EPTYou can get 1 SG - 5 phx with +1 and APC.
And you can get +1 ground and 4 gates warping in zealots.
So you'll have phoenix tearing through zergs production, forcing spores and +1 zealots killin stuff.
[D] PvZ - Establishing third with Skytoss (viable?) - Page…
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Rimak
Denmark434 Posts
You can get 1 SG - 5 phx with +1 and APC. And you can get +1 ground and 4 gates warping in zealots. So you'll have phoenix tearing through zergs production, forcing spores and +1 zealots killin stuff. | ||
|
Nyast
Belgium554 Posts
On June 06 2012 12:39 iAmBiGbiRd wrote: That protoss army is so immobile. Yes 1.6k gas so 16 corruptors, but with 4 bases fully mining gas at around 800 gas per min how long do you think it would take him to get more?? Also using a unit tester comparison in a case like this is stupid. At the very least he could have sacced the top base giving him time for corruptors and more energy on the infestors as he has 7k banked it doesnt matter much. Think about it. 25 full energy infestors and he probably would have added a few more with the corroptors. Thats like 50 fungals and over 100 infested terran PLUS the corruptors which in that number would one shot a mothership/carrier. Im not saying the build doesnt have potential, although i think it would get crushed by a lot of things/by actually good zergs, i am just saying that the posted screenshot was a waste of time trying to prove a point. If the zerg wasn't retarded he WOULD NOT have lost that game, simple as that The Protoss army is indeed less mobile, but it can still cross the map in less than a minute. Even with 800 more gas, or 8 more corruptors, this is STILL a slaughter in toss favor. Everybody who's played the build knows that. I have dozens of games of experience with it, Fogetaboudit has even more, and I even tested in a map unit tester this scenario to confirm that it was not even close. The number of fungals does not matter because they do not stack and everything else dies so fast. | ||
|
denyeverything
25 Posts
On June 06 2012 10:13 SidewinderSC2 wrote: However, I think the transition into Carriers is too damn slow. Maybe make 2 just to handle the first wave of Hydras if that's what they choose to attack with, and maybe bait out Corrupter fire. But still I think you could do better by just researching warpgate and powering up a handful of gateways with Charge Zealots. Like somebody had said in this thread, if they just Corrupter dive with lots and lots of lings to kill the cannons, you just can't reinforce well enough to overtake the Zerg's reinforcement rate. Plus, if they mass Hydra and you are still making only Carriers, your cannon wall won't last forever with assuming they support the Hydras well, but a good Vortex and a lot of Charge Zealots in there means they lose their entire army and you lose.. Zealots. I think the winning move with this build is a really aggressive, strong ground army. My personal choice would be Mothership along with Charge Zealot, Archon/Storm and maybe 4-6 Immortals. If you can keep your Void Ray count high (like 8) and +3 ground weapons, it's a super sick army assuming you keep your Mothership alive. On June 06 2012 12:18 ineversmile wrote: I agree about the zealot transition from air. Actually, I think it works both ways; going mass gateway style with double forges and then transitioning into triple stargate with +air weapons after taking a third. I like going +ground weapons and +shields from the forges, so I can eventually have x-0-x ground and air to fight hydras etc. It's also worth noting that shields are good for your buildings, as this comes up a lot when you're turtling and they want to use lings to do damage. Shields counteract ling and hydra dps pretty well for buildings and they help with air units and warp prisms flying over queens and spores to get into position. I like ground, but not as a transition per se. If you transition blindly (or as part of a build), then they'll just go hive and probably have the advantage, since its easy for them to transition to Broodlords and they probably already have Infestors. It's more just getting Warpgates up, so you can re-max really quickly. For instance, you trade Void Rays and Corruptors, if you have tons of Warpgates, you can warp in a bunch of Zealots and push their base. (maybe even Dark Templar) If they go Roach, push to get more cannons up, and you can use your gas to get your air back up while they lock their supply into Roach (resetting the match with you again at a tech advantage). If they go Muta, use your gas to Warp in Stalkers. If they go ling (probably baneling), use your gas on Sentries. If they go Corruptors or Infestors, just keep pushing (make a few Stalkers). But if you don't take the time/resources to build those Warpgates (and get upgrades), these options are lost. Simply put they can't go mineral only, to counter the Zealots, meaning they have to commit their gas before you do. If you transition though, they can just get hive and Broodlords, and you have the tech disadvantage. So I think it's less a transition, and more a conditional timing that flips the match-up conventions. Normally, the Zerg is in a better situation to build counter (i.e. go Muta when you went heavy Immortal or whatever), but once Warpgate infrastructure (along with upgrades) is set up, you are better suited towards this type of counter. | ||
|
HelioSeven
United States193 Posts
On June 07 2012 00:44 denyeverything wrote: If they go Muta, use your gas to Warp in Stalkers. IMO, phoenixes are a better answer, if you scout the transition early enough to have a fleet beacon. They're more gas intensive than stalkers, certainly, but since you already have the stargates up, you can get a decent group of phoenixes out fairly quickly and with APC they are a direct hard counter; you should be able to clean all of his mutas up with maybe 1 or 2 phoenix losses at most. Use extra minerals on cannons and zealots, then start massing air again with the air dominance the phoenixes give you. | ||
|
ineversmile
United States583 Posts
| ||
|
Quasi.In.Rem
53 Posts
On June 07 2012 04:27 HelioSeven wrote: IMO, phoenixes are a better answer, if you scout the transition early enough to have a fleet beacon. They're more gas intensive than stalkers, certainly, but since you already have the stargates up, you can get a decent group of phoenixes out fairly quickly and with APC they are a direct hard counter; you should be able to clean all of his mutas up with maybe 1 or 2 phoenix losses at most. Use extra minerals on cannons and zealots, then start massing air again with the air dominance the phoenixes give you. Phoenix is a better anti-Mutalisk unit, but it's not a better answer. Obviously, Phoenix with APC counter Mutalisks, but your counter can't be slower than the threat. Mutalisks build slightly faster already, on top of that to even match production, you're going to need more Stargates. Each Stargate is 150 minerals and 150 gas or 1.5 Mutalisks. Let's also not forget the fact that Mutalisks can ignore Phoenix, just hit and run against probes, and retreat to Spores/Queens. Sure you can get Cannons, but those are also twice as expensive as Spores, and your air force costs more minerals. Plus, Phoenix harass is limited to energy (aside from Overlord sniping) on top of being completely vulnerable to the ground and bad to Corruptors. Given that you are trying to quickly build units, the Phoenix are relatively lower in energy than they were with ones that were rushed out earlier (if you went that path). Finally, Zerg can suddenly spawn 12+ Mutalisks at once, so you can't really wait to see them coming and then shift into Phoenix production. You'll just be lagging to far behind. This means you end up having to gamble, which defeats the whole purpose of it being a counter. I'm not saying don't build Phoenix's (I kinda just assumed you would from whatever Stargate's you have lying around, and in general I like building them), but the point of my post is not to point out unit counters, but to point out the advantages of building Warpgates. You can pressure with your mineral dump and watch what they do with their gas to respond. If you want to tech or build more air units, that's great (and I wholly recommend getting Motherships). But that's lateral from the issue. Tactically, I don't like the idea of trying to re-build a Protoss fleet. If you lose some, you should reinforce, but if it's gone, it's gone, and you should shift it to support rather than the core of your army. This mostly means Mothership, but tossing in some Carriers if you see Infestors, Void Rays if you see Corruptors, and Phoenix if they try to mass expand. | ||
|
Raptor_Jesus
9 Posts
| ||
|
Rimak
Denmark434 Posts
On June 07 2012 12:38 Quasi.In.Rem wrote: Phoenix is a better anti-Mutalisk unit, but it's not a better answer. Obviously, Phoenix with APC counter Mutalisks, but your counter can't be slower than the threat. Mutalisks build slightly faster already, on top of that to even match production, you're going to need more Stargates. Each Stargate is 150 minerals and 150 gas or 1.5 Mutalisks. Let's also not forget the fact that Mutalisks can ignore Phoenix, just hit and run against probes, and retreat to Spores/Queens. Sure you can get Cannons, but those are also twice as expensive as Spores, and your air force costs more minerals. Plus, Phoenix harass is limited to energy (aside from Overlord sniping) on top of being completely vulnerable to the ground and bad to Corruptors. Given that you are trying to quickly build units, the Phoenix are relatively lower in energy than they were with ones that were rushed out earlier (if you went that path). Finally, Zerg can suddenly spawn 12+ Mutalisks at once, so you can't really wait to see them coming and then shift into Phoenix production. You'll just be lagging to far behind. This means you end up having to gamble, which defeats the whole purpose of it being a counter. I'm not saying don't build Phoenix's (I kinda just assumed you would from whatever Stargate's you have lying around, and in general I like building them), but the point of my post is not to point out unit counters, but to point out the advantages of building Warpgates. You can pressure with your mineral dump and watch what they do with their gas to respond. If you want to tech or build more air units, that's great (and I wholly recommend getting Motherships). But that's lateral from the issue. Tactically, I don't like the idea of trying to re-build a Protoss fleet. If you lose some, you should reinforce, but if it's gone, it's gone, and you should shift it to support rather than the core of your army. This mostly means Mothership, but tossing in some Carriers if you see Infestors, Void Rays if you see Corruptors, and Phoenix if they try to mass expand. So much theory-craft here. Please watch the replays. If I open with SG->Beacon->SG I can have 5 phoenix with +1 and APC before his muta spawns. When i scout muta i'll just add 3-4 more phoenix. Let me explain. 0-0 12 muta vs 5+ (1-0), or a little bit later (2-1) phoenix with APC is trash, basically thrown away money. Also you are completely wrong about muta ignoring phoenix. Phoenix HARD counters muta, because of superior speed, superior range and possibility to fire while moving. The whole point of phoenix is that muta can't run away from them, just cannot. In gateway builds stalkers are a better response, cuz you have the infrastructure for ground army and ground upgrades, but if you are going mass air - phoenix and only phoenix. Cannons expensive? Please get familiar with the OP, cannons are the core of this build, you can build a crapton of them if you want, it's still cheaper than to get ground army. Why not stalkers? Stalkers are good in descent numbers and with upgrades. So if you are going sky-toss , most probably you won't have the infrastructure to sustain ground army, nor the upgrades. to deal with 12 muta with stalker and no blink, you'll need around 10+ stalkers, that's: 125x10 + 50x10 = 1250 minerals + 500 gas 5 phoenix is 750 + 500 and if we add the cannons, to get the same amount of investment - 2 cannons/mineral line. 1350 + 50, so the difference in cost is just 100 minerals. But phoenix are much more cost-effective due to harass and scouting. I'm not counting the upgrades cost or the fleet beacon, because it's a part of build. About phoenix harass: You are missing the point of it. Usually you want to deal economic damage to zerg, so you can get ahead, but in this build your most important resource is time, time to establish third. Purpose of phx is to disrupt production cycles of zerg, by killing queens. Get him supply blocked by killing ovies, force to rebuild those and spend larva on them. You are buying yourself time to get cannons on your third and a MS and VR. Energy of 5 phx is more than enough to do that. TL;DR - If you have SG and Beacon - Get phoenix against muta. And also please, read the topic, thank you. | ||
|
Harbinger631
United States376 Posts
On June 07 2012 14:49 Rimak wrote: So much theory-craft here. Please watch the replays. If I open with SG->Becon->SG I can have 5 phoenix with +1 and APC before his muta spawns. When i scout muta i'll just add 3-4 more phoenix. let me explain. 0-0 12 muta vs 5+ (1-0), or a little bit later (2-1) phoenix with APC is trash, basically thrown away money. Also you are completely wrong about muta ignoring phoenix. Phoenix HARD counters muta, because of superior speed, superior range and possibility to fire while moving. The whole point of phoenix is that muta can't run away from them, just cannot. In normal games stalkers are a better response, cuz you have the infrastructure for ground army and ground upgrades, but if you are going mass air - phoenix and only phoenix. Cannons expensive? Please get familiar with the OP, cannons are the core of this build, you can build a crapton of them if you want, it's still cheaper than to get ground army. Let me explain why not stalkers. Stalkers are good in descent numbers and with upgrades. So if you are going sky-toss , most probably you won't have the infrastructure to sustain ground army, nor the upgrades. to deal with 12 muta with stalker and no blink, you'll need around 10+ stalkers, that's: 125x10 + 50x10 = 1250 minerals + 500 gas 5 phoenix is 750 + 500 and if we add the cannons, to get the same amount of investment - 2 cannons/mineral line. 1350 + 50, so the difference in cost is just 100 minerals. But phoenix are much more cost-effective due to harass and scouting. I'm not counting the upgrades cost or the fleet beacon, because it's a part of build. About phoenix harass: You are missing the point of it. Usually you want to deal economic damage to zerg, so you can get ahead, but in this build your most important resource is time, time to establish third. Purpose of phx is to disrupt production cycles of zerg, by killing queens. Get him supply blocked by killing ovies, force to rebuild those and spend larva on them. You are buying yourself time to get cannons on your third and a MS and VR. Energy of 5 phx is more than enough to do that. TL;DR - If you have SG and Beacon - Get phoenix against muta. And also please, read the topic, thank you. Excellent post, and the muta threat is why I like to open phoenix. You will have perfect scouting and see them coming which will prompt you to grab APC. 5 phoenix 1/0 with APC can handle double to triple the muta numbers easy. Get 4-5, switch to VR, and grab extra cannons if you expect a roach counter. | ||
|
HelioSeven
United States193 Posts
On June 07 2012 20:49 Harbinger631 wrote: Excellent post, and the muta threat is why I like to open phoenix. You will have perfect scouting and see them coming which will prompt you to grab APC. 5 phoenix 1/0 with APC can handle double to triple the muta numbers easy. Get 4-5, switch to VR, and grab extra cannons if you expect a roach counter. This. Even in "normal" games I've been a huge advocate of stargate first play for a long time. Get a single phoenix, go scout (not as subtle as an obs, but way faster and earlier information is always better). If you see roach warren and a significant number of roaches already out, boost void rays. If you see a baneling nest, boost phoenixes and patrol around your base, lifting the banelings as soon as they morph. If you see a spire, get a fleet beacon and boost +1 air weapons and APC. Pretty safe almost any way you go about it. Get a robo second, and a twilight in time to start +2 ground weapons without delay. Most Zerg respond to a stargate first with a hydralisk den; so long as you patrol your base to keep ovies away and prevent the nydus, you can easily tech to colossus and enjoy your free win over roach/hydra/ling. | ||
|
denyeverything
25 Posts
On June 07 2012 14:49 Rimak wrote: So much theory-craft here. Please watch the replays. If I open with SG->Beacon->SG I can have 5 phoenix with +1 and APC before his muta spawns. When i scout muta i'll just add 3-4 more phoenix. Let me explain. 0-0 12 muta vs 5+ (1-0), or a little bit later (2-1) phoenix with APC is trash, basically thrown away money. Also you are completely wrong about muta ignoring phoenix. Phoenix HARD counters muta, because of superior speed, superior range and possibility to fire while moving. The whole point of phoenix is that muta can't run away from them, just cannot. In gateway builds stalkers are a better response, cuz you have the infrastructure for ground army and ground upgrades, but if you are going mass air - phoenix and only phoenix. Cannons expensive? Please get familiar with the OP, cannons are the core of this build, you can build a crapton of them if you want, it's still cheaper than to get ground army. Why not stalkers? Stalkers are good in descent numbers and with upgrades. So if you are going sky-toss , most probably you won't have the infrastructure to sustain ground army, nor the upgrades. to deal with 12 muta with stalker and no blink, you'll need around 10+ stalkers, that's: 125x10 + 50x10 = 1250 minerals + 500 gas 5 phoenix is 750 + 500 and if we add the cannons, to get the same amount of investment - 2 cannons/mineral line. 1350 + 50, so the difference in cost is just 100 minerals. But phoenix are much more cost-effective due to harass and scouting. I'm not counting the upgrades cost or the fleet beacon, because it's a part of build. About phoenix harass: You are missing the point of it. Usually you want to deal economic damage to zerg, so you can get ahead, but in this build your most important resource is time, time to establish third. Purpose of phx is to disrupt production cycles of zerg, by killing queens. Get him supply blocked by killing ovies, force to rebuild those and spend larva on them. You are buying yourself time to get cannons on your third and a MS and VR. Energy of 5 phx is more than enough to do that. TL;DR - If you have SG and Beacon - Get phoenix against muta. And also please, read the topic, thank you. You clearly didn't read my post. I was talking about transitions, not if the Zerg opens Mutas. :sigh: | ||
|
Rimak
Denmark434 Posts
On June 08 2012 23:09 denyeverything wrote: You clearly didn't read my post. I was talking about transitions, not if the Zerg opens Mutas. :sigh: I understood your point, mostly my post was an answer 2Quasi.In.Rem's said. Stalker is a good answer if you play common gateway army, but we are talking in sky toss thread, right? So i presume it was "warping stalkers while you play sky toss". Which lead to explanation why stalkers is a bad responce if you are playing air. Muta transition will just hit upgraded phoenix wall, and that's pretty much it. | ||
|
Fortis-Et-Fidus
United States119 Posts
| ||
|
Bulldog654
United States79 Posts
On June 09 2012 00:52 Fortis-Et-Fidus wrote: i have done this build dozens of times, and well the reps i have seen people usually move put with their frist void as soon as it finishes, and rally more voids from there, i do a 2 stargate +1 and get 6 voids, then rally pheonixs while i move out to kill 3 zergs third, i was wondering what the advantages are of having your stargate play revealed so early, i mean, the zerg will have more time to react and place spores in suspicion of a stargate attack, but if your stargates are not scouted why not wait for 6 voids and then rally pheni to his third? pros and cons greatly appreciated and will put replays up of my games if needed Take my opinion for what its worth, I am platinum. At my level, I like to reveal my stargate play by killing their overlords around my base with my first void instead of keeping it hidden. The reason for this is that about 100% of zergs i play do the stephano build, and watching the replays, it is very evident that these zergs are thrown way off their game when they see more than a couple void rays. They are so set in doing this stephano build that when they see im going air they really start to falter, they forget to saturate bases, they have to throw down their hydra den, they forget to spread creep, they forget about overlords spread around the map that i then kill for free, so in my experience so far the benefit to showing my hand has been well worth not being able to outright kill their third. This benefit may change in higher leagues, but at least for now the people i play against you can tell that they are very screwed when they have to modify a particular build they were setting out for. | ||
|
Nyast
Belgium554 Posts
On June 09 2012 00:52 Fortis-Et-Fidus wrote: i have done this build dozens of times, and well the reps i have seen people usually move put with their frist void as soon as it finishes, and rally more voids from there, i do a 2 stargate +1 and get 6 voids, then rally pheonixs while i move out to kill 3 zergs third, i was wondering what the advantages are of having your stargate play revealed so early, i mean, the zerg will have more time to react and place spores in suspicion of a stargate attack, but if your stargates are not scouted why not wait for 6 voids and then rally pheni to his third? pros and cons greatly appreciated and will put replays up of my games if needed Yeah that's a strong attack but you auto-lose if Zerg went fast mutas. You won't have your 6 voids before 10-11' and that's when fast mutas come out. That's usually on 2 bases, as doing it on 3 bases is more risky, but I've also seen it on 3 bases ( Zerg gets the roach warren but if no pressure is coming they just go straight to mutas.. ). There's also the fact that any half decent Zerg will scout. You can deny overlords in the early game, but once the lair is finished, if he's not sure what you're doing, how are you going to prevent an overseer from seeing everything ? All in all, I'm no fan of that attack timing, because it means delaying your third ( you're delaying your mothership, and you can't hold your third without the mothership ). This makes your air attack semi-all-in: if you don't do major damage, you're in a terrible position to continue a macro game. Personally, I like to start with one single pheonix out asap to scout the Zerg and to hunt overlords. I continue on voidrays, fast mothership, but I try to hide my second stargate, and I also drop a couple gates as distraction. It's easier to play that way because Zerg will likely scout at least one stargate and the gates, and he'll see the phoenix, so you kind of force an under-reaction. I want him to continue investing in those lings and roaches. I don't want him to rush to infestors or corruptors, or get fast air upgrades. I want him to think I'm doing a pressure build on a single stargate, followed by a gate timing, or a third. By the time he realizes I'm actually getting a third with a mothership and multiple stargates and committing to air with upgrades, he's spent thousands and thousands of resources in a useless tech and army. | ||
|
ineversmile
United States583 Posts
| ||
|
HelioSeven
United States193 Posts
On June 09 2012 18:14 ineversmile wrote: This discussion is totally branching off into different directions based upon skill level. What works against Platinum opponents won't work against Diamond, which won't work against Masters, and so forth. I don't care about opponents who suck enough to make poor choices; I want to be able to beat the ones who make good decisions because my strategy is sound and it allows me the room to outplay people. While this is true, to an extent, one must also realize that it's not a rigid build like the Stephano-style 12 minute roach max build. There are many ways of doing Skytoss openers, and none (afaik) are conclusively better than any of the others at this point in time. That's why this thread exists in the first place, to create a discussion around Skytoss openers, and which tend to work better than others. Personally, it's led to a lot more experimentation for me with the fast mothership play, since I never really tried a defensive Skytoss opener like that (I used to do a lot more offensive Skytoss style builds, like the 2 base carrier rush, setting up the third after your opponent is on the back foot). While a carrier rush is effective at catching ladder opponents off guard and scoring cheap wins, it's not nearly as solid a build as a fast defensive mothership is, at least in my opinion. The point is that Skytoss is a very viable PvZ style in a wide variety of situations, not purely those where your opponents aren't quick-thinking enough to come up with a good response. The reason that the discussion is sort of all over the place is because it's a very infrequently used style, and a lot of people have come up with very different approaches to it. But don't make the mistake of equating infrequent use with inferiority (see Stardust vs Roro, Freaky vs Crank, etc). Play with it yourself and see what works. | ||
|
iAmBiGbiRd
Australia1029 Posts
On June 06 2012 12:45 Fogetaboudit wrote: You are an idiot. I love how "roughly 45% energy" is the new "full energy" http://drop.sc/171090 + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i432.photobucket.com/albums/qq47/andrewmboccia/lol.jpg) It's not a waste of time, I'm not going to tolerate lying, and I will hold those who do it accountable. I clearly point out where the player is lying in an attempt to mislead people and boost his own ego. You can theorycraft all you want about how the game could have continued, you can spam different statistics, but based on my experience, you are wrong, and my advantage is decisive, but this doesn't really matter, thats the point. The whole point is, I wanted to practice my build (including the lategame) to further increase my samplesize of games that I can learn from, and to actually have a replay of a lategame to review. If I was playing a helpful practice partner, and not a lying scumbag, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Actually you are the idiot. I didn't say that he had full energy right now but if he was smart by the time an engagement happened he would have been very close and would have added a few more + corruptors. Also do you forget that zerg have Neural?? Don't you think all pro P players would be doing this build if it's endgame was invincible?? I'm done here, you obviously are not willing to accept any criticism and seem to think that build is good. | ||
|
ineversmile
United States583 Posts
On June 09 2012 19:03 HelioSeven wrote: While this is true, to an extent, one must also realize that it's not a rigid build like the Stephano-style 12 minute roach max build. There are many ways of doing Skytoss openers, and none (afaik) are conclusively better than any of the others at this point in time. That's why this thread exists in the first place, to create a discussion around Skytoss openers, and which tend to work better than others. Personally, it's led to a lot more experimentation for me with the fast mothership play, since I never really tried a defensive Skytoss opener like that (I used to do a lot more offensive Skytoss style builds, like the 2 base carrier rush, setting up the third after your opponent is on the back foot). While a carrier rush is effective at catching ladder opponents off guard and scoring cheap wins, it's not nearly as solid a build as a fast defensive mothership is, at least in my opinion. The point is that Skytoss is a very viable PvZ style in a wide variety of situations, not purely those where your opponents aren't quick-thinking enough to come up with a good response. The reason that the discussion is sort of all over the place is because it's a very infrequently used style, and a lot of people have come up with very different approaches to it. But don't make the mistake of equating infrequent use with inferiority (see Stardust vs Roro, Freaky vs Crank, etc). Play with it yourself and see what works. I'm not complaining about the variety of builds and transitions into and out of Skytoss; I'm just a bit bummed by the fact that it's hard to sift through all the posts about how "people just lose to me because I built mass air and they didn't play accordingly." Sure, sometimes build order wins happen and a bunch of Void Rays go across the map and wreck your opponent, just like how a DT rush can end the game or a marine/helion attack can hard-counter a 4-gate at the highest level. Some games just fly out the window because there are always timings where a player just dies or gets really, really far behind very quickly without a chance to respond. However, what about the times when the opponent does have the time and ability to respond and does so accordingly? This is what I'm interested in, especially because it's my biggest problem when doing a Skytoss build from the beginning. I don't have a problem beating the guys making mass Roaches against Void Ray/defensive Mothership turtling; I'm having trouble with acute Hydra timings before I can get AoE and with Ling/Infestor/mass spire units, which are what happens when my opponents actually decide to counter the stargate play appropriately. Anyways.... About the muta-countering issue: I agree with the concept that you should have at least 2-3 stargates ready to pump Phoenix, and you probably should have a Fleet Beacon established already by the time that Mutas come across the map (if you aren't already sitting on a squad of Pheonixes to stem the tide). However, you don't necessarily know that Mutas are coming until they hatch. Even with the best of scouting, you don't know if they're making 5 mutas or 15 mutas or just Corruptors, or a mix of Mutas and Corruptors. You can, at best, scout the spire timing, then see the air units pop at their base before they start flying over to yours (or to engage your army, if you've been attacking/harassing). So you can't always be prepared fully with Anion range, but you can take steps like having the Beacon ready, having the production up to make Phoenixes, and having +1 air to be able to tear up their Mutas. Still, it's never a bad thing to have a bunch of Warp Gates available simply so you can warp in an emergency round of Stalkers to slow down the Mutas while you're pumping Phoenixes and getting that range going. It doesn't have to be a full commital and you don't need to get Blink or anything, but it's good to have that option so you build a handful of under-upgraded units instead of losing a ton of probes or production. The stalkers are good for crisis management, when youre focusing on a Skytoss army. That's how I see it, anyways. I have been experimenting with walling off my third with more stargates, lately. They're more exposed to ground attacks than if they were to sit in your base, but they also happen to have more HP than gateways...and you need to build them anyways. It's a good excuse to power up production more quickly, and I like the timings: Get a third and build 2 more Stargates at it with cannons behind them. This helps a bit with the whole "corruptors/mutas camping my Stargates" problem, too, and it also means voids/carriers are popping out right in the front of the battle to reinforce against ground attacks. Maybe it's too risky for the sake of the important buildings tanking too much damage...but maybe this is the correct way to go if WG tech is beign delayed in favor of faster Cyber-Core air upgrades. I don't know if anyone else has thought about this, but it seems interesting. The biggest problem is definitely the fact that Gateways cost exactly the same minerals but without the gas...I don't know. It's not like you're hiding the fact that you're making lots of air units, when they see the +air attack that early and see a Mothership at your heavily-turtled third. | ||
|
Fogetaboudit
United States232 Posts
On June 09 2012 19:07 iAmBiGbiRd wrote: Actually you are the idiot. I didn't say that he had full energy right now but if he was smart by the time an engagement happened he would have been very close and would have added a few more + corruptors. Also do you forget that zerg have Neural?? Don't you think all pro P players would be doing this build if it's endgame was invincible?? I'm done here, you obviously are not willing to accept any criticism and seem to think that build is good. Nice backtrack, lol. You either misunderstood how much energy there was (probable), or said something pretty irrelevant, theorycrafting for how a future battle would turn out based on your offbase intuition (stupid.) I've always been open to criticism, just not to idiocy with a cocky "know it all" attitude, and no proof. I've already accepted sound criticism ITT, from someone who actually worked with the build and came to a conclusion, so you are wrong. (A talented player said a crisp corrupter/ling timing hitting the third can cause potential problems, and I currently accept this criticism) Anyhow, anyone with a clue/ experience with these compositions has mentioned you are wrong. Not only are you wrong, it's irrelevant in the first place. I'll quote myself again since you still don't get it. Hint: focus on the third paragraph, and take your (awful) theory-crafting elsewhere. On June 06 2012 12:45 Fogetaboudit wrote: It's not a waste of time, I'm not going to tolerate lying, and I will hold those who do it accountable. I clearly point out where the player is lying in an attempt to mislead people and boost his own ego. You can theorycraft all you want about how the game could have continued, you can spam different statistics, but based on my experience, you are wrong, and my advantage is decisive, but this doesn't really matter, thats the point. The whole point is, I wanted to practice my build (including the lategame) to further increase my samplesize of games that I can learn from, and to actually have a replay of a lategame to review. If I was playing a helpful practice partner, and not a lying scumbag, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. | ||
| ||
