On March 19 2012 20:39 Nyast wrote: I want to plug in that game of Stephano vs Showtime on Cloud Kingdom:
The build the Protoss is doing looks pretty damn impressive to me, more than the Titan build if I may say. He goes for some standard 8'45 pressure with +1 but follows it up with 10' DTs harass, while making some immortals and securing his third.
He ends up losing the game, but that's because of a lack of scouting: Stephano is incredibly behind and goes for direct teching to Brood lords at 15' out of 120 food, with little army. Showtime doesn't realize this and lets him get away with it.
I'm not sure Stephano properly executed his build, though. His roach warren looked a bit delayed to me, and he wasn't able to defend his third. Had he saved his third, I'm not sure how the game would have turned out.
(2) Even sniping the third, P wasn't really ahead. That's annoying to me--Z screws up, P punishes him, Z is still even--maybe even ahead. It took DT's sniping another base and 5 drones for free (another Z screw-up) for P to develop a small lead.
You are reading the game wrong. Stephano isn't 'screwing up' - he is taking a risk by pumping economy, and taking minimal losses because the protoss are focusing on taking down the 3rd - which really isn't that important - instead of doing actual damage by killing tons of drones and or tech buildings in the main.
So he loses a hatch - 300 minerals. He builds another. Then he loses that to DT's - so what, the original third is nearly done. Doesn't matter. It's as if a zerg would head on commit to an attack on protoss, kill 2 gateways and a pylon, and think that was a 'victory' ... it really isn't.
Protoss screw up by delaying his third too long, chosing to go for 4 gate into dt before expanding. That's way too late for a third. He should have a much faster third, pretty much building when his first attack at the third happens, or go all in as a followup. His whole gameplan is flawed. Those 2 DT's should - at least - have been 4, or better, 6. Going for 3 bases at once. Yeah, it's nearly all in - but that's what you have already chosen when you go for 4 gate pressure into tech ... without taking your third.
He starts his third at 11:50 withou having been pressured once, or seen any indication an attack is coming, and without committing to any attacks ... that's just poor planning.
This is silly logic. "Sure, you can invest in light pressure and do big economic damage because I took a risk and played unsafe, but unless it actually kills me, I should still be at least even."
Stephano was definitely set back substantially by having his third sniped. The fact that a very favorable trade for P left the game even tells you that Z's build started out far ahead of P's build, and it took a favorable even for P to pull even. That game provides pretty solid evidence that 4 gate +1 zealot pressure is bad. Even when it goes well, P just pulls even.
Well, thing is - you are wrong. It was not a 'very favorable trade for P'. It`would have been, if he did the smart thing, and took his third at the same time. Since he didn't, it delayed his tech and economy enough that really - it wasn't.
He did not invest in 'light pressure and do big economic damage'.
He invested in a lot of pressure and did some, but not significant economic damage.
I don't understand why you insist that 'taking down the third' is a big economic loss for zerg - it is not, as long as it's a trade where the zerg army is left standing, and protoss didn't take his third. It leaves the game at 2 base vs 2 base, with the zerg instantly taking his third, and having 60+ vs 40 or so workers.
What would have made it a 'big loss' for zerg? If the protoss army escaped, and or the protoss had put down his third when zerg 3rd was killed. That would have put the zerg behind, instead of ahead.
He invested in 2 pylons, 9 zealots, 1 stalker in that attack. If he instead went with 6 zealots 1 stalker 1 less pylon, he would have taken down the hatch, and could have his third building at 8:40 (instead of 11:50). It was an overcommitment to make sure he got the hatch ... well he did, but that's an investment of 1 250 minerals to take down 1 drone, 1 hatch, and some lings ...
Resources lost shows the tale - protoss lost 1300 resources (and is stuck on 2 bases), zerg lost 1150 resources at that stage in the game.
On March 20 2012 02:03 Swiipii wrote: @Kcdc What you don't get is that destroying a third whithout killing any drones is pretty much useless .
You should try the 1 stargate (1 voydrai and 4 phenixes) into expand . Genius did it pretty well in the GSL and yesterday Grubby did the same build against Violet (LoneStarClash) when he decided to go for a macro game (he won the game and the series) . This build can also be played as an all in (Grubby did it against Hawk on game 2) .
This is nonsense.
You don't just lose 300 minerals when you lose a base - you lose the resources you would have mined from that base, too. You also lose the larva. The hatchery is the single most important building for a zerg - it is the only one that builds units and the only one that collects resouces. Saying the cost of losing one is "minimal" is just silly.
Man Stephano proves it quite well and said it several times on his stream . If you lose your third but not your drones it won't be hard to comeback (you have a macro hatch and your third will be remplace ASAP) .
This is true--it is easy for Z to come back after losing his third to a +1 zealot timing. If drones aren't killed, sniping the third just keeps P even in the game. And if Z times his roach warren properly, P can't even snipe the third, and winds up falling WAY behind.
So what this tells us is that the 4 gate +1 zealot timing is really bad against the Stephano style ZvP. In the best case, Z screws up and drops the roach warren late, allowing P to snipe the third, and the game is even. In the worst case, Z defends the pressure cleanly and has a huge lead.
Understand that I'm not saying that Z can't handle losing the third--it's clear that they can. I'm just saying that from P's perspective, sniping the third is much better than not sniping the third, and that allowing the third to be sniped was a mistake on Stephano's part that kept his opponent in the game. P had a very favorable trade in that game, but his build put him far enough behind that he needed the favorable trade in order to stay even.
As P you START the game trying to even it.You start behind aganist the stephano style. You have to TAKE A RISK to even it. If you "success" taking the 3rd, the game MAY BE EVEN, may be not, as you said doue to z superior eco/production. If you fail, you're dead. If Z attacks and fail, then again, the GAME MAY BE EVEN, may be still in Z favors, due to superior eco/production.
And we are not even talking in the thread about how funny is the muta cloud in big maps like tal darim and metropolis, that may come after the roach tech switch.
So as i said in a earlier post. I prefer to 1) Play just to improve multitasking with genius stargate style, knowing that i need so much more skill to beat the stephano style than the z. Or, 2) play to win, and do a 8-10 min all in.
On March 20 2012 02:03 Swiipii wrote: @Kcdc What you don't get is that destroying a third whithout killing any drones is pretty much useless .
You should try the 1 stargate (1 voydrai and 4 phenixes) into expand . Genius did it pretty well in the GSL and yesterday Grubby did the same build against Violet (LoneStarClash) when he decided to go for a macro game (he won the game and the series) . This build can also be played as an all in (Grubby did it against Hawk on game 2) .
This is nonsense.
You don't just lose 300 minerals when you lose a base - you lose the resources you would have mined from that base, too. You also lose the larva. The hatchery is the single most important building for a zerg - it is the only one that builds units and the only one that collects resouces. Saying the cost of losing one is "minimal" is just silly.
Man Stephano proves it quite well and said it several times on his stream . If you lose your third but not your drones it won't be hard to comeback (you have a macro hatch and your third will be remplace ASAP) .
This is true--it is easy for Z to come back after losing his third to a +1 zealot timing. If drones aren't killed, sniping the third just keeps P even in the game. And if Z times his roach warren properly, P can't even snipe the third, and winds up falling WAY behind.
So what this tells us is that the 4 gate +1 zealot timing is really bad against the Stephano style ZvP. In the best case, Z screws up and drops the roach warren late, allowing P to snipe the third, and the game is even. In the worst case, Z defends the pressure cleanly and has a huge lead.
No, what it tells us is that doing that, and not following it up with a fast third, or an all in attack followup, is a bad idea.
The build the Protoss is doing looks pretty damn impressive to me, more than the Titan build if I may say. He goes for some standard 8'45 pressure with +1 but follows it up with 10' DTs harass, while making some immortals and securing his third.
He ends up losing the game, but that's because of a lack of scouting: Stephano is incredibly behind and goes for direct teching to Brood lords at 15' out of 120 food, with little army. Showtime doesn't realize this and lets him get away with it.
I'm not sure Stephano properly executed his build, though. His roach warren looked a bit delayed to me, and he wasn't able to defend his third. Had he saved his third, I'm not sure how the game would have turned out.
(2) Even sniping the third, P wasn't really ahead. That's annoying to me--Z screws up, P punishes him, Z is still even--maybe even ahead. It took DT's sniping another base and 5 drones for free (another Z screw-up) for P to develop a small lead.
You are reading the game wrong. Stephano isn't 'screwing up' - he is taking a risk by pumping economy, and taking minimal losses because the protoss are focusing on taking down the 3rd - which really isn't that important - instead of doing actual damage by killing tons of drones and or tech buildings in the main.
So he loses a hatch - 300 minerals. He builds another. Then he loses that to DT's - so what, the original third is nearly done. Doesn't matter. It's as if a zerg would head on commit to an attack on protoss, kill 2 gateways and a pylon, and think that was a 'victory' ... it really isn't.
Protoss screw up by delaying his third too long, chosing to go for 4 gate into dt before expanding. That's way too late for a third. He should have a much faster third, pretty much building when his first attack at the third happens, or go all in as a followup. His whole gameplan is flawed. Those 2 DT's should - at least - have been 4, or better, 6. Going for 3 bases at once. Yeah, it's nearly all in - but that's what you have already chosen when you go for 4 gate pressure into tech ... without taking your third.
He starts his third at 11:50 withou having been pressured once, or seen any indication an attack is coming, and without committing to any attacks ... that's just poor planning.
This is silly logic. "Sure, you can invest in light pressure and do big economic damage because I took a risk and played unsafe, but unless it actually kills me, I should still be at least even."
Stephano was definitely set back substantially by having his third sniped. The fact that a very favorable trade for P left the game even tells you that Z's build started out far ahead of P's build, and it took a favorable even for P to pull even. That game provides pretty solid evidence that 4 gate +1 zealot pressure is bad. Even when it goes well, P just pulls even.
Well, thing is - you are wrong. It was not a 'very favorable trade for P'. It`would have been, if he did the smart thing, and took his third at the same time. Since he didn't, it delayed his tech and economy enough that really - it wasn't.
He did not invest in 'light pressure and do big economic damage'.
He invested in a lot of pressure and did some, but not significant economic damage.
I don't understand why you insist that 'taking down the third' is a big economic loss for zerg - it isn't, as long as it's a trade where the zerg army is left standing, and protoss didn't take his third. It leaves the game at 2 base vs 2 base, with the zerg instantly taking his third, and having 60+ vs 40 or so workers.
What would have made it a 'big loss' for zerg? If the protoss army escaped, and or the protoss had put down his third when zerg 3rd was killed. That would have put the zerg behind, instead of ahead.
(I am mid master EU zerg).
First off, the Protoss taking down the third with not many losses is a favorable trade for the Protoss.
Secondly, your missing his point. He isn't suggesting that the Zerg is far behind, he's suggesting that the Zerg SHOULD be behind. In a scenario where the shoe is on the other foot and the Protoss gets his 3rd up only to have it sniped it a not so favorable engagement for the Protoss, the Protoss IS BEHIND. Same thing with if Terran loses his command center.
Back when the 3 void ray pressure was popular I was sniping Zergs main only to have the be on even grounds with me afterwards. And why should the Protoss have to risk taking his 3rd when he denied the Zergs when everyone knows that a 2 base toss has an advantage over a 2 base Zerg. So risking a third, making you more spread out and more susceptible to Zergs multi-pronged, very cost efficient roach trading wouldn't always be the smart choice.
The build the Protoss is doing looks pretty damn impressive to me, more than the Titan build if I may say. He goes for some standard 8'45 pressure with +1 but follows it up with 10' DTs harass, while making some immortals and securing his third.
He ends up losing the game, but that's because of a lack of scouting: Stephano is incredibly behind and goes for direct teching to Brood lords at 15' out of 120 food, with little army. Showtime doesn't realize this and lets him get away with it.
I'm not sure Stephano properly executed his build, though. His roach warren looked a bit delayed to me, and he wasn't able to defend his third. Had he saved his third, I'm not sure how the game would have turned out.
(2) Even sniping the third, P wasn't really ahead. That's annoying to me--Z screws up, P punishes him, Z is still even--maybe even ahead. It took DT's sniping another base and 5 drones for free (another Z screw-up) for P to develop a small lead.
You are reading the game wrong. Stephano isn't 'screwing up' - he is taking a risk by pumping economy, and taking minimal losses because the protoss are focusing on taking down the 3rd - which really isn't that important - instead of doing actual damage by killing tons of drones and or tech buildings in the main.
So he loses a hatch - 300 minerals. He builds another. Then he loses that to DT's - so what, the original third is nearly done. Doesn't matter. It's as if a zerg would head on commit to an attack on protoss, kill 2 gateways and a pylon, and think that was a 'victory' ... it really isn't.
Protoss screw up by delaying his third too long, chosing to go for 4 gate into dt before expanding. That's way too late for a third. He should have a much faster third, pretty much building when his first attack at the third happens, or go all in as a followup. His whole gameplan is flawed. Those 2 DT's should - at least - have been 4, or better, 6. Going for 3 bases at once. Yeah, it's nearly all in - but that's what you have already chosen when you go for 4 gate pressure into tech ... without taking your third.
He starts his third at 11:50 withou having been pressured once, or seen any indication an attack is coming, and without committing to any attacks ... that's just poor planning.
This is silly logic. "Sure, you can invest in light pressure and do big economic damage because I took a risk and played unsafe, but unless it actually kills me, I should still be at least even."
Stephano was definitely set back substantially by having his third sniped. The fact that a very favorable trade for P left the game even tells you that Z's build started out far ahead of P's build, and it took a favorable even for P to pull even. That game provides pretty solid evidence that 4 gate +1 zealot pressure is bad. Even when it goes well, P just pulls even.
Well, thing is - you are wrong. It was not a 'very favorable trade for P'. It`would have been, if he did the smart thing, and took his third at the same time. Since he didn't, it delayed his tech and economy enough that really - it wasn't.
He did not invest in 'light pressure and do big economic damage'.
He invested in a lot of pressure and did some, but not significant economic damage.
I don't understand why you insist that 'taking down the third' is a big economic loss for zerg - it isn't, as long as it's a trade where the zerg army is left standing, and protoss didn't take his third. It leaves the game at 2 base vs 2 base, with the zerg instantly taking his third, and having 60+ vs 40 or so workers.
What would have made it a 'big loss' for zerg? If the protoss army escaped, and or the protoss had put down his third when zerg 3rd was killed. That would have put the zerg behind, instead of ahead.
(I am mid master EU zerg).
First off, the Protoss taking down the third with not many losses is a favorable trade for the Protoss.
Secondly, your missing his point. He isn't suggesting that the Zerg is far behind, he's suggesting that the Zerg SHOULD behind. In a scenario where the shoe is on the other foot and the Protoss gets his 3rd up only to have it sniped it a not so favorable engagement for the Protoss, the Protoss IS BEHIND. Same thing with if Terran loses his command center.
He lost his whole army, that is why it was not a favorable trade. If he had escaped with his zealots, it would have been a favorable trade for the protoss. As it was, it was a favorable trade for the zerg.
Why should Zerg be behind when protoss was on 2 bases, zerg was on 3 bases, at the end of the engagement, Z is building his third, protoss have lost 1300 resources, zerg have lost 1150 resources, and Z have significant more workers with his next expansion building? It makes no sense.
On March 20 2012 03:29 Berailfor wrote: And why should the Protoss have to risk taking his 3rd when he denied the Zergs when everyone knows that a 2 base toss has an advantage over a 2 base Zerg.
I don't know how a 2 base protoss has an advantage over a 2 base zerg with his third building and 20 more workers, and no committed attack incoming from the protoss. In fact, I think it is dead wrong.
I'm not saying that the fact that having the third sniped doesn't put Z way behind is match-up breaking. I think screwing up your roach timing and having them come out too late to save a base against a handful of zealots should be punished by the game a little harder than it is, but the burden is on P to figure out how to either do more damage or have stronger economy/tech at home. Because simply trading well and killing a hatchery doesn't get the job done. P needs to do better.
The build the Protoss is doing looks pretty damn impressive to me, more than the Titan build if I may say. He goes for some standard 8'45 pressure with +1 but follows it up with 10' DTs harass, while making some immortals and securing his third.
He ends up losing the game, but that's because of a lack of scouting: Stephano is incredibly behind and goes for direct teching to Brood lords at 15' out of 120 food, with little army. Showtime doesn't realize this and lets him get away with it.
I'm not sure Stephano properly executed his build, though. His roach warren looked a bit delayed to me, and he wasn't able to defend his third. Had he saved his third, I'm not sure how the game would have turned out.
(2) Even sniping the third, P wasn't really ahead. That's annoying to me--Z screws up, P punishes him, Z is still even--maybe even ahead. It took DT's sniping another base and 5 drones for free (another Z screw-up) for P to develop a small lead.
You are reading the game wrong. Stephano isn't 'screwing up' - he is taking a risk by pumping economy, and taking minimal losses because the protoss are focusing on taking down the 3rd - which really isn't that important - instead of doing actual damage by killing tons of drones and or tech buildings in the main.
So he loses a hatch - 300 minerals. He builds another. Then he loses that to DT's - so what, the original third is nearly done. Doesn't matter. It's as if a zerg would head on commit to an attack on protoss, kill 2 gateways and a pylon, and think that was a 'victory' ... it really isn't.
Protoss screw up by delaying his third too long, chosing to go for 4 gate into dt before expanding. That's way too late for a third. He should have a much faster third, pretty much building when his first attack at the third happens, or go all in as a followup. His whole gameplan is flawed. Those 2 DT's should - at least - have been 4, or better, 6. Going for 3 bases at once. Yeah, it's nearly all in - but that's what you have already chosen when you go for 4 gate pressure into tech ... without taking your third.
He starts his third at 11:50 withou having been pressured once, or seen any indication an attack is coming, and without committing to any attacks ... that's just poor planning.
This is silly logic. "Sure, you can invest in light pressure and do big economic damage because I took a risk and played unsafe, but unless it actually kills me, I should still be at least even."
Stephano was definitely set back substantially by having his third sniped. The fact that a very favorable trade for P left the game even tells you that Z's build started out far ahead of P's build, and it took a favorable even for P to pull even. That game provides pretty solid evidence that 4 gate +1 zealot pressure is bad. Even when it goes well, P just pulls even.
Well, thing is - you are wrong. It was not a 'very favorable trade for P'. It`would have been, if he did the smart thing, and took his third at the same time. Since he didn't, it delayed his tech and economy enough that really - it wasn't.
He did not invest in 'light pressure and do big economic damage'.
He invested in a lot of pressure and did some, but not significant economic damage.
I don't understand why you insist that 'taking down the third' is a big economic loss for zerg - it isn't, as long as it's a trade where the zerg army is left standing, and protoss didn't take his third. It leaves the game at 2 base vs 2 base, with the zerg instantly taking his third, and having 60+ vs 40 or so workers.
What would have made it a 'big loss' for zerg? If the protoss army escaped, and or the protoss had put down his third when zerg 3rd was killed. That would have put the zerg behind, instead of ahead.
(I am mid master EU zerg).
First off, the Protoss taking down the third with not many losses is a favorable trade for the Protoss.
Secondly, your missing his point. He isn't suggesting that the Zerg is far behind, he's suggesting that the Zerg SHOULD behind. In a scenario where the shoe is on the other foot and the Protoss gets his 3rd up only to have it sniped it a not so favorable engagement for the Protoss, the Protoss IS BEHIND. Same thing with if Terran loses his command center.
He lost his whole army, that is why it was not a favorable trade. If he had escaped with his zealots, it would have been a favorable trade for the protoss. As it was, it was a favorable trade for the zerg.
Why should Zerg be behind when protoss was on 2 bases, zerg was on 3 bases, at the end of the engagement, Z is building his third, protoss have lost 1300 resources, zerg have lost 1150 resources, and Z have significant more workers with his next expansion building? It makes no sense.
On March 20 2012 03:29 Berailfor wrote: And why should the Protoss have to risk taking his 3rd when he denied the Zergs when everyone knows that a 2 base toss has an advantage over a 2 base Zerg.
I don't know how a 2 base protoss has an advantage over a 2 base zerg with his third building, and no committed attack incoming from the protoss. In fact, I think it is dead wrong.
Dude, we get it. Z was marginally ahead even after losing his third. But he would have been WAAAAAY ahead had he built his roach warren 30 seconds earlier. The fact that Z is ahead even after being punished for a screw-up is what annoys Protoss players.
The build the Protoss is doing looks pretty damn impressive to me, more than the Titan build if I may say. He goes for some standard 8'45 pressure with +1 but follows it up with 10' DTs harass, while making some immortals and securing his third.
He ends up losing the game, but that's because of a lack of scouting: Stephano is incredibly behind and goes for direct teching to Brood lords at 15' out of 120 food, with little army. Showtime doesn't realize this and lets him get away with it.
I'm not sure Stephano properly executed his build, though. His roach warren looked a bit delayed to me, and he wasn't able to defend his third. Had he saved his third, I'm not sure how the game would have turned out.
(2) Even sniping the third, P wasn't really ahead. That's annoying to me--Z screws up, P punishes him, Z is still even--maybe even ahead. It took DT's sniping another base and 5 drones for free (another Z screw-up) for P to develop a small lead.
You are reading the game wrong. Stephano isn't 'screwing up' - he is taking a risk by pumping economy, and taking minimal losses because the protoss are focusing on taking down the 3rd - which really isn't that important - instead of doing actual damage by killing tons of drones and or tech buildings in the main.
So he loses a hatch - 300 minerals. He builds another. Then he loses that to DT's - so what, the original third is nearly done. Doesn't matter. It's as if a zerg would head on commit to an attack on protoss, kill 2 gateways and a pylon, and think that was a 'victory' ... it really isn't.
Protoss screw up by delaying his third too long, chosing to go for 4 gate into dt before expanding. That's way too late for a third. He should have a much faster third, pretty much building when his first attack at the third happens, or go all in as a followup. His whole gameplan is flawed. Those 2 DT's should - at least - have been 4, or better, 6. Going for 3 bases at once. Yeah, it's nearly all in - but that's what you have already chosen when you go for 4 gate pressure into tech ... without taking your third.
He starts his third at 11:50 withou having been pressured once, or seen any indication an attack is coming, and without committing to any attacks ... that's just poor planning.
This is silly logic. "Sure, you can invest in light pressure and do big economic damage because I took a risk and played unsafe, but unless it actually kills me, I should still be at least even."
Stephano was definitely set back substantially by having his third sniped. The fact that a very favorable trade for P left the game even tells you that Z's build started out far ahead of P's build, and it took a favorable even for P to pull even. That game provides pretty solid evidence that 4 gate +1 zealot pressure is bad. Even when it goes well, P just pulls even.
Well, thing is - you are wrong. It was not a 'very favorable trade for P'. It`would have been, if he did the smart thing, and took his third at the same time. Since he didn't, it delayed his tech and economy enough that really - it wasn't.
He did not invest in 'light pressure and do big economic damage'.
He invested in a lot of pressure and did some, but not significant economic damage.
I don't understand why you insist that 'taking down the third' is a big economic loss for zerg - it isn't, as long as it's a trade where the zerg army is left standing, and protoss didn't take his third. It leaves the game at 2 base vs 2 base, with the zerg instantly taking his third, and having 60+ vs 40 or so workers.
What would have made it a 'big loss' for zerg? If the protoss army escaped, and or the protoss had put down his third when zerg 3rd was killed. That would have put the zerg behind, instead of ahead.
(I am mid master EU zerg).
First off, the Protoss taking down the third with not many losses is a favorable trade for the Protoss.
Secondly, your missing his point. He isn't suggesting that the Zerg is far behind, he's suggesting that the Zerg SHOULD behind. In a scenario where the shoe is on the other foot and the Protoss gets his 3rd up only to have it sniped it a not so favorable engagement for the Protoss, the Protoss IS BEHIND. Same thing with if Terran loses his command center.
He lost his whole army, that is why it was not a favorable trade. If he had escaped with his zealots, it would have been a favorable trade for the protoss. As it was, it was a favorable trade for the zerg.
Why should Zerg be behind when protoss was on 2 bases, zerg was on 3 bases, at the end of the engagement, Z is building his third, protoss have lost 1300 resources, zerg have lost 1150 resources, and Z have significant more workers with his next expansion building? It makes no sense.
On March 20 2012 03:29 Berailfor wrote: And why should the Protoss have to risk taking his 3rd when he denied the Zergs when everyone knows that a 2 base toss has an advantage over a 2 base Zerg.
I don't know how a 2 base protoss has an advantage over a 2 base zerg with his third building, and no committed attack incoming from the protoss. In fact, I think it is dead wrong.
Wtf? Your just pointing out the things I'm saying SHOULD make the Zerg behind but don't. I said the Zerg SHOULD be behind after losing 1/3rd of his production facilities, and a mining base, and your explaining way more in depth things about what I said. I said a 2 base Protoss has an advantage over a 2 base Zerg. It's as simple as that. Once the third base is back up and running the Zerg will gain his advantage back. But the simple matter is the production from 2 bases is inferior to the production of 2 bases of the Protoss. And for the Zerg to have one of the 3 bases he's committing to getting early sniped, he SHOULD be in a bad spot. SHOULD, not he is. You keep flipping words around.
The build the Protoss is doing looks pretty damn impressive to me, more than the Titan build if I may say. He goes for some standard 8'45 pressure with +1 but follows it up with 10' DTs harass, while making some immortals and securing his third.
He ends up losing the game, but that's because of a lack of scouting: Stephano is incredibly behind and goes for direct teching to Brood lords at 15' out of 120 food, with little army. Showtime doesn't realize this and lets him get away with it.
I'm not sure Stephano properly executed his build, though. His roach warren looked a bit delayed to me, and he wasn't able to defend his third. Had he saved his third, I'm not sure how the game would have turned out.
(2) Even sniping the third, P wasn't really ahead. That's annoying to me--Z screws up, P punishes him, Z is still even--maybe even ahead. It took DT's sniping another base and 5 drones for free (another Z screw-up) for P to develop a small lead.
You are reading the game wrong. Stephano isn't 'screwing up' - he is taking a risk by pumping economy, and taking minimal losses because the protoss are focusing on taking down the 3rd - which really isn't that important - instead of doing actual damage by killing tons of drones and or tech buildings in the main.
So he loses a hatch - 300 minerals. He builds another. Then he loses that to DT's - so what, the original third is nearly done. Doesn't matter. It's as if a zerg would head on commit to an attack on protoss, kill 2 gateways and a pylon, and think that was a 'victory' ... it really isn't.
Protoss screw up by delaying his third too long, chosing to go for 4 gate into dt before expanding. That's way too late for a third. He should have a much faster third, pretty much building when his first attack at the third happens, or go all in as a followup. His whole gameplan is flawed. Those 2 DT's should - at least - have been 4, or better, 6. Going for 3 bases at once. Yeah, it's nearly all in - but that's what you have already chosen when you go for 4 gate pressure into tech ... without taking your third.
He starts his third at 11:50 withou having been pressured once, or seen any indication an attack is coming, and without committing to any attacks ... that's just poor planning.
This is silly logic. "Sure, you can invest in light pressure and do big economic damage because I took a risk and played unsafe, but unless it actually kills me, I should still be at least even."
Stephano was definitely set back substantially by having his third sniped. The fact that a very favorable trade for P left the game even tells you that Z's build started out far ahead of P's build, and it took a favorable even for P to pull even. That game provides pretty solid evidence that 4 gate +1 zealot pressure is bad. Even when it goes well, P just pulls even.
Well, thing is - you are wrong. It was not a 'very favorable trade for P'. It`would have been, if he did the smart thing, and took his third at the same time. Since he didn't, it delayed his tech and economy enough that really - it wasn't.
He did not invest in 'light pressure and do big economic damage'.
He invested in a lot of pressure and did some, but not significant economic damage.
I don't understand why you insist that 'taking down the third' is a big economic loss for zerg - it isn't, as long as it's a trade where the zerg army is left standing, and protoss didn't take his third. It leaves the game at 2 base vs 2 base, with the zerg instantly taking his third, and having 60+ vs 40 or so workers.
What would have made it a 'big loss' for zerg? If the protoss army escaped, and or the protoss had put down his third when zerg 3rd was killed. That would have put the zerg behind, instead of ahead.
(I am mid master EU zerg).
First off, the Protoss taking down the third with not many losses is a favorable trade for the Protoss.
Secondly, your missing his point. He isn't suggesting that the Zerg is far behind, he's suggesting that the Zerg SHOULD behind. In a scenario where the shoe is on the other foot and the Protoss gets his 3rd up only to have it sniped it a not so favorable engagement for the Protoss, the Protoss IS BEHIND. Same thing with if Terran loses his command center.
He lost his whole army, that is why it was not a favorable trade. If he had escaped with his zealots, it would have been a favorable trade for the protoss. As it was, it was a favorable trade for the zerg.
Why should Zerg be behind when protoss was on 2 bases, zerg was on 3 bases, at the end of the engagement, Z is building his third, protoss have lost 1300 resources, zerg have lost 1150 resources, and Z have significant more workers with his next expansion building? It makes no sense.
On March 20 2012 03:29 Berailfor wrote: And why should the Protoss have to risk taking his 3rd when he denied the Zergs when everyone knows that a 2 base toss has an advantage over a 2 base Zerg.
I don't know how a 2 base protoss has an advantage over a 2 base zerg with his third building, and no committed attack incoming from the protoss. In fact, I think it is dead wrong.
Wtf? Your just pointing out the things I'm saying SHOULD make the Zerg behind but don't. I said the Zerg SHOULD be behind after losing 1/3rd of his production facilities, and a mining base, and your explaining way more in depth things about what I said. I said a 2 base Protoss has an advantage over a 2 base Zerg. It's as simple as that. Once the third base is back up and running the Zerg will gain his advantage back. But the simple matter is the production from 2 bases is inferior to the production of 2 bases of the Protoss. And for the Zerg to have one of the 3 bases he's committing to getting early sniped, he SHOULD be in a bad spot. SHOULD, not he is. You keep flipping words around.
My mistake.
I was discussing a specific game. If you want to talk in general, never mind, I am not interested in theorycrafting right now.
The build the Protoss is doing looks pretty damn impressive to me, more than the Titan build if I may say. He goes for some standard 8'45 pressure with +1 but follows it up with 10' DTs harass, while making some immortals and securing his third.
He ends up losing the game, but that's because of a lack of scouting: Stephano is incredibly behind and goes for direct teching to Brood lords at 15' out of 120 food, with little army. Showtime doesn't realize this and lets him get away with it.
I'm not sure Stephano properly executed his build, though. His roach warren looked a bit delayed to me, and he wasn't able to defend his third. Had he saved his third, I'm not sure how the game would have turned out.
(2) Even sniping the third, P wasn't really ahead. That's annoying to me--Z screws up, P punishes him, Z is still even--maybe even ahead. It took DT's sniping another base and 5 drones for free (another Z screw-up) for P to develop a small lead.
You are reading the game wrong. Stephano isn't 'screwing up' - he is taking a risk by pumping economy, and taking minimal losses because the protoss are focusing on taking down the 3rd - which really isn't that important - instead of doing actual damage by killing tons of drones and or tech buildings in the main.
So he loses a hatch - 300 minerals. He builds another. Then he loses that to DT's - so what, the original third is nearly done. Doesn't matter. It's as if a zerg would head on commit to an attack on protoss, kill 2 gateways and a pylon, and think that was a 'victory' ... it really isn't.
Protoss screw up by delaying his third too long, chosing to go for 4 gate into dt before expanding. That's way too late for a third. He should have a much faster third, pretty much building when his first attack at the third happens, or go all in as a followup. His whole gameplan is flawed. Those 2 DT's should - at least - have been 4, or better, 6. Going for 3 bases at once. Yeah, it's nearly all in - but that's what you have already chosen when you go for 4 gate pressure into tech ... without taking your third.
He starts his third at 11:50 withou having been pressured once, or seen any indication an attack is coming, and without committing to any attacks ... that's just poor planning.
This is silly logic. "Sure, you can invest in light pressure and do big economic damage because I took a risk and played unsafe, but unless it actually kills me, I should still be at least even."
Stephano was definitely set back substantially by having his third sniped. The fact that a very favorable trade for P left the game even tells you that Z's build started out far ahead of P's build, and it took a favorable even for P to pull even. That game provides pretty solid evidence that 4 gate +1 zealot pressure is bad. Even when it goes well, P just pulls even.
Well, thing is - you are wrong. It was not a 'very favorable trade for P'. It`would have been, if he did the smart thing, and took his third at the same time. Since he didn't, it delayed his tech and economy enough that really - it wasn't.
He did not invest in 'light pressure and do big economic damage'.
He invested in a lot of pressure and did some, but not significant economic damage.
I don't understand why you insist that 'taking down the third' is a big economic loss for zerg - it isn't, as long as it's a trade where the zerg army is left standing, and protoss didn't take his third. It leaves the game at 2 base vs 2 base, with the zerg instantly taking his third, and having 60+ vs 40 or so workers.
What would have made it a 'big loss' for zerg? If the protoss army escaped, and or the protoss had put down his third when zerg 3rd was killed. That would have put the zerg behind, instead of ahead.
(I am mid master EU zerg).
First off, the Protoss taking down the third with not many losses is a favorable trade for the Protoss.
Secondly, your missing his point. He isn't suggesting that the Zerg is far behind, he's suggesting that the Zerg SHOULD behind. In a scenario where the shoe is on the other foot and the Protoss gets his 3rd up only to have it sniped it a not so favorable engagement for the Protoss, the Protoss IS BEHIND. Same thing with if Terran loses his command center.
He lost his whole army, that is why it was not a favorable trade. If he had escaped with his zealots, it would have been a favorable trade for the protoss. As it was, it was a favorable trade for the zerg.
Why should Zerg be behind when protoss was on 2 bases, zerg was on 3 bases, at the end of the engagement, Z is building his third, protoss have lost 1300 resources, zerg have lost 1150 resources, and Z have significant more workers with his next expansion building? It makes no sense.
On March 20 2012 03:29 Berailfor wrote: And why should the Protoss have to risk taking his 3rd when he denied the Zergs when everyone knows that a 2 base toss has an advantage over a 2 base Zerg.
I don't know how a 2 base protoss has an advantage over a 2 base zerg with his third building, and no committed attack incoming from the protoss. In fact, I think it is dead wrong.
Dude, we get it. Z was marginally ahead even after losing his third. But he would have been WAAAAAY ahead had he built his roach warren 30 seconds earlier. The fact that Z is ahead even after being punished for a screw-up is what annoys Protoss players.
Because he was delayed so much with the initial probe harass pylon block, he chose to build it later because otherwise it would put him so far behind he would die to sentry immortal, +2 stalker all in, or similar. As it was, he would have died to a 7-8 gate 8:10 all in instead, but he guessed right in that it wasn't coming (he also chose not to sacrifice an overlord to scout, because he couldn't afford it).
It seems like you think he 'just messed up and forgot' whereas there were good and valid reasons for delaying it, by taking a chance, and making sure he got his initial drones up. It made him vulnerable to some all in types and pressure, while making it possible to hold others.
I don't think you understood the game right. But that's my opinion, not fact.
My opinion is that Showtime messed up the game when he saw how much he delayed Stephano, he should have gone for the 7 gate +2 blink all in, or 7-8 gate all in, and won straight up - because he should have figured he had delayed him enough to make it unstoppable (which it would have been).
Watch how MC played in the last IEM vs Violet. It's a perfect demonstration when he 3-0 that series.
Game 1 and 3 showcase 4 gate +1 into two different variations of 8 gate and killing his opponent (blink or just straight up).
Cool, I'm glad you were analyzing the game, we can all see it, we can all analyze it ourselves, I'm not theorycrafting, I'm just providing my opinion which is that I feel as if the Zerg should be punished equally to how much the Terran or Protoss would be in the same scenario. Which is not the case.
The build the Protoss is doing looks pretty damn impressive to me, more than the Titan build if I may say. He goes for some standard 8'45 pressure with +1 but follows it up with 10' DTs harass, while making some immortals and securing his third.
He ends up losing the game, but that's because of a lack of scouting: Stephano is incredibly behind and goes for direct teching to Brood lords at 15' out of 120 food, with little army. Showtime doesn't realize this and lets him get away with it.
I'm not sure Stephano properly executed his build, though. His roach warren looked a bit delayed to me, and he wasn't able to defend his third. Had he saved his third, I'm not sure how the game would have turned out.
(2) Even sniping the third, P wasn't really ahead. That's annoying to me--Z screws up, P punishes him, Z is still even--maybe even ahead. It took DT's sniping another base and 5 drones for free (another Z screw-up) for P to develop a small lead.
You are reading the game wrong. Stephano isn't 'screwing up' - he is taking a risk by pumping economy, and taking minimal losses because the protoss are focusing on taking down the 3rd - which really isn't that important - instead of doing actual damage by killing tons of drones and or tech buildings in the main.
So he loses a hatch - 300 minerals. He builds another. Then he loses that to DT's - so what, the original third is nearly done. Doesn't matter. It's as if a zerg would head on commit to an attack on protoss, kill 2 gateways and a pylon, and think that was a 'victory' ... it really isn't.
Protoss screw up by delaying his third too long, chosing to go for 4 gate into dt before expanding. That's way too late for a third. He should have a much faster third, pretty much building when his first attack at the third happens, or go all in as a followup. His whole gameplan is flawed. Those 2 DT's should - at least - have been 4, or better, 6. Going for 3 bases at once. Yeah, it's nearly all in - but that's what you have already chosen when you go for 4 gate pressure into tech ... without taking your third.
He starts his third at 11:50 withou having been pressured once, or seen any indication an attack is coming, and without committing to any attacks ... that's just poor planning.
This is silly logic. "Sure, you can invest in light pressure and do big economic damage because I took a risk and played unsafe, but unless it actually kills me, I should still be at least even."
Stephano was definitely set back substantially by having his third sniped. The fact that a very favorable trade for P left the game even tells you that Z's build started out far ahead of P's build, and it took a favorable even for P to pull even. That game provides pretty solid evidence that 4 gate +1 zealot pressure is bad. Even when it goes well, P just pulls even.
Well, thing is - you are wrong. It was not a 'very favorable trade for P'. It`would have been, if he did the smart thing, and took his third at the same time. Since he didn't, it delayed his tech and economy enough that really - it wasn't.
He did not invest in 'light pressure and do big economic damage'.
He invested in a lot of pressure and did some, but not significant economic damage.
I don't understand why you insist that 'taking down the third' is a big economic loss for zerg - it isn't, as long as it's a trade where the zerg army is left standing, and protoss didn't take his third. It leaves the game at 2 base vs 2 base, with the zerg instantly taking his third, and having 60+ vs 40 or so workers.
What would have made it a 'big loss' for zerg? If the protoss army escaped, and or the protoss had put down his third when zerg 3rd was killed. That would have put the zerg behind, instead of ahead.
(I am mid master EU zerg).
First off, the Protoss taking down the third with not many losses is a favorable trade for the Protoss.
Secondly, your missing his point. He isn't suggesting that the Zerg is far behind, he's suggesting that the Zerg SHOULD behind. In a scenario where the shoe is on the other foot and the Protoss gets his 3rd up only to have it sniped it a not so favorable engagement for the Protoss, the Protoss IS BEHIND. Same thing with if Terran loses his command center.
He lost his whole army, that is why it was not a favorable trade. If he had escaped with his zealots, it would have been a favorable trade for the protoss. As it was, it was a favorable trade for the zerg.
Why should Zerg be behind when protoss was on 2 bases, zerg was on 3 bases, at the end of the engagement, Z is building his third, protoss have lost 1300 resources, zerg have lost 1150 resources, and Z have significant more workers with his next expansion building? It makes no sense.
On March 20 2012 03:29 Berailfor wrote: And why should the Protoss have to risk taking his 3rd when he denied the Zergs when everyone knows that a 2 base toss has an advantage over a 2 base Zerg.
I don't know how a 2 base protoss has an advantage over a 2 base zerg with his third building, and no committed attack incoming from the protoss. In fact, I think it is dead wrong.
Dude, we get it. Z was marginally ahead even after losing his third. But he would have been WAAAAAY ahead had he built his roach warren 30 seconds earlier. The fact that Z is ahead even after being punished for a screw-up is what annoys Protoss players.
Because he was delayed so much with the initial probe harass pylon block, he chose to build it later because otherwise it would put him so far behind he would die to sentry immortal, +2 stalker all in, or similar. As it was, he would have died to a 7-8 gate 8:10 all in instead, but he guessed right in that it wasn't coming (he also chose not to sacrifice an overlord to scout, because he couldn't afford it).
It seems like you think he 'just messed up and forgot' whereas there were good and valid reasons for delaying it, by taking a chance, and making sure he got his initial drones up. It made him vulnerable to some all in types and pressure, while making it possible to hold others.
I don't think you understood the game right. But that's my opinion, not fact.
My opinion is that Showtime messed up the game when he saw how much he delayed Stephano, he should have gone for the 7 gate +2 blink all in, or 7-8 gate all in, and won straight up - because he should have figured he had delayed him enough to make it unstoppable (which it would have been).
Watch how MC played in the last IEM vs Violet. It's a perfect demonstration when he 3-0 that series.
A. Didn't you just tell me not to theorycraft only to start theorycrafting what allins would have been successful or unsuccessful?
B. Okay so let's say your analysis of the roach warren timing is correct. And you said yourself it was a risk that made him vulnerable to certain timings. So he was vulnerable to the EXACT timing that was done, which killed his third, and easily paid for itself in non-mining time, having to rebuild the base, and lack of production for that time. Yet he still was not punished for RISKING (I say risking assuming it was not a mistake) that he would be vulnerable at that time, and the Protoss exploited the timing he RISKED. Yet he still did not gain an advantage from it.
The build the Protoss is doing looks pretty damn impressive to me, more than the Titan build if I may say. He goes for some standard 8'45 pressure with +1 but follows it up with 10' DTs harass, while making some immortals and securing his third.
He ends up losing the game, but that's because of a lack of scouting: Stephano is incredibly behind and goes for direct teching to Brood lords at 15' out of 120 food, with little army. Showtime doesn't realize this and lets him get away with it.
I'm not sure Stephano properly executed his build, though. His roach warren looked a bit delayed to me, and he wasn't able to defend his third. Had he saved his third, I'm not sure how the game would have turned out.
(2) Even sniping the third, P wasn't really ahead. That's annoying to me--Z screws up, P punishes him, Z is still even--maybe even ahead. It took DT's sniping another base and 5 drones for free (another Z screw-up) for P to develop a small lead.
You are reading the game wrong. Stephano isn't 'screwing up' - he is taking a risk by pumping economy, and taking minimal losses because the protoss are focusing on taking down the 3rd - which really isn't that important - instead of doing actual damage by killing tons of drones and or tech buildings in the main.
So he loses a hatch - 300 minerals. He builds another. Then he loses that to DT's - so what, the original third is nearly done. Doesn't matter. It's as if a zerg would head on commit to an attack on protoss, kill 2 gateways and a pylon, and think that was a 'victory' ... it really isn't.
Protoss screw up by delaying his third too long, chosing to go for 4 gate into dt before expanding. That's way too late for a third. He should have a much faster third, pretty much building when his first attack at the third happens, or go all in as a followup. His whole gameplan is flawed. Those 2 DT's should - at least - have been 4, or better, 6. Going for 3 bases at once. Yeah, it's nearly all in - but that's what you have already chosen when you go for 4 gate pressure into tech ... without taking your third.
He starts his third at 11:50 withou having been pressured once, or seen any indication an attack is coming, and without committing to any attacks ... that's just poor planning.
This is silly logic. "Sure, you can invest in light pressure and do big economic damage because I took a risk and played unsafe, but unless it actually kills me, I should still be at least even."
Stephano was definitely set back substantially by having his third sniped. The fact that a very favorable trade for P left the game even tells you that Z's build started out far ahead of P's build, and it took a favorable even for P to pull even. That game provides pretty solid evidence that 4 gate +1 zealot pressure is bad. Even when it goes well, P just pulls even.
Well, thing is - you are wrong. It was not a 'very favorable trade for P'. It`would have been, if he did the smart thing, and took his third at the same time. Since he didn't, it delayed his tech and economy enough that really - it wasn't.
He did not invest in 'light pressure and do big economic damage'.
He invested in a lot of pressure and did some, but not significant economic damage.
I don't understand why you insist that 'taking down the third' is a big economic loss for zerg - it isn't, as long as it's a trade where the zerg army is left standing, and protoss didn't take his third. It leaves the game at 2 base vs 2 base, with the zerg instantly taking his third, and having 60+ vs 40 or so workers.
What would have made it a 'big loss' for zerg? If the protoss army escaped, and or the protoss had put down his third when zerg 3rd was killed. That would have put the zerg behind, instead of ahead.
(I am mid master EU zerg).
First off, the Protoss taking down the third with not many losses is a favorable trade for the Protoss.
Secondly, your missing his point. He isn't suggesting that the Zerg is far behind, he's suggesting that the Zerg SHOULD behind. In a scenario where the shoe is on the other foot and the Protoss gets his 3rd up only to have it sniped it a not so favorable engagement for the Protoss, the Protoss IS BEHIND. Same thing with if Terran loses his command center.
He lost his whole army, that is why it was not a favorable trade. If he had escaped with his zealots, it would have been a favorable trade for the protoss. As it was, it was a favorable trade for the zerg.
Why should Zerg be behind when protoss was on 2 bases, zerg was on 3 bases, at the end of the engagement, Z is building his third, protoss have lost 1300 resources, zerg have lost 1150 resources, and Z have significant more workers with his next expansion building? It makes no sense.
On March 20 2012 03:29 Berailfor wrote: And why should the Protoss have to risk taking his 3rd when he denied the Zergs when everyone knows that a 2 base toss has an advantage over a 2 base Zerg.
I don't know how a 2 base protoss has an advantage over a 2 base zerg with his third building, and no committed attack incoming from the protoss. In fact, I think it is dead wrong.
Dude, we get it. Z was marginally ahead even after losing his third. But he would have been WAAAAAY ahead had he built his roach warren 30 seconds earlier. The fact that Z is ahead even after being punished for a screw-up is what annoys Protoss players.
Because he was delayed so much with the initial probe harass pylon block, he chose to build it later because otherwise it would put him so far behind he would die to sentry immortal, +2 stalker all in, or similar. As it was, he would have died to a 7-8 gate 8:10 all in instead, but he guessed right in that it wasn't coming (he also chose not to sacrifice an overlord to scout, because he couldn't afford it).
It seems like you think he 'just messed up and forgot' whereas there were good and valid reasons for delaying it, by taking a chance, and making sure he got his initial drones up. It made him vulnerable to some all in types and pressure, while making it possible to hold others.
I don't think you understood the game right. But that's my opinion, not fact.
My opinion is that Showtime messed up the game when he saw how much he delayed Stephano, he should have gone for the 7 gate +2 blink all in, or 7-8 gate all in, and won straight up - because he should have figured he had delayed him enough to make it unstoppable (which it would have been).
Watch how MC played in the last IEM vs Violet. It's a perfect demonstration when he 3-0 that series.
A. Didn't you just tell me not to theorycraft only to start theorycrafting what allins would have been successful or unsuccessful?
B. Okay so let's say your analysis of the roach warren timing is correct. And you said yourself it was a risk that made him vulnerable to certain timings. So he was vulnerable to the EXACT timing that was done, which killed his third, and easily paid for itself in non-mining time, having to rebuild the base, and lack of production for that time. Yet he still was not punished for RISKING (I say risking assuming it was not a mistake) that he would be vulnerable at that time, and the Protoss exploited the timing he RISKED. Yet he still did not gain an advantage from it.
A) Watch how MC played in the last IEM vs Violet. It's a perfect demonstration when he 3-0 that series.
Game 1 and 3 showcase 4 gate +1 into two different variations of 8 gate and killing his opponent (blink or just straight up). This is the correct way to execute 4 gate +1.
It's not theorycraft. It's fact based on what he had at that time of the game.
B) No, what I said was that he was vulnerable to that pressure with a followup all in, or a straight up all in. Which would have won.
Not that he was vulnerable to what happened, with a tech followup and a late third from Showcase. That was pretty much great for Stephano.
Let it go guys. The 8:00 +1 zealot timing is not the answer to this Zerg build. We know that, and the Showtime vs Stephano VOD didn't tell us anything new. Let's move on.
So far, it seems like we've got 2 main ideas:
(1) robo, fast third, defend with forcefields and immortals (2) single SG, fast third, defend with forcefields and air, and if given enough time, robo units
Those seem like the most promising options, tho it remains to be seen how well they work. Seems like as Zergs become more proficient at defending all-ins, the metagame will shift toward Protoss doing these two types of builds more often. We'll see how it goes.
On March 20 2012 03:54 Berailfor wrote: Cool, I'm glad you were analyzing the game, we can all see it, we can all analyze it ourselves, I'm not theorycrafting, I'm just providing my opinion which is that I feel as if the Zerg should be punished equally to how much the Terran or Protoss would be in the same scenario. Which is not the case.
Terran is punished the same way when he goes for the 3rd OC at 6:00, have no defenses, and get attacked, lifts up his orbital commands, is denied mining for a time, and then retakes his 2 bases shortly after because you can't break the wall with bunkers.
Never really happens that protoss goes for 3 base vs 2 base zerg, so no - the same scenario doesn't happen there much.
And you can all analyze it yourself, but you protoss players seem to reach the wrong conclusion from it.
The most punishing build you can do vs a zerg is to do a straight up all in, or pressure into all in. The most economic build you can do is 4 gate into expand (before or after gates finish, purely defensive or with pressure).
Doing neither, but going for 4 gate into tech ... it's simply not what you chose when you want to punish someone.
You seem to equal zerg losing his 3rd but no drones, to a protoss losing his wall + 2nd. In fact, it's more equal to protoss losing his third when it's building but forgetting to cancel. And that ... isn't that horrible. Seen plenty of games where it's not horrible, and if the zerg loses his army he used to do it, it might even be in the protoss players favor.
If you disagree, please be very specific in which scenario you consider 'equal' when it's the other way around.
I am in agreement that something like a 4gate +1 zealot timing is really not that good anymore. It was working when zergs were really greedy and were not used to it, not it's so standard that zergs figured out how to stop it and get ahead from it. If you look at some gsl games for example, if a zerg defends the pressure fine he will be up in supply by 50-60. This pressure normally leaves protoss between 50-60 supply if it fails and zerg can be around 100-110. Roaches are incredibly easy to mass off 3 base economy so from there the supply just goes up for the zerg and he can just roll over the protoss.
I do not believe taking a really fast 3rd as protoss is too good vs this because then drg can just have fun with you and split his roaches and if protoss is relying on forcefields it will be very difficult to hold your natural and your 3rd.
I am curious what would happen if protoss went double robo immortal. This obviously requires making sure there is no spire, but if you have an observer to see that there is no spire and can confirm they aren't going double evo infestor ling then what's wrong with double robo immortal with zealot sentry? I haven't tried this out myself so I can't say that this is going to work, but immortals crush roaches and if the zerg can't do anything at all with his maxed 200 roaches then he is left in an awkward position where his army maxed really fast and then just dies in a straight up fight if the protoss has good forcefields.
My biggest concern about trying that though is if a zerg just decides to base trade you which he most likely will if he has 60 +1 roaches and you survived his initial super aggressive roach push with immortals and sentries. I feel like at that point you would still be behind because if you commit to a base trade you'll probably lose because the zerg can just make a lot of spines and expand at opposite corners while barreling down your front with his roaches.
The more I think about this the more I wonder how easy it is for protoss to scout this coming actually. If a zerg just goes up to 60-70 drones and then starts pumping roaches it's unlikely that the protoss will have very much time to react to this roach pressure coming. I was originally wondering if a double stargate type build would work but that would almost have to be a blind counter hoping they won't go muta while you're sitting at home chrono boosting double stargate voidray.
Hmm. I'll keep looking back at this thread because as a masters zerg myself I find this to be really interesting and it's a valid problem I think. Good luck finding a solution to this.
EPT
