EPT
[G] ZvP Dual Gold Base vs Forge FE - Page 2
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Infernux
Norway84 Posts
| ||
monk
United States8477 Posts
On January 09 2012 19:42 GLLvz wrote: Are you kidding me? Blings defend +1 4gate way better then roaches do. Theres noway a Toss can engage up a 3 sided ramp thats extreamly wide and kill it with Spines/Blings at it. This build is already being used on meta and is by far one of the hardest builds to face as a toss. 6gate allin does not work against this if ur up against a Decent player. Stop posting useless shit in a thread with no knowledge of the game. and try to contribute to the forum instead of being a douchebag. The perfect response to this as a toss, is not to overcommit and play the game standard with abit more warp prism play, as his army is going to be out of place. 99% of the time youl win because the toss overcommits. Love all the Norwegians defending this. It's cute but some of you are being very rude. Tbh I don't think this is completely unviable. Most of my criticism comes from the quality of the guide rather than the actual strategy. It doesn't really do a good job of explaining how to defend certain things or provide quality replays of such defense. It's also the burden of the guide writer to prove that his idea works. Blings definitely don't defend vs +1 4 gate better than roaches do, especially when the zealots warp almost directly into your base and you need to spine 2 places instead of the usual 1 with a normal 3 base build. You also have to premorph banes and it can be very hard to get the right amount of banelings. Also, a 3 sided ramp has nothing to do with +1 4 gate zealot attacks, so I don't know what you're talking about there. With 6 gate, I've played about 20 games versus 3 of my GM practice partners who were trying a new 3 base baneling style. None of them have ever held without a roach warren. I actually do believe with a tight build that it may be possible to hold off a 6 gate with banelings, but again I'm not convinced without sufficient proof. Even without any gold bases, Even Morrow, the only professional zerg who ever opens banelings in ZvP gets a roach warren in his build, but doesn't necessarily get roaches. Also, for the record I've contributed to the forum more than you ever will. | ||
|
-Asmodeus-
Poland31 Posts
On January 09 2012 20:04 NrGmonk wrote: Blings definitely don't defend vs +1 4 gate better than roaches do, especially when the zealots warp almost directly into your base and you need to spine 2 places instead of the usual 1 with a normal 3 base build. You also have to premorph banes and it can be very hard to get the right amount of banelings. Also, a 3 sided ramp has nothing to do with +1 4 gate zealot attacks, so I don't know what you're talking about there. With 6 gate, I've played about 20 games versus 3 of my GM practice partners who were trying a new 3 base baneling style. None of them have ever held without a roach warren. I actually do believe with a tight build that it may be possible to hold off a 6 gate with banelings, but again I'm not convinced without sufficient proof. Even without any gold bases, Even Morrow, the only professional zerg who ever opens banelings in ZvP gets a roach warren in his build, but doesn't necessarily get roaches. Also, for the record I've contributed to the forum more than you ever will. All of this is completly irrelevant, because we are not talking about normal scenario. It's zerg on 2 gold bases... | ||
|
monk
United States8477 Posts
On January 09 2012 20:12 -Asmodeus- wrote: All of this is completly irrelevant, because we are not talking about normal scenario. It's zerg on 2 gold bases... How is it irrelevant? If anything the close positions of the zerg base to the protoss base exasperates all of this. | ||
|
-Asmodeus-
Poland31 Posts
On January 09 2012 20:16 NrGmonk wrote: How is it irrelevant? If anything the close positions of the zerg base to the protoss base exasperates all of this. Close positions doesn't matter that much with warp-in anyway and with gold zerg can afford additional spines. Fast gold(s) isn't comparable to standard 3 hatch. | ||
|
saynomore
Norway149 Posts
It seemed to me that taking two gold bases were a bit overkill that could easily shoot you in the foot later in the game if the Protoss stabilizes. | ||
|
monk
United States8477 Posts
On January 09 2012 20:23 -Asmodeus- wrote: Close positions doesn't matter that much with warp-in anyway and with gold zerg can afford additional spines. Fast gold(s) isn't comparable to standard 3 hatch. Close positions definitely matters. If it didn't, then why don't all zergs double gold expand on Metal? With close positions, you don't have to clear out a path to put your proxy pylon. With the +1 4 gate, sometimes zergs can totally deny the proxy pylon. With the 6 gate, protoss will be delayed for 1 warpin because they have to proxy a pylon with a probe they escort with the main army. Since these 2 attacks hit at around 8/9minutes respectively, I doubt the zerg double gold economy will have kicked much if at all, so that hardly matters. I don't see how you can argue that these 2 attacks are more easily held with double gold when it is pretty clear that they are harder to defend. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
What someone can indeed be critical of, like NrGmonk said, is the guide itself. Personally I would have liked to see a lot more replays. I also dislike the focus on that one build. It's great to have a specified detailed build, but I would like to know if it works with other openings and how one has to adapt. Personally, I like to go 14 pool 16 expand vs toss since it's so strong against FFE which is so common, and it would be good with some general information so I can start with my standard opening and switch into this more extreme tactic if I see the possibility. Just like NrGmonk said, some more information on how the protoss can react and how one has to deal with it would be awesome to make it more general. | ||
Liquid`Snute
Norway839 Posts
I tested some macro games (not baneling all-in) just now with BabyKnight and he won all of them. You are a lot closer to your opponent, so it is absolutely crucial that you figure out what midgame transition he is going for if you are going to play a macro game. If it is colossus, you need to have spire. If you face DTs, you must have overseers or spores. The followup can be blink stalkers, for which you need hydra/infestor, or archons, for which you need roaches, and so on. You're basically putting a contain and pressuring him at the same time, essentially forcing a 2-base all-in. There are some really fine lines with this build if you play it in a macro variation because of the shortened distances, and the early midgame feels like it is twice as technical compared to a standard game, because things happen everywhere, you need to spread creep in multiple directions, inject 3 bases, have perfect drone saturation, and there are multiple forces at different locactions, much more than the classical ball vs ball game that we see today. What I want to point out here is that I lost all of my practice games because I didn't transition reactively and made bad decisions, not because I took a double gold base. It's difficult to play this in macro, and probably easy for toss if he is facing a bad gold base player. But in theory I think this could work just fine in a macro game. It's a different way of playing out the maps, that's all. Playing this build defensively and macroing up with double gold vs forge ffe against a GM player like BabyKnight for example is a whole different thing which takes a tremendous of skill to execute. I tried, but I didn't play well enough. He obviously meant it was a bad build and too greedy, and that is an understandable POV. It's very difficult to pull off for Zerg. If you miss out on the creepspread, a few injects, if you lose a few overlords, mess up your scouting and preemptive timings, make a few too many or too few units of a certain type you're going to lose much more easily than in a normal game. If you play this build in a macro fashion, you'll have your mistakes pointed out sooner than in any other game. It's much more tense, much more fast-paced and very fun. But at the very least, defending the +1 weapons 4-gate is really simple. I used 1 spine in each gold. There is creep everywhere so you can relocate banelings and lings easily. If he moves out with 4 zealots, you can use lings and queens to snipe them, or allow him closer and use the spine. If he clumps more than 4, your banelings will demolish them, or at least split them up so they they are easier to kill. I used 4-5 preemptive banelings in each base. The distance to the main is very long for the P player, so it is difficult to sneak anything up there unless it's a direct warpin like on Metalopolis air positions or if the P spawns counter-clockwise of you on Antiga. The things that this build doesn't work against is what kills you in every other game. But it's just exaggerated, it's like hard mode for you and easy mode for the Protoss. You'll feel the stress on your mechanics. It's all about getting good reads on the Protoss player's followups and counter them while playing perfectly if you don't go all-in with ling bling pressure. I will add things to the guide, thanks for the feedback ^_^ its my second so I'm not so good at it yet I guess lol. | ||
|
Warzilla
Czech Republic311 Posts
so not very viable on pro level, otherwise nice idea for ladder.. but like i said not too much viable on the highest levels.. | ||
|
-Asmodeus-
Poland31 Posts
On January 09 2012 20:34 NrGmonk wrote: Close positions definitely matters. If it didn't, then why don't all zergs double gold expand on Metal? With close positions, you don't have to clear out a path to put your proxy pylon. With the +1 4 gate, sometimes zergs can totally deny the proxy pylon. With the 6 gate, protoss will be delayed for 1 warpin because they have to proxy a pylon with a probe they escort with the main army. Since these 2 attacks hit at around 8/9minutes respectively, I doubt the zerg double gold economy will have kicked much if at all, so that hardly matters. I don't see how you can argue that these 2 attacks are more easily held with double gold when it is pretty clear that they are harder to defend. Do you play this game? Seriously, if timing hits standard 3 hatch zerg at 9 min then it's gonna hit at 8:40 at the gold, due to shorter distance, but it will also have less units at 8:40 than at 9 min. Please, play the scenario, then talk about it. User was banned for this post. | ||
|
BleaK_
Norway593 Posts
| ||
|
monk
United States8477 Posts
On January 09 2012 20:51 -Asmodeus- wrote: Do you play this game? Seriously, if timing hits standard 3 hatch zerg at 9 min then it's gonna hit at 8:40 at the gold, due to shorter distance, but it will also have less units at 8:40 than at 9 min. Please, play the scenario, then talk about it. Yes, that makes it harder for the zerg to respond to, the fact that the push hits earlier on a gold. It's something that even the OP alluded to in the post above mine. Even if you don't agree that it's harder, I don't see how you can say that it's easier for double gold to defend these attacks or how my points are irrelevant because of the double gold. | ||
|
jepsipepsi
2 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
llKenZyll
United States853 Posts
| ||
|
jepsipepsi
2 Posts
| ||
|
CallmeMuppet
Ireland176 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Snute
Norway839 Posts
On January 09 2012 22:05 CallmeMuppet wrote: Monk you should really watch this in action before judging and read Snute's responses. He's able to beat players like Mana and other top Europeans with it on a daily basis even if scouted. Can't be that bad then can it? Where did you get that from? -_- I did this build only once on ladder, it's super sketchy but might have some potential. Never did I ever beat Mana or other top Europeans on a daily basis with this... | ||
|
Knutzi
Norway664 Posts
infact go back to hatch first and only making roach hydra and corrupter vs protoss, thats the best strategy imo : ) | ||
|
HydraFucaZ
104 Posts
On January 09 2012 20:04 NrGmonk wrote: Even Morrow, the only professional zerg who ever opens banelings in ZvP this made me giggle | ||
| ||
