|
Please have some semblance of an idea of what you're talking about. |
United States36 Posts
On March 22 2012 14:42 Borkbokbork wrote:
I have been working on a 2-gate zealot pressure expand build that uses two waves of zealots to 1) pressure the zerg's 14/14 expo, and 2) kill or prevent a fast third. (I am a masters protoss.)
...
I am a mid-masters Protoss and am also finding considerable difficulty when it comes to dealing with the mid game number of roaches and this thread basically sums up my anxieties about playing against zerg and how delicate the engagements are.
What i find fascinating is this general trend towards opening with 2 gates as stated above. Attero, an extremely high ranked GM Protoss on NA/EU/SEA all of them, employs a rather complex build when it comes to zerg.
From what i understand the build runs something like what is given above but is off a standard Forge-Fast Expand. So a standard 14 Forge >17Nexus/Gateway/Cannon. But then he does something very interesting, he adds a second gate before the core. In fact he delays the core slightly to achieve this, and to chrono out +1.
The aim of the build is to get 7-8 zealots with +1 at the 7 mins mark which then go straight to the third to deny it. After watching his stream for hours and getting my hands on some of the replays as well, i have found he transitions almost every time, into double stargate and chrono boosts some voids. At this point the zerg is rarely ready for such a second attack and dies to it. Even if he holds it off, securing a third is relatively easy. He then transitions accordingly and defends the counter roach push/mutas with ease.
|
On March 23 2012 00:30 Borkbokbork wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 00:09 Markwerf wrote:On March 22 2012 15:06 Borkbokbork wrote:On March 22 2012 14:56 YosHGo wrote:
I would like to say that it is not impossible for a ton of people to be wrong and think that they are right just because there is alot of them thinking the same. Now i will give you a question - Do we have sc2 down to the science as we had in bw where you could say whats REALLY a non-sense to do? Is sc2 in alot of ways a different game ? Rhetorical questions i know. I just wanna say that we cant afford to be close-minded and to some extent conservative in such "new" game. I would like to hear from cecil what he has to say This is absolutely correct. Tradition is not necessarily positive OR correct. In my opinion, Forge Fast Expand is not the correct way to play against Zerg because of Zerg's macro mechanic, inject. Protoss can make units and workers at the same time without skimping on either. Zerg can make the workers first, and the units after. Therefore, if you let them do this, they will always be ahead. The counter-argument to this is that "all of the pros do it". Yes, they all do it. My rebuttal is that this is what they are most comfortable with, but not necessarily the most ideal build to use. This is idiotic. There are many reasons FFE is considered so good and simply making a simple statement that it doesn't work well with the macro mechanics while ignoring tons of stuff is silly. FFE is fastest way to get a second nexus by far so you're also doubling up on your own macro mechanic really fast. In fact protoss can often hit 40 probes at the same time as zerg does. The real macro disadvantage protoss has lies more in it's difficulty to take a third then worker count. FFE can in many ways also provide stronger pressure then non-FFE because you can greedily tech to something behind your wall. For example a FFE into stargate gets air faster then a 1 gate FE into stargate does. This is because FFE can drop tech right after cyber finishes while other builds have to get some gas units to secure the expansion first. Considering 1 base pressure is terrible in PvZ now FFE is basically fastest for many forms of pressure. Maybe Gate-nexus-core builds or some other rarely seen variations could be faster but I don't see them working. Just because zerg focusses either economy or units while protoss can do both doesn't automatically mean you need to be aggresive or shouldn't play FFE, it's a silly line of thought. I respect your opinion, but this is all relative. Yes, FFE is the fastest way to get a second nexus- but at what cost? Allowing the Zerg to get a quick third? Allowing the Zerg to get a quick third is what causes Protoss to have difficulty taking a third themselves...- something you yourself noted. This is what results in the prevalence of 2-base all-in builds, and the seemingly "coinflip" nature of the matchup at this point in time. The zerg gets three bases, and then tries as hard as he can to scout which all-in is coming. If he scouts it, he wins- most of the time. You can greedily tech behind a FFE, but then a zerg can greedily macro behind it as well. Again, it's all relative. A FFE into stargate gets air faster, but also puts on much less pressure or pseudo-pressure than a 1 gate FE. You're thinking about this in a far too one-dimensional manner- you're considering only the limitations or benefits for the Protoss, and not for the Zerg. You are right, however, that the weakness of this build is late tech. In my opinion, that is made up for by the amount of pressure that it puts out. FFE also greatly relies on the zerg not scouting the type of pressure you are applying. This build does not- it's fine by me if the zerg knows how any zealots I'm making- and even if he rushes tech- I WILL be aware of it based on the scouting info derived from the zealots.
This makes a lot of sense to me, it is very important to take into account the effect a build order has on the zerg.
Late teching is a weakness of the build yes, but in particular i should think delaying warpgate tech is a downside. Perhaps focusing on robo or stargate units as a followup might work well, either that or sentries since they now have a shorter build time from the gateway.
Personally i do use FFE on some maps, but i cant agree with this mentality of using FFE on every map, every game. Seems to me that its best when the zerg has a hard time taking a third because of destructible rocks or when the rush distance is very long.
|
On March 23 2012 00:09 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:06 Borkbokbork wrote:On March 22 2012 14:56 YosHGo wrote:
I would like to say that it is not impossible for a ton of people to be wrong and think that they are right just because there is alot of them thinking the same. Now i will give you a question - Do we have sc2 down to the science as we had in bw where you could say whats REALLY a non-sense to do? Is sc2 in alot of ways a different game ? Rhetorical questions i know. I just wanna say that we cant afford to be close-minded and to some extent conservative in such "new" game. I would like to hear from cecil what he has to say This is absolutely correct. Tradition is not necessarily positive OR correct. In my opinion, Forge Fast Expand is not the correct way to play against Zerg because of Zerg's macro mechanic, inject. Protoss can make units and workers at the same time without skimping on either. Zerg can make the workers first, and the units after. Therefore, if you let them do this, they will always be ahead. The counter-argument to this is that "all of the pros do it". Yes, they all do it. My rebuttal is that this is what they are most comfortable with, but not necessarily the most ideal build to use. This is idiotic. There are many reasons FFE is considered so good and simply making a simple statement that it doesn't work well with the macro mechanics while ignoring tons of stuff is silly. FFE is fastest way to get a second nexus by far so you're also doubling up on your own macro mechanic really fast. In fact protoss can often hit 40 probes at the same time as zerg does. The real macro disadvantage protoss has lies more in it's difficulty to take a third then worker count. FFE can in many ways also provide stronger pressure then non-FFE because you can greedily tech to something behind your wall. For example a FFE into stargate gets air faster then a 1 gate FE into stargate does. This is because FFE can drop tech right after cyber finishes while other builds have to get some gas units to secure the expansion first. Considering 1 base pressure is terrible in PvZ now FFE is basically fastest for many forms of pressure. Maybe Gate-nexus-core builds or some other rarely seen variations could be faster but I don't see them working. Just because zerg focusses either economy or units while protoss can do both doesn't automatically mean you need to be aggresive or shouldn't play FFE, it's a silly line of thought.
Markwerf maybe harsh, but he is also correct. Most professionals do indeed use the optimal builds. In fact there are builds they can do because of their greater skill which are difficult for lower league players to pull off. So arguing that they might be using sub optimal builds is just wrong. Some of them might, but not all of them.
The only advantage a gate expand gives a player is a higher sentry count and a faster warpgate. The timing window for warpgate tech is about a minute or so apart from the FFE. So a gate expand must lead to a 6-8 gate all in if it is to prove superior to a FFE. Like markwerf says, a stargate or robo follow up is delayed since it must essentially come after the nexus, with lower econ.
This is not to mention that against an alert zerg, you will be forced to 3 gate expand, since speedlings can delay a 1 gate fe for a v long time.Speedlings also make pressuring off a low number of gates v risky.
Basically, nothing stops a zerg from going three hatch against a gate expand. They will need extra lings, but this is nothing a few injects can't flush out, since they know you are on lower econ. You must attempt to hit a fast 6-8 gate, in fact this is the only threat the zerg faces in the small timing window where a gate expands warp gates finish before that of a FFE's.
The difficulty with the FFE is taking a third, and knowing what tech path the zerg will choose. But this comes at the same time for a FFE as it does for a gate expand, in fact it comes faster for a FFE since it has more econ, so the gate expand has no advantage over the FFE and is in a worse position as compared to it.
|
On March 23 2012 01:07 Razultull wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 14:42 Borkbokbork wrote:
I have been working on a 2-gate zealot pressure expand build that uses two waves of zealots to 1) pressure the zerg's 14/14 expo, and 2) kill or prevent a fast third. (I am a masters protoss.)
...
I am a mid-masters Protoss and am also finding considerable difficulty when it comes to dealing with the mid game number of roaches and this thread basically sums up my anxieties about playing against zerg and how delicate the engagements are. What i find fascinating is this general trend towards opening with 2 gates as stated above. Attero, an extremely high ranked GM Protoss on NA/EU/SEA all of them, employs a rather complex build when it comes to zerg. From what i understand the build runs something like what is given above but is off a standard Forge-Fast Expand. So a standard 14 Forge >17Nexus/Gateway/Cannon. But then he does something very interesting, he adds a second gate before the core. In fact he delays the core slightly to achieve this, and to chrono out +1. The aim of the build is to get 7-8 zealots with +1 at the 7 mins mark which then go straight to the third to deny it. After watching his stream for hours and getting my hands on some of the replays as well, i have found he transitions almost every time, into double stargate and chrono boosts some voids. At this point the zerg is rarely ready for such a second attack and dies to it. Even if he holds it off, securing a third is relatively easy. He then transitions accordingly and defends the counter roach push/mutas with ease.
This is Kiwikaki's gasless FFE, which he displayed against Stephano last year. See that series for how it took Stephano by surprise in game 1 (he still won) and how he countered it in game 2 (with a fast triple hatch on shattered temple no less).
|
On March 22 2012 15:30 kcdc wrote:
I watched the Iron Squid MC vs Idra games that people had been mentioning. I don't think I appreciated how overrated Idra's macro is until I watched those games. Between supply blocks. overreactions to fake pressure, and slight inefficiencies in his build, he was 50 supply behind Stephano and ChaosKeeper at 12:00. And like any half-decent Protoss, MC had no problem deflecting 150 supply roaches with his 120 supply army.
And then Idra naturally bitched about Z being underpowered. No, Idra, you just had 25 fewer roaches than you could have had at the same time.
I think the key was the 1 stalker pressure he made along with the probe to build a proxy pylon. It forced idra to make a lot of lings when he wanted to make drones. I really think 1 stalker pressure should be standard against gas-less openings, it forces lings and gives enough map control to sneak out a probe to build proxy pylon.
DRG often incorporates ~8 lings and extra queen at the 7:00 mark to blindly prepare for this.
|
I like those zealot openings. But i'm pretty sure those are not "the" answer.
The weirdness of the opening just allows to take any non-gm level z out of his game, distrupt their bo and then the P may take the game. I'm pretty sure that z has enough tools to make that double gate opening useless. I hope i'm wrong, of curse.
|
On March 23 2012 01:18 chestnutcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 00:09 Markwerf wrote:On March 22 2012 15:06 Borkbokbork wrote:On March 22 2012 14:56 YosHGo wrote:
I would like to say that it is not impossible for a ton of people to be wrong and think that they are right just because there is alot of them thinking the same. Now i will give you a question - Do we have sc2 down to the science as we had in bw where you could say whats REALLY a non-sense to do? Is sc2 in alot of ways a different game ? Rhetorical questions i know. I just wanna say that we cant afford to be close-minded and to some extent conservative in such "new" game. I would like to hear from cecil what he has to say This is absolutely correct. Tradition is not necessarily positive OR correct. In my opinion, Forge Fast Expand is not the correct way to play against Zerg because of Zerg's macro mechanic, inject. Protoss can make units and workers at the same time without skimping on either. Zerg can make the workers first, and the units after. Therefore, if you let them do this, they will always be ahead. The counter-argument to this is that "all of the pros do it". Yes, they all do it. My rebuttal is that this is what they are most comfortable with, but not necessarily the most ideal build to use. This is idiotic. There are many reasons FFE is considered so good and simply making a simple statement that it doesn't work well with the macro mechanics while ignoring tons of stuff is silly. FFE is fastest way to get a second nexus by far so you're also doubling up on your own macro mechanic really fast. In fact protoss can often hit 40 probes at the same time as zerg does. The real macro disadvantage protoss has lies more in it's difficulty to take a third then worker count. FFE can in many ways also provide stronger pressure then non-FFE because you can greedily tech to something behind your wall. For example a FFE into stargate gets air faster then a 1 gate FE into stargate does. This is because FFE can drop tech right after cyber finishes while other builds have to get some gas units to secure the expansion first. Considering 1 base pressure is terrible in PvZ now FFE is basically fastest for many forms of pressure. Maybe Gate-nexus-core builds or some other rarely seen variations could be faster but I don't see them working. Just because zerg focusses either economy or units while protoss can do both doesn't automatically mean you need to be aggresive or shouldn't play FFE, it's a silly line of thought. Markwerf maybe harsh, but he is also correct. Most professionals do indeed use the optimal builds. In fact there are builds they can do because of their greater skill which are difficult for lower league players to pull off. So arguing that they might be using sub optimal builds is just wrong. Some of them might, but not all of them. The only advantage a gate expand gives a player is a higher sentry count and a faster warpgate. The timing window for warpgate tech is about a minute or so apart from the FFE. So a gate expand must lead to a 6-8 gate all in if it is to prove superior to a FFE. Like markwerf says, a stargate or robo follow up is delayed since it must essentially come after the nexus, with lower econ. This is not to mention that against an alert zerg, you will be forced to 3 gate expand, since speedlings can delay a 1 gate fe for a v long time.Speedlings also make pressuring off a low number of gates v risky. Basically, nothing stops a zerg from going three hatch against a gate expand. They will need extra lings, but this is nothing a few injects can't flush out, since they know you are on lower econ. You must attempt to hit a fast 6-8 gate, in fact this is the only threat the zerg faces in the small timing window where a gate expands warp gates finish before that of a FFE's. The difficulty with the FFE is taking a third, and knowing what tech path the zerg will choose. But this comes at the same time for a FFE as it does for a gate expand, in fact it comes faster for a FFE since it has more econ, so the gate expand has no advantage over the FFE and is in a worse position as compared to it.
In the past FFE was not so widely used, was it therefore a bad build? Will it stay popular among the pros in the future? If you dont know, then how can you be sure it´s the optimal build?
Yes of course Zerg will take a third, but surely much later than against FFE. So he will have less econ himself, you have to take that into account.
|
On March 23 2012 01:30 Greenknight wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 01:18 chestnutcc wrote:On March 23 2012 00:09 Markwerf wrote:On March 22 2012 15:06 Borkbokbork wrote:On March 22 2012 14:56 YosHGo wrote:
I would like to say that it is not impossible for a ton of people to be wrong and think that they are right just because there is alot of them thinking the same. Now i will give you a question - Do we have sc2 down to the science as we had in bw where you could say whats REALLY a non-sense to do? Is sc2 in alot of ways a different game ? Rhetorical questions i know. I just wanna say that we cant afford to be close-minded and to some extent conservative in such "new" game. I would like to hear from cecil what he has to say This is absolutely correct. Tradition is not necessarily positive OR correct. In my opinion, Forge Fast Expand is not the correct way to play against Zerg because of Zerg's macro mechanic, inject. Protoss can make units and workers at the same time without skimping on either. Zerg can make the workers first, and the units after. Therefore, if you let them do this, they will always be ahead. The counter-argument to this is that "all of the pros do it". Yes, they all do it. My rebuttal is that this is what they are most comfortable with, but not necessarily the most ideal build to use. This is idiotic. There are many reasons FFE is considered so good and simply making a simple statement that it doesn't work well with the macro mechanics while ignoring tons of stuff is silly. FFE is fastest way to get a second nexus by far so you're also doubling up on your own macro mechanic really fast. In fact protoss can often hit 40 probes at the same time as zerg does. The real macro disadvantage protoss has lies more in it's difficulty to take a third then worker count. FFE can in many ways also provide stronger pressure then non-FFE because you can greedily tech to something behind your wall. For example a FFE into stargate gets air faster then a 1 gate FE into stargate does. This is because FFE can drop tech right after cyber finishes while other builds have to get some gas units to secure the expansion first. Considering 1 base pressure is terrible in PvZ now FFE is basically fastest for many forms of pressure. Maybe Gate-nexus-core builds or some other rarely seen variations could be faster but I don't see them working. Just because zerg focusses either economy or units while protoss can do both doesn't automatically mean you need to be aggresive or shouldn't play FFE, it's a silly line of thought. Markwerf maybe harsh, but he is also correct. Most professionals do indeed use the optimal builds. In fact there are builds they can do because of their greater skill which are difficult for lower league players to pull off. So arguing that they might be using sub optimal builds is just wrong. Some of them might, but not all of them. The only advantage a gate expand gives a player is a higher sentry count and a faster warpgate. The timing window for warpgate tech is about a minute or so apart from the FFE. So a gate expand must lead to a 6-8 gate all in if it is to prove superior to a FFE. Like markwerf says, a stargate or robo follow up is delayed since it must essentially come after the nexus, with lower econ. This is not to mention that against an alert zerg, you will be forced to 3 gate expand, since speedlings can delay a 1 gate fe for a v long time.Speedlings also make pressuring off a low number of gates v risky. Basically, nothing stops a zerg from going three hatch against a gate expand. They will need extra lings, but this is nothing a few injects can't flush out, since they know you are on lower econ. You must attempt to hit a fast 6-8 gate, in fact this is the only threat the zerg faces in the small timing window where a gate expands warp gates finish before that of a FFE's. The difficulty with the FFE is taking a third, and knowing what tech path the zerg will choose. But this comes at the same time for a FFE as it does for a gate expand, in fact it comes faster for a FFE since it has more econ, so the gate expand has no advantage over the FFE and is in a worse position as compared to it. In the past FFE was not so widely used, was it therefore a bad build? Will it stay popular among the pros in the future? If you dont know, then how can you be sure it´s the optimal build? Yes of course Zerg will take a third, but surely much later than against FFE. So he will have less econ himself, you have to take that into account.
FFE is a broodwar build. And no, they can go fast third hatch exactly as against the FFE, with a few more lings and speed, which doesn't matter since the toss took a bigger econ hit.
|
On March 23 2012 01:27 VoirDire wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 15:30 kcdc wrote:
I watched the Iron Squid MC vs Idra games that people had been mentioning. I don't think I appreciated how overrated Idra's macro is until I watched those games. Between supply blocks. overreactions to fake pressure, and slight inefficiencies in his build, he was 50 supply behind Stephano and ChaosKeeper at 12:00. And like any half-decent Protoss, MC had no problem deflecting 150 supply roaches with his 120 supply army.
And then Idra naturally bitched about Z being underpowered. No, Idra, you just had 25 fewer roaches than you could have had at the same time. I think the key was the 1 stalker pressure he made along with the probe to build a proxy pylon. It forced idra to make a lot of lings when he wanted to make drones. I really think 1 stalker pressure should be standard against gas-less openings, it forces lings and gives enough map control to sneak out a probe to build proxy pylon. DRG often incorporates ~8 lings and extra queen at the 7:00 mark to blindly prepare for this.
A zealot+stalker poke should be deflected by a queen, 8 lings, and nothing more. Then at 8 minutes, Z should make 3 roaches at his third to be safe against sneaky zealot timings. Idra was making 2 spines and like 12 lings to defend the zealot+stalker poke. And he also overreacted to the fake zealot pressure.
In the game on Cloud Kingdom, I also noticed that Idra got double gas about a minute too early and wound up with a 450 gas stockpile. Of course, he was also banking minerals because he kept supply blocking himself between 9 and 12 minutes.
Idra is constantly on tilt against Protoss and doesn't see the mistakes in his own play.
|
More immortals. I don't know if its feasible, but maybe slow down gateway production in order to make more immortals. Its the only unit I see being cost effective once zerg gets big in the mid-game.
|
On March 23 2012 01:36 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 01:27 VoirDire wrote:On March 22 2012 15:30 kcdc wrote:
I watched the Iron Squid MC vs Idra games that people had been mentioning. I don't think I appreciated how overrated Idra's macro is until I watched those games. Between supply blocks. overreactions to fake pressure, and slight inefficiencies in his build, he was 50 supply behind Stephano and ChaosKeeper at 12:00. And like any half-decent Protoss, MC had no problem deflecting 150 supply roaches with his 120 supply army.
And then Idra naturally bitched about Z being underpowered. No, Idra, you just had 25 fewer roaches than you could have had at the same time. I think the key was the 1 stalker pressure he made along with the probe to build a proxy pylon. It forced idra to make a lot of lings when he wanted to make drones. I really think 1 stalker pressure should be standard against gas-less openings, it forces lings and gives enough map control to sneak out a probe to build proxy pylon. DRG often incorporates ~8 lings and extra queen at the 7:00 mark to blindly prepare for this. A zealot+stalker poke should be deflected by a queen, 8 lings, and nothing more. Then at 8 minutes, Z should make 3 roaches at his third to be safe against sneaky zealot timings. Idra was making 2 spines and like 12 lings to defend the zealot+stalker poke. And he also overreacted to the fake zealot pressure. In the game on Cloud Kingdom, I also noticed that Idra got double gas about a minute too early and wound up with a 450 gas stockpile. Of course, he was also banking minerals because he kept supply blocking himself between 9 and 12 minutes. Idra is constantly on tilt against Protoss and doesn't see the mistakes in his own play.
I'm not saying idra couldn't have handled that much better, but it costs almost nothing from protoss and it forces Z to make lings instead of drones at a crucial time. It also adds the threat of a pylon reinforced 6-7 gate all in, making it very uncomfortable for Z to catch up in drones again.
|
Another thing I've seen some Protoss (TitaN, oGsVines) do on big maps (almost all of them at this point) is open Nexus first and tech straight into gate + core and put down a forge only after core. This throws off Zerg timings and may bait them into a foolhardy bust attempt, not to mention giving you a much faster warpgate.
|
On March 23 2012 01:55 BuddhaMonk wrote:
Another thing I've seen some Protoss (TitaN, oGsVines) do on big maps (almost all of them at this point) is open Nexus first and tech straight into gate + core and put down a forge only after core. This throws off Zerg timings and may bait them into a foolhardy bust attempt, not to mention giving you a much faster warpgate.
If you 15 pool -> 16 hatch you can run your first 4 lings to the protoss base and kill 5+ probes and / or pylon. You can only build your forge after gate on maps like shakuras where you can wall off with 3 fat buildings before your cannon gets up. If you try what you proposed an a zerg knows that ur doing it. He will make 8 lings instead of 4 and be infinitly ahead after the harass.
On some maps you can even punish forge after nexus with the 4 ling rally since it gets through pylons faster than the cannon will finnish.
|
On March 23 2012 01:55 BuddhaMonk wrote:
Another thing I've seen some Protoss (TitaN, oGsVines) do on big maps (almost all of them at this point) is open Nexus first and tech straight into gate + core and put down a forge only after core. This throws off Zerg timings and may bait them into a foolhardy bust attempt, not to mention giving you a much faster warpgate.
This kind of exploits the metagame though. No Zerg nowadays will make more than 4-6 zerglings in the early game. This can be handled by a single zealot and probes, and by the time Zerg scouts the lack of a cannon and decides to go all-in, the forge and a cannon is up. If the metagame was to make 12 lings asap, Protoss would die with this opening..
|
On March 23 2012 01:28 Belha wrote:
I like those zealot openings. But i'm pretty sure those are not "the" answer.
The weirdness of the opening just allows to take any non-gm level z out of his game, distrupt their bo and then the P may take the game. I'm pretty sure that z has enough tools to make that double gate opening useless. I hope i'm wrong, of curse.
Let's list those tools(assuming 14 pool 16 hatch or hatchfirst):
Lings+queen: IMO the most effective, plant first overlord somewhere it can see how many zealots you're sending, build 4 lings per zealot, and use queen to get surface area.
Response: don't engage on creep unless you have more than 1/4 his ling count in zealots, kite the lings back to somewhere off creep that he can't get surface area on you, when he makes 16-20 lings fall back and use those zealots defensively. Those lings have a higher opportunity cost than the zealots do.
Spine+queen+lings: can be effective depending on map and positioning, you should start nexus instant you see a finished spine, and retreat whenever you can't pick anything off for free. If he has 2 spines positioned such that you can easily walk past them up ramp, do so once all 5 zealots have arrived, it will force out a LOT of lings, and probably get you a queen.
quick roaches:not too big an issue, roaches don't move faster than zealots off creep, so you can just walk zealots home while you cb a couple stalkers out and re-push, but take care not to get cut off by speedlings.
banelings: split zealots to places with low surface area, like the 1 tile chokes between mineral patches, 2 cannons and 3-4 sentries at home.
and if he delays hatch:
1base roach: pick off a few drones w/ first 3 zealots(let first zealot wait for reinforcements before going up ramp) run home when you see a roach and re-push w/ 2 stalkers 5 zealots
gas and pool before hatch: dps the hatch down, you can force a cancel.
early pool: basic probe zealot micro, I can't see it being difficult to deal with, just make sure you pull enough probes that he doesn't kill pylon before zealot finishes. counterattack with all but 1 or 2 zealots, depending how many lings are in your base.
There are a couple very easy ways to lose a game with this type of play: letting a runby into your probes, or not paying attention and losing first zealot for nothing. So just pay attention to closing your door and pay attention that your first zealot doesn't get surrounded by 6 lings.
Did I miss anything important?
|
what do you guys think of this new shift in not even maxing on roaches if toss gets a third. instead stephano gets his 4th and 5th and makes 150 drones and 50 spines and spams 8 infestors + corruptors. does that not scare you more than this roach spam?
|
People who are citing zerg's inject mechanic as a reason you can't FFE should remember that zerg also loses drones any time they make a building, so for a pool, 2 hatches, 3 gas and a roach warren - that's nearly 2 injects gone entirely to buildings. Now recall that they also must make overlords for their supply heavy army, that they only get a larva every 15 seconds apart from inject, and you can start to see why CBing workers keeps you close if not equal to zerg's economy until all his infrastructure is up, but only if you build your Nexus around they same time they throw down a hatch. This is the reason people FFE, and the reason a lot of zerg's used to think that you couldn't let protoss get away with FFE and keep up economically unless your build was very unsafe.
|
On March 23 2012 01:32 chestnutcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 01:30 Greenknight wrote:On March 23 2012 01:18 chestnutcc wrote:On March 23 2012 00:09 Markwerf wrote:On March 22 2012 15:06 Borkbokbork wrote:On March 22 2012 14:56 YosHGo wrote:
I would like to say that it is not impossible for a ton of people to be wrong and think that they are right just because there is alot of them thinking the same. Now i will give you a question - Do we have sc2 down to the science as we had in bw where you could say whats REALLY a non-sense to do? Is sc2 in alot of ways a different game ? Rhetorical questions i know. I just wanna say that we cant afford to be close-minded and to some extent conservative in such "new" game. I would like to hear from cecil what he has to say This is absolutely correct. Tradition is not necessarily positive OR correct. In my opinion, Forge Fast Expand is not the correct way to play against Zerg because of Zerg's macro mechanic, inject. Protoss can make units and workers at the same time without skimping on either. Zerg can make the workers first, and the units after. Therefore, if you let them do this, they will always be ahead. The counter-argument to this is that "all of the pros do it". Yes, they all do it. My rebuttal is that this is what they are most comfortable with, but not necessarily the most ideal build to use. This is idiotic. There are many reasons FFE is considered so good and simply making a simple statement that it doesn't work well with the macro mechanics while ignoring tons of stuff is silly. FFE is fastest way to get a second nexus by far so you're also doubling up on your own macro mechanic really fast. In fact protoss can often hit 40 probes at the same time as zerg does. The real macro disadvantage protoss has lies more in it's difficulty to take a third then worker count. FFE can in many ways also provide stronger pressure then non-FFE because you can greedily tech to something behind your wall. For example a FFE into stargate gets air faster then a 1 gate FE into stargate does. This is because FFE can drop tech right after cyber finishes while other builds have to get some gas units to secure the expansion first. Considering 1 base pressure is terrible in PvZ now FFE is basically fastest for many forms of pressure. Maybe Gate-nexus-core builds or some other rarely seen variations could be faster but I don't see them working. Just because zerg focusses either economy or units while protoss can do both doesn't automatically mean you need to be aggresive or shouldn't play FFE, it's a silly line of thought. Markwerf maybe harsh, but he is also correct. Most professionals do indeed use the optimal builds. In fact there are builds they can do because of their greater skill which are difficult for lower league players to pull off. So arguing that they might be using sub optimal builds is just wrong. Some of them might, but not all of them. The only advantage a gate expand gives a player is a higher sentry count and a faster warpgate. The timing window for warpgate tech is about a minute or so apart from the FFE. So a gate expand must lead to a 6-8 gate all in if it is to prove superior to a FFE. Like markwerf says, a stargate or robo follow up is delayed since it must essentially come after the nexus, with lower econ. This is not to mention that against an alert zerg, you will be forced to 3 gate expand, since speedlings can delay a 1 gate fe for a v long time.Speedlings also make pressuring off a low number of gates v risky. Basically, nothing stops a zerg from going three hatch against a gate expand. They will need extra lings, but this is nothing a few injects can't flush out, since they know you are on lower econ. You must attempt to hit a fast 6-8 gate, in fact this is the only threat the zerg faces in the small timing window where a gate expands warp gates finish before that of a FFE's. The difficulty with the FFE is taking a third, and knowing what tech path the zerg will choose. But this comes at the same time for a FFE as it does for a gate expand, in fact it comes faster for a FFE since it has more econ, so the gate expand has no advantage over the FFE and is in a worse position as compared to it. In the past FFE was not so widely used, was it therefore a bad build? Will it stay popular among the pros in the future? If you dont know, then how can you be sure it´s the optimal build? Yes of course Zerg will take a third, but surely much later than against FFE. So he will have less econ himself, you have to take that into account. FFE is a broodwar build. And no, they can go fast third hatch exactly as against the FFE, with a few more lings and speed, which doesn't matter since the toss took a bigger econ hit.
I know it´s a broodwar build, im discussing it in the context of sc2.
And you are telling me that against a 2 gating protoss, zerg can take a third at 4:30 ?
|
On March 23 2012 02:20 Treehead wrote:
People who are citing zerg's inject mechanic as a reason you can't FFE should remember that zerg also loses drones any time they make a building, so for a pool, 2 hatches, 3 gas and a roach warren - that's nearly 2 injects gone entirely to buildings. Now recall that they also must make overlords for their supply heavy army, that they only get a larva every 15 seconds apart from inject, and you can start to see why CBing workers keeps you close if not equal to zerg's economy until all his infrastructure is up, but only if you build your Nexus around they same time they throw down a hatch. This is the reason people FFE, and the reason a lot of zerg's used to think that you couldn't let protoss get away with FFE and keep up economically unless your build was very unsafe.
Yes, he loses drones when he makes buildings, but that´s mostly important if those buildings come early when his worker count is low. The 3 gases you mention dont come early when you FFE.
And having to make lings for defense is far more important in the early minutes of the game than it is later because the larvae cost is less significant later on.
|
On March 20 2012 21:56 TechSc2 wrote:
how often have you guys tried out RSVP's stalkerless PvZ?
I've been doing this build more and more and it stops the 12 min roach max dead in it's tracks, you have immortals,voidrays, and storm to deal with them.
His trading will be horribly inefficient as long as you keep your templar alive. He won't be able to kill your 3-4 voidrays at all, and the 2-3 immortals in your army just wreak havoc as long as the zealots are alive.
Stalkers are mobile, but horrible in survivability untill they have blink, and even then it's hard to stay alive against a 3 hatch roach spam once your sentry energy dries out.
So why not skip stalkers and sentries and go for pure DPS army of doom? If he goes hydra's you'll have storm to deal with them, and by the time he has hydra's you'll have +3 attack for your ground army, a third base and around 12-14 constant working gates. You can add in archons once you have 5-6 templars on the field and just keep churning out those chargelots.
Muta switches destroy stalkerless builds. Hard countering roaches is fine, but if the opponent has a clue about the match-up, they'll know when to muta switch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
