I noticed that MC has pretty good international stats against zerg. He has won his last 12 games, and has a 76%+ winrate overall. He lost only twice recently, which was to DRG who just won code S. Since you seem to have accounted for much, I want to ask you if you know why MC is winning against zerg so consistently?
tbh... The only PvZ games i could find of MC recently. are similar to 8 gate 1-1 upgrades, with alot of sentries, crushing violet. IEM WC.... And if he doesnt kill the zerg or denies a 3rd he loses... He seems to always go for a quick aggressive timing regardless.
Looking at games from this year only, he is 12-0, defeating Stephano 2-0 and Nerchio 3-0 at Home Story Cup, Nerchio 2-0 and Violet 3-0 at IEM and Idra 2-0 at Iron Squid. The point is he doesn't lose, so the question that remains to be answered is why? What you pointed to is only that he succeeds with strats that other people apperently fail with. Why is this? What is he doing differently? Stephano crushing protoss players was mentioned in this thread. MC is 4-0 against Stephano, with 2 games being from this year.
and for these who instantly think of muta switch: why dont you load 4 your immortals into warp prisms and just bruteforce kill spire to buy time, building another one will give you enough time to prepare for mutas,
and even, if he had just spent all this gas for 200/200 roaches, first hatch (after the roach push ended) wont be 20 mutas at once, or even, you might be able to brute force his third/fourth and expind behind the counter attack
what he cant do? he cant have double the amount of gas that you have
I noticed that MC has pretty good international stats against zerg. He has won his last 12 games, and has a 76%+ winrate overall. He lost only twice recently, which was to DRG who just won code S. Since you seem to have accounted for much, I want to ask you if you know why MC is winning against zerg so consistently?
tbh... The only PvZ games i could find of MC recently. are similar to 8 gate 1-1 upgrades, with alot of sentries, crushing violet. IEM WC.... And if he doesnt kill the zerg or denies a 3rd he loses... He seems to always go for a quick aggressive timing regardless.
Looking at games from this year only, he is 12-0, defeating Stephano 2-0 and Nerchio 3-0 at Home Story Cup, Nerchio 2-0 and Violet 3-0 at IEM and Idra 2-0 at Iron Squid. The point is he doesn't lose, so the question that remains to be answered is why? What you pointed to is only that he succeeds with strats that other people apperently fail with. Why is this? What is he doing differently? Stephano crushing protoss players was mentioned in this thread. MC is 4-0 against Stephano, with 2 games being from this year.
MC is probably has one of, if not the best timing execution out there. 2-base timings are still very potent, evidenced by their popularity and relatively even win rates.
I noticed that MC has pretty good international stats against zerg. He has won his last 12 games, and has a 76%+ winrate overall. He lost only twice recently, which was to DRG who just won code S. Since you seem to have accounted for much, I want to ask you if you know why MC is winning against zerg so consistently?
tbh... The only PvZ games i could find of MC recently. are similar to 8 gate 1-1 upgrades, with alot of sentries, crushing violet. IEM WC.... And if he doesnt kill the zerg or denies a 3rd he loses... He seems to always go for a quick aggressive timing regardless.
So maybe that's the way more of us should be playing against zerg then. A win is a win is a win.
I noticed that MC has pretty good international stats against zerg. He has won his last 12 games, and has a 76%+ winrate overall. He lost only twice recently, which was to DRG who just won code S. Since you seem to have accounted for much, I want to ask you if you know why MC is winning against zerg so consistently?
Always check for korean stats. International are useless cose all top koreans rape most foreigners and add fake numbers aganist inferior players.
MC last 9 international PvZ's: 9-0
3-0 vs Violet 2-0 vs Idra 4-0 vs Nerchio
MC last 10 korean PvZ's: 4-6
2-3 vs DRG 2-1 vs Leenock 0-2 vs Losira
Your logic is backwards. The reasoning in this thread is that Stephano is crushing protoss players by virtue of apperently exploiting roaches. I show that MC beat a lot of zergs recently (this year), including Stephano 2-0. Then you're simply remove the games versus Stephano and others, claiming that they're inferior players to boost the argument that Stephanos strat is apperently unbeatable?
Looking at only games from this year, MC is 14-1 against zergs:
I'd like to know which of these players you consider inferior to MC and why. If your reasoning is fair, you can remove them from the list. If this leaves us with too few matches, we can simply include the last month of last year and repeat.
I noticed that MC has pretty good international stats against zerg. He has won his last 12 games, and has a 76%+ winrate overall. He lost only twice recently, which was to DRG who just won code S. Since you seem to have accounted for much, I want to ask you if you know why MC is winning against zerg so consistently?
Always check for korean stats. International are useless cose all top koreans rape most foreigners and add fake numbers aganist inferior players.
MC last 9 international PvZ's: 9-0
3-0 vs Violet 2-0 vs Idra 4-0 vs Nerchio
MC last 10 korean PvZ's: 4-6
2-3 vs DRG 2-1 vs Leenock 0-2 vs Losira
Your logic is backwards. The reasoning in this thread is that Stephano is crushing protoss players by virtue of apperently exploiting roaches. I show that MC beat a lot of zergs recently (this year), including Stephano 2-0. Then you're simply remove the games versus Stephano and others, claiming that they're inferior players to boost the argument that Stephanos strat is apperently unbeatable?
Looking at only games from this year, MC is 14-1 against zergs:
I'd like to know which of these players you consider inferior to MC and why. If your reasoning is fair, you can remove them from the list. If this leaves us with too few matches, we can simply include the last month of last year and repeat.
MC FF's better than any other Protoss player in the world, so it's alot easier for him to fight at a 50-60 supply disadvantage. One missed FF means you instantly die to Roaches. Not to mention that he also tends to try and attack before Z can mass a critical amount of Roaches.
I noticed that MC has pretty good international stats against zerg. He has won his last 12 games, and has a 76%+ winrate overall. He lost only twice recently, which was to DRG who just won code S. Since you seem to have accounted for much, I want to ask you if you know why MC is winning against zerg so consistently?
tbh... The only PvZ games i could find of MC recently. are similar to 8 gate 1-1 upgrades, with alot of sentries, crushing violet. IEM WC.... And if he doesnt kill the zerg or denies a 3rd he loses... He seems to always go for a quick aggressive timing regardless.
So maybe that's the way more of us should be playing against zerg then. A win is a win is a win.
Maybe it is at least a way that you could be playing against zerg some of the time since it appears to be quite effective? The reasoning that "well, i know he wins all the time and all, but IF HE DIDN'T he would lose" seem to be flawed. If he's doing 2 base timings all of the time, it must be expected by his opponents. If it's expected and still works, it must be consistent. If it's consistent, it wins you games consistently. In that sense i guess a win is a win, yes. The way to prove otherwise is to point to big mistakes by zerg players in the games won by MC or point to lack of mistakes by MC in games he lost against zerg players, or simply call it coincidence by means of levels of statistical significance.
Thanks for sharing. This may sound obvious to some, but i'm of the opinion that to play against zerg you have to choices: 1) Aggressively expand in order to keep up with their economy; or 2) Do timings or harass to kill them or at the very least, slow them down before hive tech. If you choose to play passively against zerg I think you need to be playing aggressive economically.
That being said, I really like what SaSe was doing in Game 1 against ret. I don't know how viable it is, and I don't know how zergs will react to a fast 3rd like that once they've played against it a few times and have had the chance to sit down and study it out a bit. But the general idea is amazing to me.
I agree. As much as I like to complain about Speedroach spam and feel completely helpless most of the time, I feel like PvZ is in the need of a meta shift. Zergs have gotten too good at defending all of the currently popular two-base timings as long as they aren't overly greedy (and really, there is no need for them to be), and at the same time have the production capability to shut down a fast third off of the current popular openings (4Gate Robo after FFE most commonly).
So fundamentally, how do we go about changing our approach to PvZ? Theorycraft time oh boy! These are the ideas that feel best to me:
Faster third: I feel like Sase's opening, or some variation of it, is the only way to go about it. I think a third Nexus any later than 7 minutes won't provide an economic boost fast enough to deal with an 11-12 minute Roach attack, and any committed investment in tech before the Nexus (Sentries included) won't allow for this to happen while constantly making Probes, a sim city and static defense. This feels like the best answer right to me, and is what I want to try and make work.
Crippling production: This begins and ends with killing Queens, and I think Phoenix are the best approach. There's nothing really new about this idea, but a dedicated Phoenix-only air army (6-10) with the sole intention of killing Queens may open up windows to take a third safely. Another option might be some kind of fast Stalker attack, chronoed out of two Gates after an FFE designed to hit before Ling Speed is done.
New compositions: Focusing exclusively on Zealots from the Gateway while getting better tech units out. Phoenix/Immortal feels like it would be best here, and provide scouting and a safety net against Muta. Gravition Beam could act in a similar way to Forcefield to cut down overwhelming Roach numbers in an engagement. I don't think this is the answer at all, but could be worth a shot.
I'm not a big GSL spectator, but from what I've seen, MC wins a lot because he's really really good at 2-base timings and he has immaculate control that wins him games even when he's way behind after a failed timing attack.
I want to make it clear that I think Protoss can win games against Zerg. 2-base timing pushes are really strong and it's hard for Zerg to know which one is coming. And if Protoss is able to secure a third and enter lategame on even footing, I think Protoss has a big advantage because mothership+carrier+archon+templar is unbeatable. It takes 25 minutes to get the perfect composition, but if Zerg doesn't stop Protoss from getting there, Protoss wins almost every time.
So there are exploits on both sides of the match-up, and a lot of how well the exploits play out depends on the map. On Entombed Valley, for instance, Protoss should just take a fast third, defend with forcefields and get mothership+carrier+archon for the win. It's boring as hell, but there's no reason Protoss should lose on that map. On Korhal Compound, Zerg can prevent Protoss's third seemingly indefinitely, and Zerg should just focus on defending 2-base timings and win every time.
On March 21 2012 03:06 kcdc wrote: I'm not a big GSL spectator, but from what I've seen, MC wins a lot because he's really really good at 2-base timings and he has immaculate control that wins him games even when he's way behind after a failed timing attack.
I want to make it clear that I think Protoss can win games against Zerg. 2-base timing pushes are really strong and it's hard for Zerg to know which one is coming. And if Protoss is able to secure a third and enter lategame on even footing, I think Protoss has a big advantage because mothership+carrier+archon+templar is unbeatable. It takes 25 minutes to get the perfect composition, but if Zerg doesn't stop Protoss from getting there, Protoss wins almost every time.
So there are exploits on both sides of the match-up, and a lot of how well the exploits play out depends on the map. On Entombed Valley, for instance, Protoss should just take a fast third, defend with forcefields and get mothership+carrier+archon for the win. It's boring as hell, but there's no reason Protoss should lose on that map. On Korhal Compound, Zerg can prevent Protoss's third seemingly indefinitely, and Zerg should just focus on defending 2-base timings and win every time.
I found that MC's most consistent play vs Z is +1 Blink Stalkers that allows him to pressure very quickly right before massive amounts of Roaches hit the field. It allows him to defend against Roach busts and Muta tech switches, all while pressuring to secure a 3rd.
His ghetto +1 Blink Attack that hits around 10:30 is pretty funny to watch.
I noticed that MC has pretty good international stats against zerg. He has won his last 12 games, and has a 76%+ winrate overall. He lost only twice recently, which was to DRG who just won code S. Since you seem to have accounted for much, I want to ask you if you know why MC is winning against zerg so consistently?
Always check for korean stats. International are useless cose all top koreans rape most foreigners and add fake numbers aganist inferior players.
MC last 9 international PvZ's: 9-0
3-0 vs Violet 2-0 vs Idra 4-0 vs Nerchio
MC last 10 korean PvZ's: 4-6
2-3 vs DRG 2-1 vs Leenock 0-2 vs Losira
Your logic is backwards. The reasoning in this thread is that Stephano is crushing protoss players by virtue of apperently exploiting roaches. I show that MC beat a lot of zergs recently (this year), including Stephano 2-0. Then you're simply remove the games versus Stephano and others, claiming that they're inferior players to boost the argument that Stephanos strat is apperently unbeatable?
Looking at only games from this year, MC is 14-1 against zergs:
I'd like to know which of these players you consider inferior to MC and why. If your reasoning is fair, you can remove them from the list. If this leaves us with too few matches, we can simply include the last month of last year and repeat.
MC FF's better than any other Protoss player in the world, so it's alot easier for him to fight at a 50-60 supply disadvantage. One missed FF means you instantly die to Roaches. Not to mention that he also tends to try and attack before Z can mass a critical amount of Roaches.
This gives us at least two things to look into: a) improvement of FF's (can the strat be beaten with really, really good FF's? The way to test this could be to play x amount of games and look into the ones where the FF's are best. Does these games have other mistakes that could be fixed?)
b) how to try and attack before Z can mass a critical amount of roaches and be more succesful doing so (this is more tricky because it requires that one look into the specific strat of MC and try it out several times to see if it was a designed strat for one or both of a specific opponent and a specific map, or if it is actually viable)
Ofc. one could also go by the reasoning that since MC is so good with forcefields, he doesn't represent balance. However, balance in sc2 is based on the skilllevel of the top players in the world. If, for instance, the best zerg player in the world has about a 50% winrate against the best protoss player in the world over a large sample of games, it doesn't make the game imbalanced that the 10th to 100th best zerg players has a 65% winrate against the 10th to 100th best protoss players. One need only to compare the various distributions of races in the different leagues with various top X distributions of races in these leagues respectively to see that balance is based on optimal play (contrary to suboptimal play such as missing a forcefield).
To make my point perfectly clear: balance is a term for the state of the game when two players makes as few mistakes as possible and got as few flaws in their game as possible. Even if MC is the only player in the entire world who doesn't mess up forcefields and thus beats zergs consistently, balance should be based on the possibility of doing this consistently, proving that a way of dealing with zergs exists, and not on the mistakes of the 99,999% who loses entire games as a result.
On March 21 2012 03:06 kcdc wrote: I'm not a big GSL spectator, but from what I've seen, MC wins a lot because he's really really good at 2-base timings and he has immaculate control that wins him games even when he's way behind after a failed timing attack.
I want to make it clear that I think Protoss can win games against Zerg. 2-base timing pushes are really strong and it's hard for Zerg to know which one is coming. And if Protoss is able to secure a third and enter lategame on even footing, I think Protoss has a big advantage because mothership+carrier+archon+templar is unbeatable. It takes 25 minutes to get the perfect composition, but if Zerg doesn't stop Protoss from getting there, Protoss wins almost every time.
So there are exploits on both sides of the match-up, and a lot of how well the exploits play out depends on the map. On Entombed Valley, for instance, Protoss should just take a fast third, defend with forcefields and get mothership+carrier+archon for the win. It's boring as hell, but there's no reason Protoss should lose on that map. On Korhal Compound, Zerg can prevent Protoss's third seemingly indefinitely, and Zerg should just focus on defending 2-base timings and win every time.
These are all fair points in my opinion. However, some of them changes the focus of the strat quite a bit. In particular, you seem to emphasize the importance of the map. Have you accounted for this previously? If the level of importance of the map is this great, perhaps the focus on the strat is uncalled for altogether since it might mostly be a consequence of various suboptimal (imbalanced) maps being played in various tournaments.
Also, you point to MC winning a lot of games that he is behind because he's really good at something. I see this as a strong point for a possible counter to the mass roach strat discussed here - not a point against it. If he's really good at something, and if it works against good zerg players, there is a good reason to believe that it's doable for other protoss players with similar or close to similar APM/level of skill the way I see it.
On March 21 2012 03:06 kcdc wrote: I'm not a big GSL spectator, but from what I've seen, MC wins a lot because he's really really good at 2-base timings and he has immaculate control that wins him games even when he's way behind after a failed timing attack.
I want to make it clear that I think Protoss can win games against Zerg. 2-base timing pushes are really strong and it's hard for Zerg to know which one is coming. And if Protoss is able to secure a third and enter lategame on even footing, I think Protoss has a big advantage because mothership+carrier+archon+templar is unbeatable. It takes 25 minutes to get the perfect composition, but if Zerg doesn't stop Protoss from getting there, Protoss wins almost every time.
So there are exploits on both sides of the match-up, and a lot of how well the exploits play out depends on the map. On Entombed Valley, for instance, Protoss should just take a fast third, defend with forcefields and get mothership+carrier+archon for the win. It's boring as hell, but there's no reason Protoss should lose on that map. On Korhal Compound, Zerg can prevent Protoss's third seemingly indefinitely, and Zerg should just focus on defending 2-base timings and win every time.
I found that MC's most consistent play vs Z is +1 Blink Stalkers that allows him to pressure very quickly right before massive amounts of Roaches hit the field. It allows him to defend against Roach busts and Muta tech switches, all while pressuring to secure a 3rd.
His ghetto +1 Blink Attack that hits around 10:30 is pretty funny to watch.
Thank you for posting this link. I didn't notice any significant mistakes in the mass roach strat by Stephano. He stopped droning at 61, which seems ideal against 2base +1 protoss pushes. He also had creep spread out nicely. What should Stephano have done differently, assuming that he should still be doing the 3base roach strategy?
On March 21 2012 03:06 kcdc wrote: I'm not a big GSL spectator, but from what I've seen, MC wins a lot because he's really really good at 2-base timings and he has immaculate control that wins him games even when he's way behind after a failed timing attack.
I want to make it clear that I think Protoss can win games against Zerg. 2-base timing pushes are really strong and it's hard for Zerg to know which one is coming. And if Protoss is able to secure a third and enter lategame on even footing, I think Protoss has a big advantage because mothership+carrier+archon+templar is unbeatable. It takes 25 minutes to get the perfect composition, but if Zerg doesn't stop Protoss from getting there, Protoss wins almost every time.
So there are exploits on both sides of the match-up, and a lot of how well the exploits play out depends on the map. On Entombed Valley, for instance, Protoss should just take a fast third, defend with forcefields and get mothership+carrier+archon for the win. It's boring as hell, but there's no reason Protoss should lose on that map. On Korhal Compound, Zerg can prevent Protoss's third seemingly indefinitely, and Zerg should just focus on defending 2-base timings and win every time.
It sums up exactly my thoughts on ZvP, it's a horrible matchup. Builds hardcounter each other way too strongly, on either side a slight misread can have you get completly rolled over.
Entering the lategame on even footing, once broodlord infestor is out the protoss can't win until mothership is out and once it is the zerg can't win.
I think that Sase's opening is really interesting as well, but I think even that fast of a third will wind up well behind in army size. First, a stalker roughly equals a roach in combat strength, but costs twice as much. Second, Z has to spend substantially less on infrastructure for the 3-base roach max compared to a 3-base Protoss defense.
SuperRoach Defense: 2 nexii: 800 minerals forge, core: 300 minerals 4 cannons minimum: 600 minerals WG and +1 weapons: 150/150 8 gates (minimum, you'll want more on 3-base econ): 1200 robo: 200/100 5 gas: 375 minerals twilight (necessary before 12 minutes): 150/100 observer (or hallucination, but we'll count the cheaper one): 25/75 Total: 3800/425
So ~1000 minerals is the minimum infrastructure difference as I see it. If you want some extra cannons or blink or a robo support bay or some extra gates, it's going to add up pretty fast.
Factor in that you'll never fully catch Z's economy even with a third nexus before core and that roaches cost about half as much per supply as your composition does, and it becomes pretty clear that if P wants to take a fast third, Z can have a 70 supply lead at 12 minutes if they want it.
So I think that while it's tempting to ask, "How do I match Z's economy and army size?" the more important question may be, "How do I defend 2+ attack paths when I'm down 70 supply?" I think the answer to the latter question is going to rest heavily on forcefields, so I wonder if Sase's delayed core build is such a good choice.
I'm thinking that a delayed core opening would have to rely on a well-positioned Zealot/Sentry/Immortal army with cannon support until you get your third saturated on minerals and take a 5th and 6th gas afterward. I think spending any gas on Stalkers would put your cut too deeply into your Sentry and Immortal count as you try and catch your tech up. I also think you'd have to cut the TC until you completely stabilize from any early Roach aggression.
SuperRoach Defense (Edited): 2 nexii: 800 minerals forge, core: 300 minerals 4 cannons minimum: 600 minerals WG and +1 weapons: 150/150 6 gates (minimum, you'll want more on 3-base econ): 900 robo: 200/100 4 gas: 300 minerals observer (or hallucination, but we'll count the cheaper one): 25/75 Total: 3275/325
By cutting a gas, the TC and two Gates, the numbers start to look a little bit better, and you will have a better mineral income to add in extra static defense, Gates and/or simcity if needed. I'm not sure if this will actually flush out well, but it seems like a more stable core lined up with what Zerg is capable of and invested in at that point. Essentially the goal here is to trade defending on multiple fronts with a high Sentry/Stalker count with a better simcity and more static defense, both of which you can theoretically afford with the faster third Nexus and delayed early gas, along with the delayed 5th/6th gas at the third. Again, I'm not sure this is even possible, but the consensus in this thread so far is that Sentry defenses are very volatile, so it's worth a shot I think.
I also believe this opening will be extremely map dependent. You'll need to be able to simcity a 2 FF choke maximum at your third with no more than 3 Gateways, and ideally leave 3-4 sentries to defend a ramp leading into your natural. Shakuras, Daybreak, Antiga and Cloud Kingdom feel like they would be viable maps for something like this.
well JYP survived the mass roach part but in result of that he didnt have fast enough tech to counter Stephanos smaller army of broodlord, corruptor, infestors and it ended up growing too large
well JYP survived the mass roach part but in result of that he didnt have fast enough tech to counter Stephanos smaller army of broodlord, corruptor, infestors and it ended up growing too large
This just isn't true. He had the perfect army to deal with Stephano but he decided to mass recall his army into the main and as a result he lost nearly the whole thing to take out the hive and spire among other infrastructure, saving only small portion of his army with a second recall. This left him with no energy on the mothership and a severely decreased army with which he could not deal with the counter attack.
More relevant to this discussion JYP went SG after his FFE for a quick VR (and later 1 phoenix for scouting) used for map control and fake VR +1 zealot pressure. He then got a robo and four gates for sentry/stalker/immortal in order to defend a fast third with immaculate army splitting and control in conjunction with more gates and cannons for a sim city at the third.
He follows this up with a TC for blink and +2 attack (up to +1/+1 at this point) and colossus tech (tries to stay at about 3-4 i believe), eventually also getting templar and mothership tech after a fourth.
This was game 1 of the practice sessions which I am sure you were talking about as game 2 had not been played when you wrote that.
EPT
