|
Please have some semblance of an idea of what you're talking about. |
On April 26 2012 22:09 Plexa wrote:
Immortals are bad vs this kind of push because you can't get them in the kinds of numbers necessary to roll over the army. For a maxed push you want like 8 immortals or something ridiculous which just isn't practical. Immortals are a great unit to hold vs quick roach pressure when there aren't so many roaches, but that doesn't happen in this build. I find that colossus are worth their weight in gold vs this kind of build. The splash damage you get is simply invaluable. In fact, I have a build which tends to crush the maxed push because you end up with 4 colossus, small ground army and a third base which (with appropriate simcity) rolls over the push because they just don't have the tech to deal with it. Obviously the build has other weaknesses, but for the purposes of defending the push it works.
4 Colossus @ the 12-13 minute mark? How?
|
+2 blink stalkers 3 shot lings while +1 immortals ALSO 3 shot lings.
Immortals 2-shot lings, regardless of upgrades, unless the Protoss is +0 and the Zerg is +3.
Stalkers also tend to waste shots due to projectile flight times. I'm of the impression that Prism/Obs/Immortal will serve you better than +2 and Blink.
|
United States8476 Posts
On April 27 2012 02:19 Severedevil wrote:Immortals 2-shot lings, regardless of upgrades, unless the Protoss is +0 and the Zerg is +3. Stalkers also tend to waste shots due to projectile flight times. I'm of the impression that Prism/Obs/Immortal will serve you better than +2 and Blink.
My bad, truth. Still my point holds.
|
United States8476 Posts
On April 27 2012 02:17 Mikelius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 22:09 Plexa wrote:
Immortals are bad vs this kind of push because you can't get them in the kinds of numbers necessary to roll over the army. For a maxed push you want like 8 immortals or something ridiculous which just isn't practical. Immortals are a great unit to hold vs quick roach pressure when there aren't so many roaches, but that doesn't happen in this build. I find that colossus are worth their weight in gold vs this kind of build. The splash damage you get is simply invaluable. In fact, I have a build which tends to crush the maxed push because you end up with 4 colossus, small ground army and a third base which (with appropriate simcity) rolls over the push because they just don't have the tech to deal with it. Obviously the build has other weaknesses, but for the purposes of defending the push it works. 4 Colossus @ the 12-13 minute mark? How?
It's possible, but I don't think it's very good. ~6 min robo is standard off ffe. Robo and robo bay take 65 seconds each. Off the top of my head, colossi take around 80 seconds, with chronoboost around a minute each. So you can have 1 colossi at 9 something, 2 colossi at 10, 3 colossi at 11, etc...
|
United States156 Posts
ive had really good success with the 7-8 minute third, dropping robo and twighlight, chrono boosting blink, +2, and immortals out and placing 3 cannons and just defending at the third. With good forcefields it seems really strong, plus ive had zergs abandon the roach push when they see the third up and running with cannons. they attempt to drop 4th and 5th while you just get the deathball teching to mothership collosus archon.
Watching Axslav and Ranged's streams are turning PvZ into my strongest MU at the moment xD
|
My games vs zerg dont even get to the 12 min mark anymore. These guys stopped taking a fast third base, and just did a roach/ling all in at 7 min and no matter what I did, I always lost. I am forge FE pretty much every time, and I dont see how you can beat this 2 base all in. I tried to make cannons, I think I got 4 of them up before it hit, but it didnt matter; I still got crushed.
How does protoss, doing FFE, beat the 7 min - 7:30 min 2 base roach/ling all in?
|
On April 27 2012 02:48 ishyishy wrote:
My games vs zerg dont even get to the 12 min mark anymore. These guys stopped taking a fast third base, and just did a roach/ling all in at 7 min and no matter what I did, I always lost. I am forge FE pretty much every time, and I dont see how you can beat this 2 base all in. I tried to make cannons, I think I got 4 of them up before it hit, but it didnt matter; I still got crushed.
How does protoss, doing FFE, beat the 7 min - 7:30 min 2 base roach/ling all in?
Scout for third at 5 minutes, if you don't see one build however cannons sentries you can afford.
|
On April 27 2012 02:51 Mikelius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 02:48 ishyishy wrote:
My games vs zerg dont even get to the 12 min mark anymore. These guys stopped taking a fast third base, and just did a roach/ling all in at 7 min and no matter what I did, I always lost. I am forge FE pretty much every time, and I dont see how you can beat this 2 base all in. I tried to make cannons, I think I got 4 of them up before it hit, but it didnt matter; I still got crushed.
How does protoss, doing FFE, beat the 7 min - 7:30 min 2 base roach/ling all in? Scout for third at 5 minutes, if you don't see one build however cannons sentries you can afford.
exactly...you have to get that scout in...do it however you can even if you have to lose a few units because it can mean a gg for you. I just had this exact thing happen so I dropped 3 more cannons and pumped out sentries + stalkers so i could effectively split at my ramp
|
On April 27 2012 02:21 NrGmonk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 02:19 Severedevil wrote:+2 blink stalkers 3 shot lings while +1 immortals ALSO 3 shot lings. Immortals 2-shot lings, regardless of upgrades, unless the Protoss is +0 and the Zerg is +3. Stalkers also tend to waste shots due to projectile flight times. I'm of the impression that Prism/Obs/Immortal will serve you better than +2 and Blink. My bad, truth. Still my point holds.
You're also ignoring the fact that you're not making pure immortals and will typically have many, many stalkers surrounding said immortals.
The whole reason I even brought up shot counting Is to show that 1 immortal shot always = exactly 2 stalker shots with the same exact range, CD, cost, supply, everything except missile travel time.
Immortals have a lot wider range for overkill, but are also less likely to do-so due to instant missile speed.
As an end result, its basically a wash for offensive purposes. Immortals and stalkers are basically the same at killing lings.
Now let's look at defense. You want to talk up how good blink is and how much survivability it offers, while I am talking up the fact that you get a free +1 armor on 40 more hp with the immortal and you don't lose any damage output until the whole jig has been worked through, vs stalkers where you lose 1/2 the dos as soon as the first one dies, which is most likely going to occur in 1/2 to 3/4 of the way through an equal amount of hp for the immortal. The only downside really being that there is 20 less total hp and of course, no blink mobility. I consider the defensive differences also a wash.
So... Let me clarify since you're obviously talking about my post.
For the purposes of shooting lings and getting hit by them, immortals are basically equal with stalkers. For purposes of moving between areas to defend, stalkers will be better due to their move speed and blink. For the purposes of shooting roaches and getting hit, immortals are about 2x as cost-effective as an equal investment in stalkers.
Therefore, any army that has a decent number of roaches in it should be countered with an army including immortals (not INSTEAD OF stalkers, but in addition to).
Quite a simple premise.
|
On April 27 2012 03:07 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 02:21 NrGmonk wrote:On April 27 2012 02:19 Severedevil wrote:+2 blink stalkers 3 shot lings while +1 immortals ALSO 3 shot lings. Immortals 2-shot lings, regardless of upgrades, unless the Protoss is +0 and the Zerg is +3. Stalkers also tend to waste shots due to projectile flight times. I'm of the impression that Prism/Obs/Immortal will serve you better than +2 and Blink. My bad, truth. Still my point holds. You're also ignoring the fact that you're not making pure immortals and will typically have many, many stalkers surrounding said immortals. The whole reason I even brought up shot counting Is to show that 1 immortal shot always = exactly 2 stalker shots with the same exact range, CD, cost, supply, everything except missile travel time. Immortals have a lot wider range for overkill, but are also less likely to do-so due to instant missile speed. As an end result, its basically a wash for offensive purposes. Immortals and stalkers are basically the same at killing lings. Now let's look at defense. You want to talk up how good blink is and how much survivability it offers, while I am talking up the fact that you get a free +1 armor on 40 more hp with the immortal and you don't lose any damage output until the whole jig has been worked through, vs stalkers where you lose 1/2 the dos as soon as the first one dies, which is most likely going to occur in 1/2 to 3/4 of the way through an equal amount of hp for the immortal. The only downside really being that there is 20 less total hp and of course, no blink mobility. I consider the defensive differences also a wash. So... Let me clarify since you're obviously talking about my post. For the purposes of shooting lings and getting hit by them, immortals are basically equal with stalkers. For purposes of loving between areas to defend, stalkers will be better due to their move speed and blink. For the purposes of shooting roaches and getting hit, immortals are about 2x as cost-effective as an equal investment in stalkers. Therefore, any army that has a decent number of roaches in it should be countered with an army including immortals (not INSTEAD OF stalkers, but in addition to). Quite a simple premise.
Truth is, neither stalkers nor immortals are particularly good against lings. In small numbers, lings easily overpower stalkers. The reason large blink stalker balls can deal with lings is because the weak ones get constantly blinked backwards. Immortals lack blink, and move slower than stalkers. So, if your simcity is broken, immortals are weaker because they simply die instead of blinking backward even though both units are equally inefficient at killing lings.
Also, a warp gate builds two stalkers at the same rate as the robo builds an immortal. Warp gates are cheaper, do not cost gas, and are easily massed.
|
United States8476 Posts
On April 27 2012 03:07 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 02:21 NrGmonk wrote:On April 27 2012 02:19 Severedevil wrote:+2 blink stalkers 3 shot lings while +1 immortals ALSO 3 shot lings. Immortals 2-shot lings, regardless of upgrades, unless the Protoss is +0 and the Zerg is +3. Stalkers also tend to waste shots due to projectile flight times. I'm of the impression that Prism/Obs/Immortal will serve you better than +2 and Blink. My bad, truth. Still my point holds. You're also ignoring the fact that you're not making pure immortals and will typically have many, many stalkers surrounding said immortals. The whole reason I even brought up shot counting Is to show that 1 immortal shot always = exactly 2 stalker shots with the same exact range, CD, cost, supply, everything except missile travel time. Immortals have a lot wider range for overkill, but are also less likely to do-so due to instant missile speed. As an end result, its basically a wash for offensive purposes. Immortals and stalkers are basically the same at killing lings. Now let's look at defense. You want to talk up how good blink is and how much survivability it offers, while I am talking up the fact that you get a free +1 armor on 40 more hp with the immortal and you don't lose any damage output until the whole jig has been worked through, vs stalkers where you lose 1/2 the dos as soon as the first one dies, which is most likely going to occur in 1/2 to 3/4 of the way through an equal amount of hp for the immortal. The only downside really being that there is 20 less total hp and of course, no blink mobility. I consider the defensive differences also a wash. So... Let me clarify since you're obviously talking about my post. For the purposes of shooting lings and getting hit by them, immortals are basically equal with stalkers. For purposes of loving between areas to defend, stalkers will be better due to their move speed and blink. For the purposes of shooting roaches and getting hit, immortals are about 2x as cost-effective as an equal investment in stalkers. Therefore, any army that has a decent number of roaches in it should be countered with an army including immortals (not INSTEAD OF stalkers, but in addition to). Quite a simple premise.
The advantages of immortals over stalkers are obvious. I'm just trying to explain the other side of the argument, clearly outlining the advantages of +2 blink stalker/sentry vs +1/1 stalker/immortal/sentry.
I think you might be missing a big point of this argument in that no one's saying not to get immortals; mostly everyone agrees you eventually get immortals versus mass roach spam. Rather, they're arguing the TIMING in which to get immortals. For example, with fast third builds, you have the choice of shooting for +2 and blink first then robo or robo first then +2/blink. Or you could get both around the same time. That's the crux of the argument. It's a somewhat small but significant tradeoff; one ends you with faster +3 and blink by the time you defend and the other gets you 1-2 more immortals by the time roaches stream in.
No QQ from anyone in the last few pages imo. I was actually replying more towards Mark's post, which was more abrasive, rather than your post.
edit: Personally, I'd like to downplay this argument and say that I think sentry/simcity/cannon defense is more important than immortals or +2/blink.
|
@Heh_
I agree that you're not building either to "counter" the lings, but you likely already have the robo so there is no additional investment to make one.
I have not advocated immortals instead of stalkers by any means, I am just squelching the argument that immortals are somehow the worst possible thing you could build if your opponent includes lings in his army. Like they somehow immediately make immortals useless.
I am simply saying that including lings is not a reason to stop making immortals. The only concern that should be influencing your immortal production is "does he have roaches?". If yes, then you want immortals. If no, then you don't. Lings are not the important detail here, roaches are.
Edit: considering the way monk puts it, I guess building a robo or not could be an issue depending on your build. No, I wouldn't build a robo while the attack is under way. I personally prefer robo to a faster +3 from a strategically POV as it has a lot more options available and +3 doesn't have nearly the same impact on PvZ as +2 does. As far as immortals vs blink/+2 I guess that's up to you. I don't see many immortal rushes these days so I wasn't really considering that. Not having blink when Mutas hit can be game ending where as having earlier immortals is nice, but not THAT nice...
|
On April 27 2012 02:51 Mikelius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 02:48 ishyishy wrote:
My games vs zerg dont even get to the 12 min mark anymore. These guys stopped taking a fast third base, and just did a roach/ling all in at 7 min and no matter what I did, I always lost. I am forge FE pretty much every time, and I dont see how you can beat this 2 base all in. I tried to make cannons, I think I got 4 of them up before it hit, but it didnt matter; I still got crushed.
How does protoss, doing FFE, beat the 7 min - 7:30 min 2 base roach/ling all in? Scout for third at 5 minutes, if you don't see one build however cannons sentries you can afford.
Uhhh just scouting for a third is not sufficient information to spam cannons and sentries.
What if you build 6 cannons and the person is going fast muta? 6 cannons all at your front delaying gateways, and probably a probe cut if you're in super defense mode is not a good idea.
Instead, scout for a third, and if there isn't one, chrono boost out two zealots and send them straight into his main base.
If it's a hatch cancel/1base roach you'll see the units mid map, and if your zealots get to his base you'll obviously know what's going on.
EDIT: I apologize for being off topic.
|
On April 27 2012 03:33 KhAmun wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 02:51 Mikelius wrote:On April 27 2012 02:48 ishyishy wrote:
My games vs zerg dont even get to the 12 min mark anymore. These guys stopped taking a fast third base, and just did a roach/ling all in at 7 min and no matter what I did, I always lost. I am forge FE pretty much every time, and I dont see how you can beat this 2 base all in. I tried to make cannons, I think I got 4 of them up before it hit, but it didnt matter; I still got crushed.
How does protoss, doing FFE, beat the 7 min - 7:30 min 2 base roach/ling all in? Scout for third at 5 minutes, if you don't see one build however cannons sentries you can afford. Uhhh just scouting for a third is not sufficient information to spam cannons and sentries. What if you build 6 cannons and the person is going fast muta? 6 cannons all at your front delaying gateways, and probably a probe cut if you're in super defense mode is not a good idea. Instead, scout for a third, and if there isn't one, chrono boost out two zealots and send them straight into his main base. If it's a hatch cancel/1base roach you'll see the units mid map, and if your zealots get to his base you'll obviously know what's going on. EDIT: I apologize for being off topic.
You really never need more than 3-4 cannons, and if you don't see anything by 7 mins and still no third then you can 6 or 7 gate before the mutas hit.
|
One thing you have to take into account too is that immortals are only good versus roaches. If Zerg mixes hydras to his roach push, you're in a hell of trouble if you went heavy immortals sentries 
My idea at the moment is to play as greedy as possible. Taking a fast third around the 6-7' mark is very good, now what about rushing for colossi at the same time ? You'll get 2-3 colossi out by the 11' mark, so there are a few scenarios possible:
- Zerg sacrifies his eco to punish your third as fast as possible and goes for an early lings/roach bust, let's say at 9-10'. You won't be able to hold it ( save all the probes and don't lose your army ), but if you're going for colossi at the same time, you can counter with a colossi timing push a few minutes later, and he'll be in a hell of trouble since he'll have a delayed eco and tech, right ?
- Zerg delayed his roach push and threatens your third around the 11-12' mark. You may or may not be able to hold it with 2-3 colossi ( anybody's got experience with that ? )
- Zerg abandons the idea to punish your third, you'll be in a very decent shape: insane eco and fast colossus tech, you'll also have a fast obs to scout any muta transition to adapt..
|
On April 27 2012 03:29 Jermstuddog wrote:
@Heh_
I agree that you're not building either to "counter" the lings, but you likely already have the robo so there is no additional investment to make one.
I have not advocated immortals instead of stalkers by any means, I am just squelching the argument that immortals are somehow the worst possible thing you could build if your opponent includes lings in his army. Like they somehow immediately make immortals useless.
I am simply saying that including lings is not a reason to stop making immortals. The only concern that should be influencing your immortal production is "does he have roaches?". If yes, then you want immortals. If no, then you don't. Lings are not the important detail here, roaches are.
Edit: considering the way monk puts it, I guess building a robo or not could be an issue depending on your build. No, I wouldn't build a robo while the attack is under way. I personally prefer robo to a faster +3 from a strategically POV as it has a lot more options available and +3 doesn't have nearly the same impact on PvZ as +2 does. As far as immortals vs blink/+2 I guess that's up to you. I don't see many immortal rushes these days so I wasn't really considering that. Not having blink when Mutas hit can be game ending where as having earlier immortals is nice, but not THAT nice...
Yes, it's true that there's no real reason to pump out immortals if your robo is already there. But the main point that Monk and kcdc was driving at was that immortals are not the magic solution to this strategy that some people are making it out to be. They're good vs roaches yes, but their effectiveness is reduced (not eliminated) by lings. This is a good point to raise against the double robo builds, that pop up about once every three pages.
|
Ranged just lost to Hyun with this fast third build in the Playhem. He got roach/lings busted at the 10' mark on Antiga despite his "special walloff", and couldn't hold even with decent FF. Blink wasn't even finished yet
|
Blink makes stalkers about 1,000,000x better for defending zerglings than immortals unless you have an abundance of forcefields. With blink stalkers, it takes a long time to kill lings, but you blink row after row back into more and more narrow spaces and the lings end up only doing shield damage. Immortals don't blink, so they die.
If immortals could blink, they'd be really good against this push. But they can't, so whether they're more cost-effective than stalkers against the Stephano push is really situational. They're definitely not a magic solution like a lot of people imagine them to be.
|
United States8476 Posts
On April 27 2012 04:48 kcdc wrote:
Blink makes stalkers about 1,000,000x better for defending zerglings than immortals unless you have an abundance of forcefields. With blink stalkers, it takes a long time to kill lings, but you blink row after row back into more and more narrow spaces and the lings end up only doing shield damage. Immortals don't blink, so they die.
If immortals could blink, they'd be really good against this push. But they can't, so whether they're more cost-effective than stalkers against the Stephano push is really situational. They're definitely not a magic solution like a lot of people imagine them to be.
Most people rely on sentries rather than blink stalkers or immortals vs lings. Stephano himself has said that lots of sentries is the key to defending.
|
On April 27 2012 04:38 Nyast wrote:Ranged just lost to Hyun with this fast third build in the Playhem. He got roach/lings busted at the 10' mark on Antiga despite his "special walloff", and couldn't hold even with decent FF. Blink wasn't even finished yet
Just as a side note, I made quite a few mistakes in that game, the biggest being that I let 2 lings in my base at like 5 minutes, and he got 4 probe kills + lost mining time.. I was also distracted during that time so i started my +1 late, thus my +2 was late, everything was a little late. So yeah. I didn't hold, but that doesn't mean the build doesn't work. In high level games, a lot of the times it comes down to whoever makes the least mistakes, and in this particular instance, all of the small mistakes equated into a loss for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
