even archons can't kill corruptors nearly in time to save the mothership, so the mothership will have to spend its vortexes. If the deathball is really strong with more archons, storms and carriers, use more corruptors and split them into groups so they can't be hit by 1 vortex. Then you retreat with whatever corruptors are left, and you attack with your full army.
Kcdc i just tried this on unit test map. 12 corruptors attacking a mothership, with 24 stalkers and 3 archons (which is way less than a maxed toss army) under the mothership. What happened is that corruptors died before killing mothership (left with less than 100 hp)... U protoss guys seem no to realise that mothership has a decent amount of health, that 12 corru cost SO much more than a mother ship and that even if they killed it, Z better have some corru remaining to take care of colossus etc.
I did a unit test also with the same units and they killed the mothership just fine, once with 0 upgrades once with maxed. Were your corruptors bunched up? Did you give the toss superior upgrades?
Upgrades were 0-0 for both sides. Yes my corruptors were slightly clumped. Let's keep it real, gentlemen, and think about a real game situation. I dont see myself having control group 1) for lings to deflect drops/harass or run by 2) broodlords 3) corru 4) corru 5) corru 6) infestors 7+) hatches and queens
If u dont have 3 control groups for ur corru, they're going to clump. Else u have to prepare a big deal before the engagement and can never use ur control group for corru even once or they're going to clump. The op might speak about splitting corru while attacking etc., I think it's simply BS because he doesnt want to plainly admit vortex is op so he would try to talk about how zerg should micro far better than the toss amoving, how Zerg should throw away 5K ressources to kill the mother ship taking extreme risk and forcing a vortex that will not even happen since, as he said himself, there is no point vortexing (it will not be very effective, corru can nearly get out of range of the archons in time). And I didnt even use half the units a Maxed toss would have in my unit test map test. So I think i'm not exagerating while i'm saying that except if toss do something realy wrong it would take 20+ corru to take out the mothership if not 30+. 20 corru: 3K minerals 2K gas lol. And LOLOLOLOL when the op is saying that ressources dont matter in late game :D
English is not my mother language and I dont know how to say it, but we have a word for it in french: mauvaise foi! If we take that seriously, that means the advantage Z have with their macro ability should disapear since a maxed Z army ask far more ressources than a Toss army. If u max on broods/infestors/corru u're at an army value of an easy 8k minerals and a ton of gas (not sure of the numnber here, but far more than toss anyway), while a maxed toss army of motherhip colo stalker void will be at something like 6k minerals (and not that much gas compared to the Z).
My opinion (cant prove it by any facts) is that the op refuses to admit how far too good archon toilet is, how imbalanced and how clearly it is an exploit by talking about such non realistic things as throw away so much corru in a non sens kamikaze mission. Notice he didnt answer to what i said about doing the test with far less units than a protoss army could have.
The pov of the op, to summarize and slightly caricaturize it, is something like : You Z are screwed in the late game while Brown build allow toss to be safely going into late game. But cmon, take it easy!!
Don't know what you want me to say. I do think archon toilet is a bit silly in that one spell can decide the game. However, Zerg does have options versus mothership archon toilet. For example, in this game, if Losira had enough overseers and didn't throw his somewhat decently split broodlords into the vortex, he could have had a fighting chance.
Ofcourse i agree there were obvious mistakes on Losira's part. I understand it that you are trying to find ways for the Zerg to kill the mothership, even if the situation become a little absurd. I guess I shoudnt be mad at you, even if I'm not really mad, but it's kinda irritating to read most of your posts where you try to adress the problem as if there were no balance problems. Well, i guess whining about balance has never help anyone and my mindset will always be to focus myself on the task of finding solution rather than whining. I think it is your mindset as well, as you are not a blizzard employee. Can I ask you what change would you make if you were a developper (I know it's maybe an impossible question lol)?
Iono, make units spread out more when they come out of vortex?
On December 18 2011 15:09 AegiS_ wrote: I've been trying this and it works wonders against any zerg who is forced into hydras. To ensure this, I try to get 2 void rays out and surprise him, which often will force hydras. The problem i foresee with getting your 3rd at about 10 minutes though and going stargate is.. what if he just turtles with spores and pops a ton of mutas? How will you defend your 3rd from ling run bys, your main from mutas, etc.
Also what do you think about the 2 void rays instead of one, as 1 never really does damage while 2 void rays with some phoenix after can kill tons of queens, spawning pools etc.. It is 250/150 more but after I do damage / force hydras you can just pull them back and defend your 3rd with them. 2>1 for defending against roach aggression.
Again, as I said in the first sentence of this post, I'm not advocating for the exact strategy that Brown uses and this thread shouldn't be about that. That being said, 2 voidrays and a couple of phoenix are not going to force hydra. Nothing short of 2 stargate will force hydra and even then it's somewhat possible to forgo hydra. If you get 2 voids and a couple of phoenix, your colossi will be delayed and you won't have your first colossi in time to defend against hydra pushes. Against ling runbys, good blocking, sim city, and zealot/sentry will spot all ling runbys. Against muta, you need to use a combination of pressure and cannons as with any strategy involving colossi versus muta.
On December 06 2011 01:56 NrGmonk wrote: 2. Just one voidray can allow you to take a fast 3rd on large maps. Brown is not the first Protoss to use this tactic, as Huk has done this many a time recently. However, not enough people know about it. Just one voidray prevents roach based attacks from the zerg until he can get a mass of either hydras, mutas, corruptors, or infestors. At this time, you can easily take a third while massing zealot/sentry to deal with lings and teching to colossi to deal with either infestors or hydras.
.
Hi Monk, I am investigating more into this FFE into void kinda play, cos it sounds fun.
I know it has been discussed here and there in this thread, but would you mind explaining to me why only 1 voidray lets you take a fast 3rd?? It feels like everytime I see ppl do this, Protoss has very minimal units (like 3-4zealots maybe and a voidray+phoenix) and zerg gets like 40supply ahead at these times, and I feel that all zerg has to do is mass roaches and go and bust the front. But for some reason, I never see any zerg do that? If there was mass roach, then although they cant shoot up, how is 1 voidray's DPS going to stop this?
Its the great mystery to me that I have always been wondering!
On December 06 2011 01:56 NrGmonk wrote: 2. Just one voidray can allow you to take a fast 3rd on large maps. Brown is not the first Protoss to use this tactic, as Huk has done this many a time recently. However, not enough people know about it. Just one voidray prevents roach based attacks from the zerg until he can get a mass of either hydras, mutas, corruptors, or infestors. At this time, you can easily take a third while massing zealot/sentry to deal with lings and teching to colossi to deal with either infestors or hydras.
.
Hi Monk, I am investigating more into this FFE into void kinda play, cos it sounds fun.
I know it has been discussed here and there in this thread, but would you mind explaining to me why only 1 voidray lets you take a fast 3rd?? It feels like everytime I see ppl do this, Protoss has very minimal units (like 3-4zealots maybe and a voidray+phoenix) and zerg gets like 40supply ahead at these times, and I feel that all zerg has to do is mass roaches and go and bust the front. But for some reason, I never see any zerg do that? If there was mass roach, then although they cant shoot up, how is 1 voidray's DPS going to stop this?
Its the great mystery to me that I have always been wondering!
This is what I was thinking as well. I have been trying this a lot, and it seems like one void ray can't actually do anything if the zerg straight up attacks you.
On December 06 2011 01:56 NrGmonk wrote: 2. Just one voidray can allow you to take a fast 3rd on large maps. Brown is not the first Protoss to use this tactic, as Huk has done this many a time recently. However, not enough people know about it. Just one voidray prevents roach based attacks from the zerg until he can get a mass of either hydras, mutas, corruptors, or infestors. At this time, you can easily take a third while massing zealot/sentry to deal with lings and teching to colossi to deal with either infestors or hydras.
.
Hi Monk, I am investigating more into this FFE into void kinda play, cos it sounds fun.
I know it has been discussed here and there in this thread, but would you mind explaining to me why only 1 voidray lets you take a fast 3rd?? It feels like everytime I see ppl do this, Protoss has very minimal units (like 3-4zealots maybe and a voidray+phoenix) and zerg gets like 40supply ahead at these times, and I feel that all zerg has to do is mass roaches and go and bust the front. But for some reason, I never see any zerg do that? If there was mass roach, then although they cant shoot up, how is 1 voidray's DPS going to stop this?
Its the great mystery to me that I have always been wondering!
Ok, here's some possible things you might be doing wrong. 1. Trying this on too small a map. Note I said large maps and the map this was done on was quite huge: Daybreak. I suspect that on any significantly smaller such as antiga or shakruas, it will not work so well. Examples of big maps include Daybreak, Talderim, or Termius. 2. You're not positioning your voidray correctly. If you're going to rely on voidray for defense, you have to position it conservatively. That is, you can't go trying to harass or deny a 4th base with it. Rather, your voidray has to be positioned directly in the path between your bases and his so that it can shoot all the way from his base to yours, killing 3-4 roaches and charging up along the way. 3. Not having a suitable followup: The voidray only keeps you safe for a short window of time. You still need a good followup to defend against larger attacks or attacks that involve hydras. You can do this in a variety of ways. Brown chooses a VERY fast colossi while Huk prefers mass gateway units.
i watched the game, and I'm not that impressed. Brown goes for no damage off two base, which is okay but I dont think that the third at 950 was defendable. at that point he had a voidray and a pheonix, 6 gateways, a robo which only made observers, and a really small sentry stalker zealot army consisting of perhaps 6 sentries, 4 zealots and a handful of stalkers. If losira decided to just attack and punish that he could have easily forced the cancel on the 3rd since he had scouted it the second it was put down by way of ling, and still be on good 3 base saturation off 50 or so drones, putting him in a way favorable situation.
Even though the game didn't play out like that, if you watch, brown is in super awkward position after he losses his small colosuss stalker ball to broods and fungal, being able to only make a few stalkers and templar to fall back on. The only reason brown won imo was because losira lost all his shit to vortex. If you recall dimaga vs JYP game 1 in HSC4 spread army of broods rapes vortex protoss ball.
On January 13 2012 09:04 fighter2_40 wrote: i watched the game, and I'm not that impressed. Brown goes for no damage off two base, which is okay but I dont think that the third at 950 was defendable. at that point he had a voidray and a pheonix, 6 gateways, a robo which only made observers, and a really small sentry stalker zealot army consisting of perhaps 6 sentries, 4 zealots and a handful of stalkers. If losira decided to just attack and punish that he could have easily forced the cancel on the 3rd since he had scouted it the second it was put down by way of ling, and still be on good 3 base saturation off 50 or so drones, putting him in a way favorable situation.
Even though the game didn't play out like that, if you watch, brown is in super awkward position after he losses his small colosuss stalker ball to broods and fungal, being able to only make a few stalkers and templar to fall back on. The only reason brown won imo was because losira lost all his shit to vortex. If you recall dimaga vs JYP game 1 in HSC4 spread army of broods rapes vortex protoss ball.
What attack could Losira possibly have done? I've actually played this strat around 20 times on Daybreak and given good timings in accordance with with Brown's build, no early aggression could kill me. Mass ling attacks get shut down by sentry/zealot. Early roach attacks get shut down by the voidray. Later roach or roach/hydra attacks get shut down by the extremely fast 1st colossi.
I don't really see your point in the 2nd paragraph. JYP lost that game because he tried to attack into spread out mass broodlord/spine. If he had gone carriers, it was an easy win.
On December 06 2011 01:56 NrGmonk wrote: 2. Just one voidray can allow you to take a fast 3rd on large maps. Brown is not the first Protoss to use this tactic, as Huk has done this many a time recently. However, not enough people know about it. Just one voidray prevents roach based attacks from the zerg until he can get a mass of either hydras, mutas, corruptors, or infestors. At this time, you can easily take a third while massing zealot/sentry to deal with lings and teching to colossi to deal with either infestors or hydras.
.
Hi Monk, I am investigating more into this FFE into void kinda play, cos it sounds fun.
I know it has been discussed here and there in this thread, but would you mind explaining to me why only 1 voidray lets you take a fast 3rd?? It feels like everytime I see ppl do this, Protoss has very minimal units (like 3-4zealots maybe and a voidray+phoenix) and zerg gets like 40supply ahead at these times, and I feel that all zerg has to do is mass roaches and go and bust the front. But for some reason, I never see any zerg do that? If there was mass roach, then although they cant shoot up, how is 1 voidray's DPS going to stop this?
Its the great mystery to me that I have always been wondering!
Ok, here's some possible things you might be doing wrong. 1. Trying this on too small a map. Note I said large maps and the map this was done on was quite huge: Daybreak. I suspect that on any significantly smaller such as antiga or shakruas, it will not work so well. Examples of big maps include Daybreak, Talderim, or Termius. 2. You're not positioning your voidray correctly. If you're going to rely on voidray for defense, you have to position it conservatively. That is, you can't go trying to harass or deny a 4th base with it. Rather, your voidray has to be positioned directly in the path between your bases and his so that it can shoot all the way from his base to yours, killing 3-4 roaches and charging up along the way. 3. Not having a suitable followup: The voidray only keeps you safe for a short window of time. You still need a good followup to defend against larger attacks or attacks that involve hydras. You can do this in a variety of ways. Brown chooses a VERY fast colossi while Huk prefers mass gateway units.
THANK YOU MONK!
This is probably one of the best explanations I have read so far! I think some ppl have hinted to one of your points here and there, but this is the best. Can I suggest you get into writing game strategy books, and I sell them for u??
Ok so ur implying then this type of play wont work on smaller maps like Shattered? Ohhh...do you have any other suggestions then on builds/follow ups that allow for early thirds and safety against 2-base play?
Alas, if only this game wouldn't have happened I might still be able to win ZvP. lol
But yeah, I just rewatched this game, and it's weird to think that this game kind of redefined modern lategame PvZ (BL, vs Archon Toilet). I can't say I'm thrilled because I think that the Archon Toilet is fucking ridiculous (although, admittedly, mass BL probably was too powerful versus protoss as well), but it's cool to think how the entire matchup can really be flipped on it's head by one game. Can't wait till HotS and finally being rid of this horror and finally being able to (maybe) win against protoss late game again!
Monk, I think you're still over-stating what 1 VR can do for you. I've played a lot using voids to defend a third, and 1 void simply doesn't give you enough DPS to defend a third against roach-ling. Also, if Z gets roach speed, you can't kill roaches as they cross the map.
P isn't pressuring Z at all, so Z should have roach speed by 10 or 11 minutes. And an early speed roach timing against this build would kill the 3rd 100% of the time.
From what I can tell from the VOD, at 11:30, Z has roach speed finishing while P has an army of about 5 zealots, 5 sentries, a void ray and a phoenix. It happened to work out for Brown because Losira went for 90 drones and hive tech before thinking about aggression, but if Losira had committed to killing Brown's third when he scouted it at 9:50, he could have attacked off of 60 drones with probably 25-30 speed roaches by 12 min. Brown doesn't have his first colossus until 12:20, and it couldn't be at the third until later than that.
I'm a believer in this style of build. My stalkerless PvZ guide works on a similar theory that VRs make it easier to take a third (that build gets storm, but I've also played it a lot with colossi), but the practice of actually defending the third is more difficult than just saying roaches can't punish you because they don't shoot up. You need multiple void rays, and on a normal sized map where hydras can actually attack, you need to start robo support bay or templar archives before taking your third.
On January 14 2012 01:58 kcdc wrote: you need to start robo support bay or templar archives before taking your third.
I'm not convinced on this point yet. I take a really early third very often, and think you can time 2 Colossus to pop by placing Robitics after you place the Nexus. I do this fairly often if I have proper information from the Z. In terms of Storm however I think the overhead to get a storm sufficient army is larger, and can see why starting the Archives before the Nexus would make a lot of sense, especially since Templar aren't really mineral heavy making it easier to get additional gates and probes for the additional base.
i've been using this build quite often recently in my PvZs and have found that 1 void ray doesnt automatically protect you from a roach speed mass timing around 9-10min~ however in the games where this has happened i have simply lost my 3rd then had a tech advantage that i used to crush his army immediately after losing my 3rd where i lose very few probes and a nexus and end up with a tech and army advantage (mainly due to blink/ff micro though so the Z can come out very ahead w/the attack) and the zerg doesnt have optimal drone saturation yet, granted i have yet to have a zerg attempt to do this by attacking the natural/main and going for my tech as well as econ as they all just go for the 3rd first losing the 3rd nexus is not game over though due to the simultaneous tech that you get and the fact that the zerg delays his tech somewhat to get all of those roaches out to attack with before he hits ~60-70 drones rather than 80-90 that the Z usually wants (in my experience)
I'm not saying that you always have to get colossi/storm before a third. You can take a third with gateway units and defend with just a big army, but if you want to do cutesy small compositions with greedy econ and tech, you need to make sure that you have the right composition at the right timing.
3-base hydra pushes on moderate rush distances start coming into play around 11:30 or so, and if your composition is 1 void, 5 zealots, and 5 sentries when the push hits, you're shit out of luck. But if you have 1 void, 5 zealots, 5 sentries and 1 colossus without range, you're probably okay.
Of course, the rush distance in the Brown vs Losira game made 3-base hydra pushes a non-issue, so it was fine to take the third before getting AoE tech. Speed roaches would be the bigger concern.
On January 14 2012 01:58 kcdc wrote: Monk, I think you're still over-stating what 1 VR can do for you. I've played a lot using voids to defend a third, and 1 void simply doesn't give you enough DPS to defend a third against roach-ling. Also, if Z gets roach speed, you can't kill roaches as they cross the map.
P isn't pressuring Z at all, so Z should have roach speed by 10 or 11 minutes. And an early speed roach timing against this build would kill the 3rd 100% of the time.
From what I can tell from the VOD, at 11:30, Z has roach speed finishing while P has an army of about 5 zealots, 5 sentries, a void ray and a phoenix. It happened to work out for Brown because Losira went for 90 drones and hive tech before thinking about aggression, but if Losira had committed to killing Brown's third when he scouted it at 9:50, he could have attacked off of 60 drones with probably 25-30 speed roaches by 12 min. Brown doesn't have his first colossus until 12:20, and it couldn't be at the third until later than that.
I'm a believer in this style of build. My stalkerless PvZ guide works on a similar theory that VRs make it easier to take a third (that build gets storm, but I've also played it a lot with colossi), but the practice of actually defending the third is more difficult than just saying roaches can't punish you because they don't shoot up. You need multiple void rays, and on a normal sized map where hydras can actually attack, you need to start robo support bay or templar archives before taking your third.
The whole point #2 hinged around large maps, so I won't touch on small/medium maps. Imo 1 voidray positioned correctly on Daybreak plus 2 cannons and a small force of gateway units can hold off any number of roaches before the colossi. At 12:00, when you say Losira can have 25-30 roaches at Brown's 3rd, Brown has 6 zealots, 2 stalkers, and 6 sentries. He also has 400/500 resources and 2 free warpins that he didn't use. In addition, Brown scouted mass lings and a infestation pit already, so he should be minimalistic with defense. I dare say that Brown could have gotten up to 5 more units if he really wanted to/needed at 12:00. That, in combination with an incoming colossi, cannons, and a voidray seems enough to me. Who knows; I could be wrong since I never tested it.
I tried this on ladder and just cant really get behind it. the super fast third allows zerg to take a fast 4th and easily crush you midgame with a roach hydra corrupter push. It was my first time playing it and I probably made some mistakes but I cant help but feel this is super risky. A muta switch as well would most likely kill you with such a late twilight. The macro pvz with less gates blink stalkers and double immortal production into templar after taking a faste third with blink seems so much better. After you force several sets of lings as well with zealot stalker or zealot x2 and stalker push.
On February 05 2012 06:45 sofakng wrote: I tried this on ladder and just cant really get behind it. the super fast third allows zerg to take a fast 4th and easily crush you midgame with a roach hydra corrupter push. It was my first time playing it and I probably made some mistakes but I cant help but feel this is super risky. A muta switch as well would most likely kill you with such a late twilight. The macro pvz with less gates blink stalkers and double immortal production into templar after taking a faste third with blink seems so much better. After you force several sets of lings as well with zealot stalker or zealot x2 and stalker push.
First of all, read the disclaimer at the top of my OP. This is not meant to be a guide about his build at all. I'm not even particularly advocating his build. There are certain things you have to do vs roach hydra play or muta play that you don't have to do versus infestor ling play that Losira did. So if you follow the build order exactly, of course you'll die. You have to play this build at a high level more than once before you judge it. Also, who goes double robo immortal into 3 base into templar? -_-.
On February 05 2012 06:45 sofakng wrote: I tried this on ladder and just cant really get behind it. the super fast third allows zerg to take a fast 4th and easily crush you midgame with a roach hydra corrupter push. It was my first time playing it and I probably made some mistakes but I cant help but feel this is super risky. A muta switch as well would most likely kill you with such a late twilight. The macro pvz with less gates blink stalkers and double immortal production into templar after taking a faste third with blink seems so much better. After you force several sets of lings as well with zealot stalker or zealot x2 and stalker push.
Hahaha "I played this once and I lost so it doesn't work." As Gormonk said, this isn't an exact build order and was meant more for discussion of concepts to take into consideration when playing against zerg on certain maps.
On February 05 2012 06:45 sofakng wrote: I tried this on ladder and just cant really get behind it. the super fast third allows zerg to take a fast 4th and easily crush you midgame with a roach hydra corrupter push. It was my first time playing it and I probably made some mistakes but I cant help but feel this is super risky. A muta switch as well would most likely kill you with such a late twilight. The macro pvz with less gates blink stalkers and double immortal production into templar after taking a faste third with blink seems so much better. After you force several sets of lings as well with zealot stalker or zealot x2 and stalker push.
Hahaha "I played this once and I lost so it doesn't work." As Gormonk said, this isn't an exact build order and was meant more for discussion of concepts to take into consideration when playing against zerg on certain maps.
I didn't say it didnt work I said I did not like the style. The double robo comes as you take your third a bit after or if you ever have a surplus of money. It just seems super weak to a midgame push with roach and hydra or mutlpronged harass or muta. I didnt follow the build exactly and teched faster to collosus to suit the fast hydra push and shorter rush distance but it just doesnt seem viable to me. Mock me if you want but I really wanna this build stand up to a lot of different builds before any real conclusions are drawn from it. Bug Brown for a replay pack. :p
Edit: and to clarify I don't really know bo's except for pvp and wing most things. Is it good? Probably not. Does it make me ideal for testing this? Again probably no but I've gotten far enough on mechanics and decisions making that I feel like I can pick up builds pretty fast and execute them well.
On February 05 2012 06:45 sofakng wrote: I tried this on ladder and just cant really get behind it. the super fast third allows zerg to take a fast 4th and easily crush you midgame with a roach hydra corrupter push. It was my first time playing it and I probably made some mistakes but I cant help but feel this is super risky. A muta switch as well would most likely kill you with such a late twilight. The macro pvz with less gates blink stalkers and double immortal production into templar after taking a faste third with blink seems so much better. After you force several sets of lings as well with zealot stalker or zealot x2 and stalker push.
Hahaha "I played this once and I lost so it doesn't work." As Gormonk said, this isn't an exact build order and was meant more for discussion of concepts to take into consideration when playing against zerg on certain maps.
I didn't say it didnt work I said I did not like the style. The double robo comes as you take your third a bit after or if you ever have a surplus of money. It just seems super weak to a midgame push with roach and hydra or mutlpronged harass or muta. I didnt follow the build exactly and teched faster to collosus to suit the fast hydra push and shorter rush distance but it just doesnt seem viable to me. Mock me if you want but I really wanna this build stand up to a lot of different builds before any real conclusions are drawn from it. Bug Brown for a replay pack. :p
Edit: and to clarify I don't really know bo's except for pvp and wing most things. Is it good? Probably not. Does it make me ideal for testing this? Again probably no but I've gotten far enough on mechanics and decisions making that I feel like I can pick up builds pretty fast and execute them well.
There's a lot of small nuances that most people don't see in the build.
I'll let you into some secrets. The midgame push with roach/hydra is dealt with by the first colossi that pops out between 12:00 and 12:20. If you don't do the build exactly, of course you'll die. If you follow it exactly, you'll have a colossi out right before the push comes. I also reference large maps in my posts a lot, which vastly deters hydra pushes.
Vs mutas you rely on your first phoenix to scout his tech. If it's mutas, you have to cancel your robo bay, throw up a twilight, and play stand from there. Versus a later muta switch, pressure with your colossi army while getting blink(which you should be getting anyway).
But seriously, you tried this on ladder once and it "feels" risky? -_-.
I ask again how to deal with archon toilet. It seems so imbalanced as there isn't anything you can do about it. I mean, you CAN spread out your brood lords, but he has two vortexes so theres a guaranteed 6-8 brood lords vortexed, if you split a lot. And then you have about 10 broods left on the field which he can just blink under. If you have a replay of someone holding off archon toilet, I will gladly watch it. But even worse is storm toilet.
On February 06 2012 04:19 llKenZyll wrote: I ask again how to deal with archon toilet. It seems so imbalanced as there isn't anything you can do about it. I mean, you CAN spread out your brood lords, but he has two vortexes so theres a guaranteed 6-8 brood lords vortexed, if you split a lot. And then you have about 10 broods left on the field which he can just blink under. If you have a replay of someone holding off archon toilet, I will gladly watch it. But even worse is storm toilet.
Check Grubby vs Stephano on Metal game 1 from Shoutcraft invitational semi finals.
On February 05 2012 06:45 sofakng wrote: I tried this on ladder and just cant really get behind it. the super fast third allows zerg to take a fast 4th and easily crush you midgame with a roach hydra corrupter push. It was my first time playing it and I probably made some mistakes but I cant help but feel this is super risky. A muta switch as well would most likely kill you with such a late twilight. The macro pvz with less gates blink stalkers and double immortal production into templar after taking a faste third with blink seems so much better. After you force several sets of lings as well with zealot stalker or zealot x2 and stalker push.
Hahaha "I played this once and I lost so it doesn't work." As Gormonk said, this isn't an exact build order and was meant more for discussion of concepts to take into consideration when playing against zerg on certain maps.
I didn't say it didnt work I said I did not like the style. The double robo comes as you take your third a bit after or if you ever have a surplus of money. It just seems super weak to a midgame push with roach and hydra or mutlpronged harass or muta. I didnt follow the build exactly and teched faster to collosus to suit the fast hydra push and shorter rush distance but it just doesnt seem viable to me. Mock me if you want but I really wanna this build stand up to a lot of different builds before any real conclusions are drawn from it. Bug Brown for a replay pack. :p
Edit: and to clarify I don't really know bo's except for pvp and wing most things. Is it good? Probably not. Does it make me ideal for testing this? Again probably no but I've gotten far enough on mechanics and decisions making that I feel like I can pick up builds pretty fast and execute them well.
There's a lot of small nuances that most people don't see in the build.
I'll let you into some secrets. The midgame push with roach/hydra is dealt with by the first colossi that pops out between 12:00 and 12:20. If you don't do the build exactly, of course you'll die. If you follow it exactly, you'll have a colossi out right before the push comes. I also reference large maps in my posts a lot, which vastly deters hydra pushes.
Vs mutas you rely on your first phoenix to scout his tech. If it's mutas, you have to cancel your robo bay, throw up a twilight, and play stand from there. Versus a later muta switch, pressure with your colossi army while getting blink(which you should be getting anyway).
But seriously, you tried this on ladder once and it "feels" risky? -_-.
yes it felt risky... Again the map was probably the biggest difference shakuras has a much shorter rush distance and no center rocks to make the push delayed even more. Ill have to play around with it a bit but faster thirds vs zerg always just seem riskier to me. I am obviously going to tyr it again but this initial testing felt a bit riskier. I''ll have to try it on entombed or tal darim maybe but even tal darim not in cross is decently close. I'll tyr it out again a few times and see how it goes so you can stop giving me then -_- face and to see if i change my mind.
Dunno how people can really doubt the viability of this, Brown had plenty of room in his build to be more conservative and defensive if Losira pulled out something scary earlier on. Protoss gets so scary ultra lategame, very strong army but still great harass potential with prism and DT.
I like this build more now. The only scary thing I can see is if your marco is sub par and you cant get out everything in time or you lose your void ray.
Game is the first set of University of Utah vs University of Washington from this last Saturday's CSL match. UofU (my school) ended up taking the match 3:0.
I don't execute the build with much finesse or exactitude, but my opponent's low drone count renders this largely irrelevant.
Anyway, if anyone is interested in what a mid-masters level execution of this style looks like, check out the replay.
Game is the first set of University of Utah vs University of Washington from this last Saturday's CSL match. UofU (my school) ended up taking the match 3:0.
I don't execute the build with much finesse or exactitude, but my opponent's low drone count renders this largely irrelevant.
Anyway, if anyone is interested in what a mid-masters level execution of this style looks like, check out the replay.
Cool. Your late robo almost lost you the game. Also, I wouldn't recommend adding stargates until a. You've gotten templar already and b. you're sure he's committing to broodlords already.
Game is the first set of University of Utah vs University of Washington from this last Saturday's CSL match. UofU (my school) ended up taking the match 3:0.
I don't execute the build with much finesse or exactitude, but my opponent's low drone count renders this largely irrelevant.
Anyway, if anyone is interested in what a mid-masters level execution of this style looks like, check out the replay.
Cool. Your late robo almost lost you the game. Also, I wouldn't recommend adding stargates until a. You've gotten templar already and b. you're sure he's committing to broodlords already.
Thanks for the feedback!
Stargates: I...like carriers. But I think your suggestions are correct/good.
This post is great on how which direction to play PvZ, and I have been looking for some standard way to play against zerg, similar to the Creator PvT\Puzzle Push into standard Colossus-> Double Forge Charge\Templar. I also wish that PvZ was more like TvZ, where you have two stable midgame compositions where skill is what seperate the two players. I feel PvZ is more unrefined, and builds on the delicate balance between greed and timings.
My request would be whether if the great guide writers in the TL Protoss community could make a guide that could outline a standard PvZ gameplay, based on colossus, aggressive expanding and double robo. Things that could be good to include: Viability of Stargate openings, strategy on different maps, how to defend against roaches, hydra, muta, considering mass dropping, even against muta (Terran does it, why not protoss?). I'm especially curious about how one would fare against Stephano style denial of 3rd.
I see we have many builds that exploit certain weaknesses of Zerg, such as Pylon block, the new contain build and voidray\+1 push, but they don't seem/feel like solid openings that necessarily leads me into a favourable lategame if the Zerg is good at defending such pushes. (Of course, I realise it depends a lot on the map)
Anyway, thank you for this wonderful discussion thread. I hope PvZ can be more figured out. I'm just in Diamond, so I guess I'm not really qualified to head out on a venture such as this one.
On February 05 2012 06:45 sofakng wrote: I tried this on ladder and just cant really get behind it. the super fast third allows zerg to take a fast 4th and easily crush you midgame with a roach hydra corrupter push. It was my first time playing it and I probably made some mistakes but I cant help but feel this is super risky. A muta switch as well would most likely kill you with such a late twilight. The macro pvz with less gates blink stalkers and double immortal production into templar after taking a faste third with blink seems so much better. After you force several sets of lings as well with zealot stalker or zealot x2 and stalker push.
Hahaha "I played this once and I lost so it doesn't work." As Gormonk said, this isn't an exact build order and was meant more for discussion of concepts to take into consideration when playing against zerg on certain maps.
I didn't say it didnt work I said I did not like the style. The double robo comes as you take your third a bit after or if you ever have a surplus of money. It just seems super weak to a midgame push with roach and hydra or mutlpronged harass or muta. I didnt follow the build exactly and teched faster to collosus to suit the fast hydra push and shorter rush distance but it just doesnt seem viable to me. Mock me if you want but I really wanna this build stand up to a lot of different builds before any real conclusions are drawn from it. Bug Brown for a replay pack. :p
Edit: and to clarify I don't really know bo's except for pvp and wing most things. Is it good? Probably not. Does it make me ideal for testing this? Again probably no but I've gotten far enough on mechanics and decisions making that I feel like I can pick up builds pretty fast and execute them well.
There's a lot of small nuances that most people don't see in the build.
I'll let you into some secrets. The midgame push with roach/hydra is dealt with by the first colossi that pops out between 12:00 and 12:20. If you don't do the build exactly, of course you'll die. If you follow it exactly, you'll have a colossi out right before the push comes. I also reference large maps in my posts a lot, which vastly deters hydra pushes.
Vs mutas you rely on your first phoenix to scout his tech. If it's mutas, you have to cancel your robo bay, throw up a twilight, and play stand from there. Versus a later muta switch, pressure with your colossi army while getting blink(which you should be getting anyway).
But seriously, you tried this on ladder once and it "feels" risky? -_-.
I actually try to pop two Colo out at that time and smash the push (if I'm given proper scouting info). Then I roll over him when the next two finish. Works every time.
On February 08 2012 08:25 NrGmonk wrote: By your powers combined...
Want to join our club too?
K, but I'm a bit disappointed you didn't get my reference =(.
I didn't, sorry My parents didn't let me watch TV or play StarCraft until I moved out lol. Edit: Actually they didn't want to let me then either but I moved out, so I could.
On February 08 2012 08:25 NrGmonk wrote: By your powers combined...
Want to join our club too?
K, but I'm a bit disappointed you didn't get my reference =(.
I didn't, sorry My parents didn't let me watch TV or play StarCraft until I moved out lol. Edit: Actually they didn't want to let me then either but I moved out, so I could.
On February 08 2012 08:25 NrGmonk wrote: By your powers combined...
Want to join our club too?
K, but I'm a bit disappointed you didn't get my reference =(.
I didn't, sorry My parents didn't let me watch TV or play StarCraft until I moved out lol. Edit: Actually they didn't want to let me then either but I moved out, so I could.
Honestly it's fine I still knockin clowns in NA without it affecting me much. I do wish I coulda watched like the poke'mon shows and digimon n stuff though.
On February 11 2012 05:34 kcdc wrote: Will this strategy get a big buff with the phoenix range upgrade?
Did others who used this strategy have problems vs mutas?
Don't see how this one specific strategy had more problems vs mutas than others. Or how the phoenix buff will help this strategy more than others. Should discuss this topic more generally in other places or wait for the actual patch imo.
Any build including a stargate will be better against muta it seems. As long as you have a couple phoenix out I think it won't be too hard to just throw up a fleet beacon and continue phoenix while getting the range upgrade. Range 6 should be able to prevent any harass and stop the base trade scenario easier, but ofcourse will have to wait and see how exactly it plays out and how expensive this upgrade will be.
On February 11 2012 05:34 kcdc wrote: Will this strategy get a big buff with the phoenix range upgrade?
Did others who used this strategy have problems vs mutas?
Don't see how this one specific strategy had more problems vs mutas than others. Or how the phoenix buff will help this strategy more than others. Should discuss this topic more generally in other places or wait for the actual patch imo.
This strategy is more vulnerable than others to mutas for several reasons:
(1) it doesn't have a strong 2-base timing, which means Z can go fast third straight into muta (2) it relies on expanding quickly and aggressively, which leaves plenty of openings for muta harass (3) it invests in 2 robotics facilities, a support bay, and colossi, all of which are pretty useless vs muta
The phoenix buff is particularly relevant to this strategy because it opens with a stargate, but given the current game parameters, that stargate is not useful to deal with mutas.
I brought this up in this thread because it seems like exactly the sort of build that the phoenix change is designed to affect. If a fleet beacon range upgrade wouldn't be useful for this strategy, would it be useful anywhere?
On February 11 2012 05:34 kcdc wrote: Will this strategy get a big buff with the phoenix range upgrade?
Did others who used this strategy have problems vs mutas?
Don't see how this one specific strategy had more problems vs mutas than others. Or how the phoenix buff will help this strategy more than others. Should discuss this topic more generally in other places or wait for the actual patch imo.
This strategy is more vulnerable than others to mutas for several reasons:
(1) it doesn't have a strong 2-base timing, which means Z can go fast third straight into muta (2) it relies on expanding quickly and aggressively, which leaves plenty of openings for muta harass (3) it invests in 2 robotics facilities, a support bay, and colossi, all of which are pretty useless vs muta
The phoenix buff is particularly relevant to this strategy because it opens with a stargate, but given the current game parameters, that stargate is not useful to deal with mutas.
I brought this up in this thread because it seems like exactly the sort of build that the phoenix change is designed to affect. If a fleet beacon range upgrade wouldn't be useful for this strategy, would it be useful anywhere?
Depending on what you scout, you don't have to invest in a 2nd robo, a support bay, or any colossi.
On February 11 2012 05:34 kcdc wrote: Will this strategy get a big buff with the phoenix range upgrade?
Did others who used this strategy have problems vs mutas?
Don't see how this one specific strategy had more problems vs mutas than others. Or how the phoenix buff will help this strategy more than others. Should discuss this topic more generally in other places or wait for the actual patch imo.
This strategy is more vulnerable than others to mutas for several reasons:
(1) it doesn't have a strong 2-base timing, which means Z can go fast third straight into muta (2) it relies on expanding quickly and aggressively, which leaves plenty of openings for muta harass (3) it invests in 2 robotics facilities, a support bay, and colossi, all of which are pretty useless vs muta
The phoenix buff is particularly relevant to this strategy because it opens with a stargate, but given the current game parameters, that stargate is not useful to deal with mutas.
I brought this up in this thread because it seems like exactly the sort of build that the phoenix change is designed to affect. If a fleet beacon range upgrade wouldn't be useful for this strategy, would it be useful anywhere?
Depending on what you scout, you don't have to invest in a 2nd robo, a support bay, or any colossi.
Right, but if you see a bunch of roaches on the field and a spire building, it could easily indicate a roach/corruptor push, and you're probably going to get the support bay and start producing colossi/immortals until you actually see the muta ball forming. The spire might persuade you not to build a 2nd robo.
Mostly, my point is that this strategy leaves an opening for Z to comfortably hit a ball of 30+ mutas. Meanwhile, the default state for the build will involve P being spread out with an idle stargate and delayed twilight tech. Doesn't that sound like the perfect confluence of factors where range-upgraded phoenixes should have a prominent role in one branch of the strategy?
On February 11 2012 05:34 kcdc wrote: Will this strategy get a big buff with the phoenix range upgrade?
Did others who used this strategy have problems vs mutas?
Don't see how this one specific strategy had more problems vs mutas than others. Or how the phoenix buff will help this strategy more than others. Should discuss this topic more generally in other places or wait for the actual patch imo.
This strategy is more vulnerable than others to mutas for several reasons:
(1) it doesn't have a strong 2-base timing, which means Z can go fast third straight into muta (2) it relies on expanding quickly and aggressively, which leaves plenty of openings for muta harass (3) it invests in 2 robotics facilities, a support bay, and colossi, all of which are pretty useless vs muta
The phoenix buff is particularly relevant to this strategy because it opens with a stargate, but given the current game parameters, that stargate is not useful to deal with mutas.
I brought this up in this thread because it seems like exactly the sort of build that the phoenix change is designed to affect. If a fleet beacon range upgrade wouldn't be useful for this strategy, would it be useful anywhere?
Depending on what you scout, you don't have to invest in a 2nd robo, a support bay, or any colossi.
Right, but if you see a bunch of roaches on the field and a spire building, it could easily indicate a roach/corruptor push, and you're probably going to get the support bay and start producing colossi/immortals until you actually see the muta ball forming. The spire might persuade you not to build a 2nd robo.
Mostly, my point is that this strategy leaves an opening for Z to comfortably hit a ball of 30+ mutas. Meanwhile, the default state for the build will involve P being spread out with an idle stargate and delayed twilight tech. Doesn't that sound like the perfect confluence of factors where range-upgraded phoenixes should have a prominent role in one branch of the strategy?
We won't know until the patch comes. Reactive phoenix will probably still suck though.
I really don't understand why P's are still thinking 1 voidray can hold off massive roach/ling attacks from Zergs. Clearly, it can't. The roaches and lings simply overpower and swarm you while your poor void ray is trying to pick them off 1 by 1.
On February 11 2012 23:18 LoNeLyTrOoPeR wrote: I really don't understand why P's are still thinking 1 voidray can hold off massive roach/ling attacks from Zergs. Clearly, it can't. The roaches and lings simply overpower and swarm you while your poor void ray is trying to pick them off 1 by 1.
Cool story bro. Obviously it's so "clear" that you don't need to provide any evidence.
have to say, even though I am probably going to have a higher losing rate if toss goes macro mode rather than x gate 2 base all-in, I still hope more toss would play some macro game.
I just hope I won't get to see mamaship doing her vortex too often
I watched the replay and I was just wondering how Losira played the late game so badly. But then I noticed it was played in December, PvZ meta game seems to be evolving pretty fast! Nowadays mothership is very normal unit - every protoss gets it in late game. Everyone should know (like even in plat - diamond level) that zerg shouldnt put all the units in vortex... Mothership is countered easily by spreading the broodlords (watch Stephano's games!!).
And this strategy is so usual, 1sg into fast 3rd. Why in OP it's described to be "a new build". So many pros, for example Hero, uses this strategy, although he makes more phoenixes than just one.
On February 08 2012 08:16 Alejandrisha wrote: ^ i'm thinking of doing a comprehensive pvz thing at some point but i still have much to learn.
I was thinking about writing of standard PvZ FFE into single SG + fast third. Maybe we should join forces to defeat evil...
Hey guys, I just wanted to say I think it's amazing that so many of you (NrGmonk, Cecil, Alej, Kcdc and RSVP to name a few) have put out such consistently awesome content for lower level P's (*raises hand* that's me) to make us decidedly less terrible. It's really appreciated guys - I feel like it really does a lot for all the little protosses out there.
Parting vs Nestea, illustrating precisely why void rays do nothing to prevent roaches swamping you. Imo stargate is a good choice to delay mutas, but it can't keep roaches at bay.
2010, Kcdc was my hero for introducing 1 Gate FE. 2011 emerged Alej, Cecil Late2011-2012 NrGMonk has really got me hard over all the Toss lessons/guides.
What do people here generally go for against Infestors that come quickly (like 2 base infestor) - the type where they bust down the door with a TON of IT. Maybe nothing special from gateway robo is needed (my macro was bad the game I lost to it), but I saw someone do the same against Huk on his stream when he took a fast third and he seemed to have trouble with it too (he lost). Or rather, do you just sac the base, wait for the IT to die and counter attack energyless infestors? Any thoughts?
Edit: Or do you not get a fast third if you scout no third with a probe and get a fast something else instead (storm? colossus?)? Bear in mind that it's generally hard to feedback infestors before they throw out ITs with zerglings to prevent you from just running them at the army like people do against T.
On February 13 2012 10:37 Treehead wrote: What do people here generally go for against Infestors that come quickly (like 2 base infestor) - the type where they bust down the door with a TON of IT. Maybe nothing special from gateway robo is needed (my macro was bad the game I lost to it), but I saw someone do the same against Huk on his stream when he took a fast third and he seemed to have trouble with it too (he lost). Or rather, do you just sac the base, wait for the IT to die and counter attack energyless infestors? Any thoughts?
Edit: Or do you not get a fast third if you scout no third with a probe and get a fast something else instead (storm? colossus?)? Bear in mind that it's generally hard to feedback infestors before they throw out ITs with zerglings to prevent you from just running them at the army like people do against T.
I actually have no idea what counters 2 base infestor on large maps. Mass zealot timings can kill it early if Z doesn't make enough spines (often the case), and colossus timings are good on small maps where you can defend the attack and then go kill him, but on large maps (read: TDA), it seems like Z can run around your army and counter-attack to pin you in your base until they complete their 3-base hive rush. I know it's a low-econ hive, but infestor+BL is still insanely strong against your colossus composition, and the hive comes so quickly with the 2-base infestor strat.
On February 13 2012 09:54 chestnutcc wrote: Parting vs Nestea, illustrating precisely why void rays do nothing to prevent roaches swamping you. Imo stargate is a good choice to delay mutas, but it can't keep roaches at bay.
I watched every game of that series and I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're talking about the game on Daybreak, there are many things you don't understand about my fundamental point. I was talking specifically about a macro build that specifically gets the voidray for defense against roaches. The voidray would have to be perfectly placed and it would discourage/help stop all roach based timings between 8:00 and 12:00. At this timing, the zerg won't have enough roaches to effectively threaten you with a voidray on the field and roach speed will only finish at the earliest at around 10:20. In the game you're referring to, Parting gets voidrays for a 2 stage 2 base all-in and clumps his voidrays with his main army as he's moving across the map, definitely not in position to deter roaches. Nestea is allowed to counterattack after he holds off the first stage of Parting's attack, around 14:00, way after roach speed is allowed to finish.
The circumstances and strategies in the game do not matter. Firstly, it demonstrates that in a straight up fight, voids will take a long time to kill roaches (in the daybreak game they took forever even with gateway support), time which you do not have. If it worked for Brown, it was a meta game thing where Losira did not choose to exploit the timing window (Brown had the timing attack in mind but abandoned it, at best his army strength was the same as Parting's who opted for an all in). Secondly, void ray positioning is a deterrent, if they don't take the hint, they can trade quite well, certainly deny your third. I love your builds Monk, but I think you overstate the defensive advantage of a void ray. That honour still goes to the sentry.
On February 15 2012 00:31 chestnutcc wrote: The circumstances and strategies in the game do not matter. Firstly, it demonstrates that in a straight up fight, voids will take a long time to kill roaches (in the daybreak game they took forever even with gateway support), time which you do not have. If it worked for Brown, it was a meta game thing where Losira did not choose to exploit the timing window (Brown had the timing attack in mind but abandoned it, at best his army strength was the same as Parting's who opted for an all in). Secondly, void ray positioning is a deterrent, if they don't take the hint, they can trade quite well, certainly deny your third. I love your builds Monk, but I think you overstate the defensive advantage of a void ray. That honour still goes to the sentry.
Still have no idea what you're talking about. Between 8:00 and 10:20, you won't have roach speed, so you can't even begin moving across the map. If you move out at exactly 10:20, the "weakest" timing, Protoss will still have cannons + sentries + a sim city at his third. Then a colossi pops out at 12:20. The game you're referring to didn't demonstrate anything. If you can't provide a game where Brown's build or a similar voidray based macro build was busted with 3 base roaches and the Protoss didn't make glaring mistakes such as mis-positioning or bad sim, then you don't really have an argument.
Firstly, it demonstrates that in a straight up fight, voids will take a long time to kill roaches (in the daybreak game they took forever even with gateway support), time which you do not have.
Uncharged voids vs speed roaches and lings
Secondly, void ray positioning is a deterrent, if they don't take the hint, they can trade quite well, certainly deny your third.
On February 15 2012 00:31 chestnutcc wrote: The circumstances and strategies in the game do not matter. Firstly, it demonstrates that in a straight up fight, voids will take a long time to kill roaches (in the daybreak game they took forever even with gateway support), time which you do not have. If it worked for Brown, it was a meta game thing where Losira did not choose to exploit the timing window (Brown had the timing attack in mind but abandoned it, at best his army strength was the same as Parting's who opted for an all in). Secondly, void ray positioning is a deterrent, if they don't take the hint, they can trade quite well, certainly deny your third. I love your builds Monk, but I think you overstate the defensive advantage of a void ray. That honour still goes to the sentry.
If you think he's wrong, give a reason. The fact that it's from the GSL causes a person to think that maybe he's done some research and found that it's safe. Maybe it was a blind risk staked on the idea that Losira wouldn't roach rush. So do some analysis. Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours? I haven't tested it myself, but random intuition tells me the number is pretty high, high enough that a couple rounds of production from gateways while his roaches waddle across the map should be sufficient to hold even against a really hard rush - provided no hydras are present and speed is not done.
On February 15 2012 00:16 kcdc wrote: I actually have no idea what counters 2 base infestor on large maps. Mass zealot timings can kill it early if Z doesn't make enough spines (often the case), and colossus timings are good on small maps where you can defend the attack and then go kill him, but on large maps (read: TDA), it seems like Z can run around your army and counter-attack to pin you in your base until they complete their 3-base hive rush. I know it's a low-econ hive, but infestor+BL is still insanely strong against your colossus composition, and the hive comes so quickly with the 2-base infestor strat.
Yea. Low-econ hive off of infestor is still difficult and pretty common in diamond where so many zergs are content with 50-60 drones. I saw Sen do a two base infestor into muta against HwangSin last night. It was pretty dirty. I don't favor the VR openings because of the prevalence of 2-base infestor and muta in diamond. But I have been taking a fast third off of warp prism harass. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But I always get a good scout of their tech.
The circumstances and strategies in the game do not matter.
Excuse me? How can we have a discussion if "circumstances...in the game do not matter"? In conversations about strategy, if we don't discuss "circumstances," we engage in masterbatory speculation. Circumstances and specifics ground discussion and hold participants responsible to the burden of evidence.
On February 15 2012 00:42 Treehead wrote: Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours?
A: All of them.
It's silly for Z to try to bust your third without some sort of lair tech. Roach speed is required for a roach bust against a well-position void ray, and burrow+tunneling claws or OL speed+drops are very helpful for overcoming forcefields.
Getting a void ray gives you a nice timing window where Z can't attack you without getting their lair tech online which typically means you're safe to do greedy tech or expanding until about 11 minutes (sometimes later) against Z that delay gas for a fast third.
Of course, if you decide to harass with your void ray rather than blocking Z's attack path, roaches can sneak by and do damage.
I'm not convinced that Brown's build was safe against everything Z can do, but it was reasonably safe against most of the things Z would likely do.
Game 2 of hero. He goes zealot pressure->blink-> storm-> colossi. Really liking this so far because you do a lot of pressure and you're safe vs muta and roach at the same time.
On February 15 2012 00:31 chestnutcc wrote: The circumstances and strategies in the game do not matter. Firstly, it demonstrates that in a straight up fight, voids will take a long time to kill roaches (in the daybreak game they took forever even with gateway support), time which you do not have. If it worked for Brown, it was a meta game thing where Losira did not choose to exploit the timing window (Brown had the timing attack in mind but abandoned it, at best his army strength was the same as Parting's who opted for an all in). Secondly, void ray positioning is a deterrent, if they don't take the hint, they can trade quite well, certainly deny your third. I love your builds Monk, but I think you overstate the defensive advantage of a void ray. That honour still goes to the sentry.
If you think he's wrong, give a reason. The fact that it's from the GSL causes a person to think that maybe he's done some research and found that it's safe. Maybe it was a blind risk staked on the idea that Losira wouldn't roach rush. So do some analysis. Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours? I haven't tested it myself, but random intuition tells me the number is pretty high, high enough that a couple rounds of production from gateways while his roaches waddle across the map should be sufficient to hold even against a really hard rush - provided no hydras are present and speed is not done.
Its a personal opinion, mostly formed by watching Stephano's PvZ. The Brown build is a meta game thing, based off on who his opponent is.
On February 15 2012 00:42 Treehead wrote: Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours?
A: All of them.
It's silly for Z to try to bust your third without some sort of lair tech. Roach speed is required for a roach bust against a well-position void ray, and burrow+tunneling claws or OL speed+drops are very helpful for overcoming forcefields.
Getting a void ray gives you a nice timing window where Z can't attack you without getting their lair tech online which typically means you're safe to do greedy tech or expanding until about 11 minutes (sometimes later) against Z that delay gas for a fast third.
Of course, if you decide to harass with your void ray rather than blocking Z's attack path, roaches can sneak by and do damage.
I'm not convinced that Brown's build was safe against everything Z can do, but it was reasonably safe against most of the things Z would likely do.
What will happen is that the void ray will take out one or two roaches, and then trail behind the roach ball. On day break for example, there may even be a natural split of roaches rallied from 3 hatches.
The circumstances and strategies in the game do not matter.
Excuse me? How can we have a discussion if "circumstances...in the game do not matter"? In conversations about strategy, if we don't discuss "circumstances," we engage in masterbatory speculation. Circumstances and specifics ground discussion and hold participants responsible to the burden of evidence.
On February 15 2012 00:42 Treehead wrote: Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours?
A: All of them.
It's silly for Z to try to bust your third without some sort of lair tech. Roach speed is required for a roach bust against a well-position void ray, and burrow+tunneling claws or OL speed+drops are very helpful for overcoming forcefields.
Getting a void ray gives you a nice timing window where Z can't attack you without getting their lair tech online which typically means you're safe to do greedy tech or expanding until about 11 minutes (sometimes later) against Z that delay gas for a fast third.
Of course, if you decide to harass with your void ray rather than blocking Z's attack path, roaches can sneak by and do damage.
I'm not convinced that Brown's build was safe against everything Z can do, but it was reasonably safe against most of the things Z would likely do.
What will happen is that the void ray will take out one or two roaches, and then trail behind the roach ball. On day break for example, there may even be a natural split of roaches rallied from 3 hatches.
The circumstances and strategies in the game do not matter.
Excuse me? How can we have a discussion if "circumstances...in the game do not matter"? In conversations about strategy, if we don't discuss "circumstances," we engage in masterbatory speculation. Circumstances and specifics ground discussion and hold participants responsible to the burden of evidence.
The circumstances in those games were of a 2 base toss against mass rallied roach. Any 3 base toss will have a lower army count.
You ignored all my points. In that game, the toss army was out of position with a random allin build with a completely different timing when speed was finished. In the brown build, it's a specific build designed to stop those pushes with correct unit positioning/sim city/army composition and much later roach speed finishing.
On February 15 2012 00:42 Treehead wrote: Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours?
A: All of them.
It's silly for Z to try to bust your third without some sort of lair tech. Roach speed is required for a roach bust against a well-position void ray, and burrow+tunneling claws or OL speed+drops are very helpful for overcoming forcefields.
Getting a void ray gives you a nice timing window where Z can't attack you without getting their lair tech online which typically means you're safe to do greedy tech or expanding until about 11 minutes (sometimes later) against Z that delay gas for a fast third.
Of course, if you decide to harass with your void ray rather than blocking Z's attack path, roaches can sneak by and do damage.
I'm not convinced that Brown's build was safe against everything Z can do, but it was reasonably safe against most of the things Z would likely do.
What will happen is that the void ray will take out one or two roaches, and then trail behind the roach ball. On day break for example, there may even be a natural split of roaches rallied from 3 hatches.
On February 15 2012 01:20 skatbone wrote:
The circumstances and strategies in the game do not matter.
Excuse me? How can we have a discussion if "circumstances...in the game do not matter"? In conversations about strategy, if we don't discuss "circumstances," we engage in masterbatory speculation. Circumstances and specifics ground discussion and hold participants responsible to the burden of evidence.
The circumstances in those games were of a 2 base toss against mass rallied roach. Any 3 base toss will have a lower army count.
You ignored all my points. In that game, the toss army was out of position with a random allin build with a completely different timing when speed was finished. In the brown build, it's a specific build designed to stop those pushes with correct unit positioning/sim city/army composition and much later roach speed finishing.
Like I said, its mostly Stephano's PvZ style which makes me nervous about super fast thirds. There have been many recent examples of it. There is a singular point about your claim that I contest, that a single void ray deflects 3 base roach pressure. If you can show any example of stargate based macro play successfully and consistently getting a third up by the time mentioned in this post against Stephano's style, my doubts will be quashed.
On February 15 2012 00:42 Treehead wrote: Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours?
A: All of them.
It's silly for Z to try to bust your third without some sort of lair tech. Roach speed is required for a roach bust against a well-position void ray, and burrow+tunneling claws or OL speed+drops are very helpful for overcoming forcefields.
Getting a void ray gives you a nice timing window where Z can't attack you without getting their lair tech online which typically means you're safe to do greedy tech or expanding until about 11 minutes (sometimes later) against Z that delay gas for a fast third.
Of course, if you decide to harass with your void ray rather than blocking Z's attack path, roaches can sneak by and do damage.
I'm not convinced that Brown's build was safe against everything Z can do, but it was reasonably safe against most of the things Z would likely do.
What will happen is that the void ray will take out one or two roaches, and then trail behind the roach ball. On day break for example, there may even be a natural split of roaches rallied from 3 hatches.
On February 15 2012 01:20 skatbone wrote:
The circumstances and strategies in the game do not matter.
Excuse me? How can we have a discussion if "circumstances...in the game do not matter"? In conversations about strategy, if we don't discuss "circumstances," we engage in masterbatory speculation. Circumstances and specifics ground discussion and hold participants responsible to the burden of evidence.
The circumstances in those games were of a 2 base toss against mass rallied roach. Any 3 base toss will have a lower army count.
You ignored all my points. In that game, the toss army was out of position with a random allin build with a completely different timing when speed was finished. In the brown build, it's a specific build designed to stop those pushes with correct unit positioning/sim city/army composition and much later roach speed finishing.
Like I said, its mostly Stephano's PvZ style which makes me nervous about super fast thirds. There have been many recent examples of it. There is a singular point about your claim that I contest, that a single void ray deflects 3 base roach pressure. If you can show any example of stargate based macro play successfully and consistently getting a third up by the time mentioned in this post against Stephano's style, my doubts will be quashed.
If you don't feel comfortable, make 2 void rays instead of 1.
On February 15 2012 00:42 Treehead wrote: Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours?
A: All of them.
It's silly for Z to try to bust your third without some sort of lair tech. Roach speed is required for a roach bust against a well-position void ray, and burrow+tunneling claws or OL speed+drops are very helpful for overcoming forcefields.
Getting a void ray gives you a nice timing window where Z can't attack you without getting their lair tech online which typically means you're safe to do greedy tech or expanding until about 11 minutes (sometimes later) against Z that delay gas for a fast third.
Of course, if you decide to harass with your void ray rather than blocking Z's attack path, roaches can sneak by and do damage.
I'm not convinced that Brown's build was safe against everything Z can do, but it was reasonably safe against most of the things Z would likely do.
What will happen is that the void ray will take out one or two roaches, and then trail behind the roach ball. On day break for example, there may even be a natural split of roaches rallied from 3 hatches.
You didn't read the post he replied to. I'll quote it for you and bold the relevant section.
On February 15 2012 00:42 Treehead wrote: Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours?
Edit: Actually, kcdc's response says roach speed too. So, I guess you're just wrong. They move the same speed.
To clarify, from the liquipedia:
"Once the Void Ray's beam is activated within its 6 range, there's an additional leeway of 2 if the target moves away. The Void Ray can shoot while moving. It attacks anything within range in a 40° angle in front of it. While moving however, targets are chosen based on target priority so it may not necessarily continue to shoot a target it was previously ordered to attack. "
This might mean you may not be able to attack move it or just leave it where it is once it spots roaches. You might have to move it manually and let it autoshoot, depending on how quickly it accelerates.
On February 15 2012 00:42 Treehead wrote: Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours?
A: All of them.
It's silly for Z to try to bust your third without some sort of lair tech. Roach speed is required for a roach bust against a well-position void ray, and burrow+tunneling claws or OL speed+drops are very helpful for overcoming forcefields.
Getting a void ray gives you a nice timing window where Z can't attack you without getting their lair tech online which typically means you're safe to do greedy tech or expanding until about 11 minutes (sometimes later) against Z that delay gas for a fast third.
Of course, if you decide to harass with your void ray rather than blocking Z's attack path, roaches can sneak by and do damage.
I'm not convinced that Brown's build was safe against everything Z can do, but it was reasonably safe against most of the things Z would likely do.
What will happen is that the void ray will take out one or two roaches, and then trail behind the roach ball. On day break for example, there may even be a natural split of roaches rallied from 3 hatches.
You didn't read the post he replied to. I'll quote it for you and bold the relevant section.
On February 15 2012 00:42 Treehead wrote: Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours?
Edit: Actually, kcdc's response says roach speed too. So, I guess you're just wrong. They move the same speed.
To clarify, from the liquipedia:
"Once the Void Ray's beam is activated within its 6 range, there's an additional leeway of 2 if the target moves away. The Void Ray can shoot while moving. It attacks anything within range in a 40° angle in front of it. While moving however, targets are chosen based on target priority so it may not necessarily continue to shoot a target it was previously ordered to attack. "
This might mean you may not be able to attack move it or just leave it where it is once it spots roaches. You might have to move it manually and let it autoshoot, depending on how quickly it accelerates.
At least test it in the unit tester before posting.
Edit: To make myself clear academic friend, the void ray pauses while charging on a roach,so it gives time for the rest of the ball to get a slight lead on it, and since they move at the same speed, after the void has dispatched of the roach or two it snags, it trails behind the rest. And please no void ray stutter stepping.
On February 15 2012 00:42 Treehead wrote: Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours?
A: All of them.
It's silly for Z to try to bust your third without some sort of lair tech. Roach speed is required for a roach bust against a well-position void ray, and burrow+tunneling claws or OL speed+drops are very helpful for overcoming forcefields.
Getting a void ray gives you a nice timing window where Z can't attack you without getting their lair tech online which typically means you're safe to do greedy tech or expanding until about 11 minutes (sometimes later) against Z that delay gas for a fast third.
Of course, if you decide to harass with your void ray rather than blocking Z's attack path, roaches can sneak by and do damage.
I'm not convinced that Brown's build was safe against everything Z can do, but it was reasonably safe against most of the things Z would likely do.
What will happen is that the void ray will take out one or two roaches, and then trail behind the roach ball. On day break for example, there may even be a natural split of roaches rallied from 3 hatches.
You didn't read the post he replied to. I'll quote it for you and bold the relevant section.
On February 15 2012 00:42 Treehead wrote: Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours?
Edit: Actually, kcdc's response says roach speed too. So, I guess you're just wrong. They move the same speed.
To clarify, from the liquipedia:
"Once the Void Ray's beam is activated within its 6 range, there's an additional leeway of 2 if the target moves away. The Void Ray can shoot while moving. It attacks anything within range in a 40° angle in front of it. While moving however, targets are chosen based on target priority so it may not necessarily continue to shoot a target it was previously ordered to attack. "
This might mean you may not be able to attack move it or just leave it where it is once it spots roaches. You might have to move it manually and let it autoshoot, depending on how quickly it accelerates.
At least test it in the unit tester before posting.
Edit: To make myself clear academic friend, the void ray pauses while charging on a roach,so it gives time for the rest of the ball to get a slight lead on it, and since they move at the same speed, after the void has dispatched of the roach or two it snags, it trails behind the rest. And please no void ray stutter stepping.
You don't have to stutter step. Read what I just wrote. You just have to move in from behind. The VR fires automatically at things in front of it while its moving. Tbh, I've seen it autofire sometimes and not others, but didn't realize the direction was the trigger. This is not too hard to do. And I think the pros would spend a ton of APM if it allowed them to kill a whole bunch of roaches without losing anything, let alone the 10 APM it takes to tell a VR to move along the roaches path to your third.
I might have taken for granted that everybody has experience killing slow roaches off creep with void rays. I love opening with zealot+void pressure, so I do this micro almost every PvZ.
What you do is you select your voids, target fire them on the leading roach, and then shift click each roach in order from the front to the back. Voids move at the same speed as slow roaches off creep, and they shoot while moving, so any roach that gets target fired will be killed (and quickly). The trick is understanding that the void won't move while shooting until its target is 6 range away, and it can't acquire new targets that are greater than 6 range away, so if you let the void select its own target, it will naturally pick up the roach at the back of the pack, and when that roach dies, the void won't be able to get in range of any new roaches. But if you target fire them in order from from front to back, the void will dispatch the leading roach, then pick up the second roach, then the third, and so on while always staying 6 range from the front of the roach pack.
A charged void ray can kill a roach in 6 game seconds. If Z wants to attack P with slow roaches on a moderately large map (say 60 second rush distance at slow roach speed), one void ray can kill 10 of the roaches before they reach the Protoss base. In other words, the attack will suck. If Z waits for roach speed, one void might be able to kill the lead roach and do a little damage to the back roach.
On February 15 2012 00:42 Treehead wrote: Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours?
A: All of them.
It's silly for Z to try to bust your third without some sort of lair tech. Roach speed is required for a roach bust against a well-position void ray, and burrow+tunneling claws or OL speed+drops are very helpful for overcoming forcefields.
Getting a void ray gives you a nice timing window where Z can't attack you without getting their lair tech online which typically means you're safe to do greedy tech or expanding until about 11 minutes (sometimes later) against Z that delay gas for a fast third.
Of course, if you decide to harass with your void ray rather than blocking Z's attack path, roaches can sneak by and do damage.
I'm not convinced that Brown's build was safe against everything Z can do, but it was reasonably safe against most of the things Z would likely do.
What will happen is that the void ray will take out one or two roaches, and then trail behind the roach ball. On day break for example, there may even be a natural split of roaches rallied from 3 hatches.
You didn't read the post he replied to. I'll quote it for you and bold the relevant section.
On February 15 2012 00:42 Treehead wrote: Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours?
Edit: Actually, kcdc's response says roach speed too. So, I guess you're just wrong. They move the same speed.
To clarify, from the liquipedia:
"Once the Void Ray's beam is activated within its 6 range, there's an additional leeway of 2 if the target moves away. The Void Ray can shoot while moving. It attacks anything within range in a 40° angle in front of it. While moving however, targets are chosen based on target priority so it may not necessarily continue to shoot a target it was previously ordered to attack. "
This might mean you may not be able to attack move it or just leave it where it is once it spots roaches. You might have to move it manually and let it autoshoot, depending on how quickly it accelerates.
At least test it in the unit tester before posting.
Edit: To make myself clear academic friend, the void ray pauses while charging on a roach,so it gives time for the rest of the ball to get a slight lead on it, and since they move at the same speed, after the void has dispatched of the roach or two it snags, it trails behind the rest. And please no void ray stutter stepping.
You don't have to stutter step. Read what I just wrote. You just have to move in from behind. The VR fires automatically at things in front of it while its moving. Tbh, I've seen it autofire sometimes and not others, but didn't realize the direction was the trigger. This is not too hard to do. And I think the pros would spend a ton of APM if it allowed them to kill a whole bunch of roaches without losing anything, let alone the 10 APM it takes to tell a VR to move along the roaches path to your third.
What I'm saying is this doesn't work. Whats said below may however.
On February 25 2012 06:51 kcdc wrote: About the slow roach vs void situation:
I might have taken for granted that everybody has experience killing slow roaches off creep with void rays. I love opening with zealot+void pressure, so I do this micro almost every PvZ.
What you do is you select your voids, target fire them on the leading roach, and then shift click each roach in order from the front to the back. Voids move at the same speed as slow roaches off creep, and they shoot while moving, so any roach that gets target fired will be killed (and quickly). The trick is understanding that the void won't move while shooting until its target is 6 range away, and it can't acquire new targets that are greater than 6 range away, so if you let the void select its own target, it will naturally pick up the roach at the back of the pack, and when that roach dies, the void won't be able to get in range of any new roaches. But if you target fire them in order from from front to back, the void will dispatch the leading roach, then pick up the second roach, then the third, and so on while always staying 6 range from the front of the roach pack.
A charged void ray can kill a roach in 6 game seconds. If Z wants to attack P with slow roaches on a moderately large map (say 60 second rush distance at slow roach speed), one void ray can kill 10 of the roaches before they reach the Protoss base. In other words, the attack will suck. If Z waits for roach speed, one void might be able to kill the lead roach and do a little damage to the back roach.
On February 15 2012 00:42 Treehead wrote: Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours?
A: All of them.
It's silly for Z to try to bust your third without some sort of lair tech. Roach speed is required for a roach bust against a well-position void ray, and burrow+tunneling claws or OL speed+drops are very helpful for overcoming forcefields.
Getting a void ray gives you a nice timing window where Z can't attack you without getting their lair tech online which typically means you're safe to do greedy tech or expanding until about 11 minutes (sometimes later) against Z that delay gas for a fast third.
Of course, if you decide to harass with your void ray rather than blocking Z's attack path, roaches can sneak by and do damage.
I'm not convinced that Brown's build was safe against everything Z can do, but it was reasonably safe against most of the things Z would likely do.
What will happen is that the void ray will take out one or two roaches, and then trail behind the roach ball. On day break for example, there may even be a natural split of roaches rallied from 3 hatches.
You didn't read the post he replied to. I'll quote it for you and bold the relevant section.
On February 15 2012 00:42 Treehead wrote: Sit your void ray right at the edge of the zerg's creep. Roaches are the same speed as voids before the speed upgrade. How many roaches can your void ray kill between his base and yours?
Edit: Actually, kcdc's response says roach speed too. So, I guess you're just wrong. They move the same speed.
To clarify, from the liquipedia:
"Once the Void Ray's beam is activated within its 6 range, there's an additional leeway of 2 if the target moves away. The Void Ray can shoot while moving. It attacks anything within range in a 40° angle in front of it. While moving however, targets are chosen based on target priority so it may not necessarily continue to shoot a target it was previously ordered to attack. "
This might mean you may not be able to attack move it or just leave it where it is once it spots roaches. You might have to move it manually and let it autoshoot, depending on how quickly it accelerates.
At least test it in the unit tester before posting.
Edit: To make myself clear academic friend, the void ray pauses while charging on a roach,so it gives time for the rest of the ball to get a slight lead on it, and since they move at the same speed, after the void has dispatched of the roach or two it snags, it trails behind the rest. And please no void ray stutter stepping.
You don't have to stutter step. Read what I just wrote. You just have to move in from behind. The VR fires automatically at things in front of it while its moving. Tbh, I've seen it autofire sometimes and not others, but didn't realize the direction was the trigger. This is not too hard to do. And I think the pros would spend a ton of APM if it allowed them to kill a whole bunch of roaches without losing anything, let alone the 10 APM it takes to tell a VR to move along the roaches path to your third.
What I'm saying is this doesn't work. Whats said below may however.
On February 25 2012 06:51 kcdc wrote: About the slow roach vs void situation:
I might have taken for granted that everybody has experience killing slow roaches off creep with void rays. I love opening with zealot+void pressure, so I do this micro almost every PvZ.
What you do is you select your voids, target fire them on the leading roach, and then shift click each roach in order from the front to the back. Voids move at the same speed as slow roaches off creep, and they shoot while moving, so any roach that gets target fired will be killed (and quickly). The trick is understanding that the void won't move while shooting until its target is 6 range away, and it can't acquire new targets that are greater than 6 range away, so if you let the void select its own target, it will naturally pick up the roach at the back of the pack, and when that roach dies, the void won't be able to get in range of any new roaches. But if you target fire them in order from from front to back, the void will dispatch the leading roach, then pick up the second roach, then the third, and so on while always staying 6 range from the front of the roach pack.
A charged void ray can kill a roach in 6 game seconds. If Z wants to attack P with slow roaches on a moderately large map (say 60 second rush distance at slow roach speed), one void ray can kill 10 of the roaches before they reach the Protoss base. In other words, the attack will suck. If Z waits for roach speed, one void might be able to kill the lead roach and do a little damage to the back roach.
Thanks for the tip kcdc.
\
Thank you so much, i have always been babysitting my voids and couldn't figure out how to do this an easier way. I wanted to say what you said but i had no idea the proper method as i play zerg so i have no idea how people i watch have been doing it. (but not anymore :D).
On February 25 2012 06:51 kcdc wrote: About the slow roach vs void situation:
I might have taken for granted that everybody has experience killing slow roaches off creep with void rays. I love opening with zealot+void pressure, so I do this micro almost every PvZ.
What you do is you select your voids, target fire them on the leading roach, and then shift click each roach in order from the front to the back. Voids move at the same speed as slow roaches off creep, and they shoot while moving, so any roach that gets target fired will be killed (and quickly). The trick is understanding that the void won't move while shooting until its target is 6 range away, and it can't acquire new targets that are greater than 6 range away, so if you let the void select its own target, it will naturally pick up the roach at the back of the pack, and when that roach dies, the void won't be able to get in range of any new roaches. But if you target fire them in order from from front to back, the void will dispatch the leading roach, then pick up the second roach, then the third, and so on while always staying 6 range from the front of the roach pack.
A charged void ray can kill a roach in 6 game seconds. If Z wants to attack P with slow roaches on a moderately large map (say 60 second rush distance at slow roach speed), one void ray can kill 10 of the roaches before they reach the Protoss base. In other words, the attack will suck. If Z waits for roach speed, one void might be able to kill the lead roach and do a little damage to the back roach.
FYI the Zerg can counter this with some simple micro of his own by microing away the targeted Roach away from the pack so that the Void Ray cannot "lock-on" any other targets.