|
On June 09 2012 19:03 HelioSeven wrote:Show nested quote +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.
great post.
I've always accepted that my adaptation of this is pretty far from optimal and there is a TON of room for refinement as we figure these things out. Having a dominating strategy with tons of flexibility and room for refinement is definitely a good thing.
|
On June 09 2012 19:55 ineversmile wrote:
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.
I never put all my SG's together. I always put my third and fourth at the third base like you suggested, and I try to work this into my Sim-City. It's a tough call deciding just how much exposure you want. After all, they are expensive buildings, and if there is a crucial production cycle about to pop, losing the building can be devastating, so I tend to put them not quite out in the very front.
|
On June 09 2012 19:55 ineversmile wrote:
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.
I actually wall my third with gates, and I place stargates in the back of my third. The thing is that you need more gates too, as you need to get many for that transition to templars. I also use them to warp zealots in case of lings run-bys, hydra timings, stalkers if muta-surprise, etc..
Quick question to all tosses playing that style: do you aim at a long term macro game ( using your air army to secure a fourth and more ), or do you aim at doing a 200/200 all-in timing by playing purely defensively and staying on 3 bases ?
|
sounds like we set up base the same, lol, and I personally favor the macro game.
|
This build is too funny.
Just got this response to it:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/V32eJ.png)
Sisyphus:
In Greek mythology Sisyphus was a king punished by being compelled to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to repeat this action forever.
|
On June 09 2012 19:55 ineversmile wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 19:03 HelioSeven wrote: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. 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.
No, I certainly sympathize, there is quite a bit of fluff in this thread regarding Zergs who just die simply by virtue having no idea how to properly respond to stargate play, but I mean, dude, this is TeamLiquid. Sifting through the junk posts was part of the fine print when you signed up.
That said, I think there is some worthwhile discussion to be had about proper Zerg responses and how to respond to said responses. These "hydra timings" of which you speak are complete news to me, in my experience if you scout a hydra den as a response to the stargate play then an immediate tech to colossi upon establishing the 3rd's extra gas income should destroy that. There isn't really any timing for Zerg to exploit there, because cannon/zealot/void ray should be plenty to hold roach/hydra in the small numbers he can eke out before the colossi transition. The ling/infestor/spire style is a much more serious threat, in my opinion, but also not impossible to deal with. Transitioning to high templar will give you storms to deal with the massed air and feedbacks to deal with the infestors, and should leave you very mineral heavy with which to continue expanding as well as adding gateways, zealots, and ample cannon defenses for your bases. By tweaking your air comp to counter your opponent's air comp (more void rays against corruptors, more phoenixes against mutas), you should be able to mop up any excess with ease.
Regarding the phoenix counter against a spire-tech opener, the thing is you don't really need to see the units pop. If you see the spire building, the precautionary measures you mentioned are pretty much all you need: getting +1 air weapons, 4-5 phoenixes, and throwing down the fleet beacon (extra stargate is questionable, depends on worker counts, game timing, etc). If he goes ahead and goes for the muta play, you should be able to boost APC in time to defend as the mutas are arriving at your base or shortly after. Once APC is done, 4-5 phoenixes are a complete hard counter to pretty much any possible amount of mutas that early in the game, as previously discussed. If, on the other hand, the Zerg opts for corruptors instead of mutas, it's pretty much his loss. The corruptors are never going to be able to chase down the phoenixes, and you can dance circles around them harassing overlords and queens while getting out the fast mothership and making an early transition to a gateway-heavy army. Your opponent has effectively wasted all of the gas spent on those corruptors. Going for a mix would probably be the best idea for the Zerg, but keeping the mutas and corruptors together to employ the strengths of both and weaknesses of neither would be a micro nightmare given the two units' vastly different speeds. Not to mention how completely gas starved that would leave him.
On June 09 2012 20:49 Nyast wrote:
Quick question to all tosses playing that style: do you aim at a long term macro game ( using your air army to secure a fourth and more ), or do you aim at doing a 200/200 all-in timing by playing purely defensively and staying on 3 bases ?
I always try and play macro games whenever possible, if nothing else than for the practice. Unless the Zerg really denies our 4th for a long time (which should be pretty difficult for him), you might as well continue to macro and see how the transitions play out. Only when the Zerg really doesn't take any damage from the Skytoss opener and manages to expand to 4 or even 5 bases while holding me to 3 will I ever go for a 3 base all-in.
|
On June 10 2012 21:55 HelioSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 20:49 Nyast wrote:
Quick question to all tosses playing that style: do you aim at a long term macro game ( using your air army to secure a fourth and more ), or do you aim at doing a 200/200 all-in timing by playing purely defensively and staying on 3 bases ?
I always try and play macro games whenever possible, if nothing else than for the practice. Unless the Zerg really denies our 4th for a long time (which should be pretty difficult for him), you might as well continue to macro and see how the transitions play out. Only when the Zerg really doesn't take any damage from the Skytoss opener and manages to expand to 4 or even 5 bases while holding me to 3 will I ever go for a 3 base all-in.
Yeah that's also how I play, but I've been wondering if a strong 3 base push at 200 wouldn't be as effective, and make games shorter.
This style is really funny, I swear 90% of my games are in the 26-30' range, no more no less. It seems like the vast majority of Zergs lose patience and suicide their armies at that time. I occasionally had shorter games ( like 20'-25' ) but the Zerg really has to screw up somewhere for that to happen.
|
Well this is a nice abusive strategy that requires very little skill to execute. The problem is that when P goes air you'd like to get corruptors since hydras would lose to robo switch. And corruptors lose vs voids. I still believe the zerg has no good ground to air unit and was quite surpised they didnt add one in the HOTS. Anyway the strat is good if you dont have much skill to utilize but if you do have there is no place to put it to good use in this strat. You dont need scouting (well u need in the early game since it is forge expo but every forge expo requires it so its not relevant to this strat). Your units composition is the same. You make lots of cannons so u dont need micro defending. Your attacks basicly dont need micro too and depend more on how the opponent responds to determine success or failure. The only things that is important are mothership spells and making probes. So I believe this strat is bad at higher level and especially bad if the opponent expects it. People at higher level treat Skytoss as all-in or early game harrass because if you commit to it its up for the zerg to take the game. He responds well you lose, he doesnt - u win. Certainly you can win games with it but its a deadend improvement-wise.
|
On June 09 2012 20:49 Nyast wrote:
Quick question to all tosses playing that style: do you aim at a long term macro game ( using your air army to secure a fourth and more ), or do you aim at doing a 200/200 all-in timing by playing purely defensively and staying on 3 bases ?
I find that if I sit on 3 base to get 5 phoenix, 20 voids, 4 carriers with 3/3/3 with 6ish templar with storm and a robo for observers, it takes forever and I have a ton to mineral banked. I'm more comfortable attempting to take a 4th so that when I'm maxed, I'm equal on upgrades or ahead. All my battles have been total annihilations if I had an upgrade advantage with storm.
Anyone else playing the style enjoy watching the Zerg army evaporate to Skytoss/mass void over and over and over again in your replays?
|
What is the general consensus. Is going for double zealot pressure into dual stargate better or is opening phoenix with range? I'm trying to decide how I should open into this build. It seems like opening with the zealots can snipe a third and kill drones and force worthless roaches, but it delays the tech while the phoenix kill queens and force preemtive anit air. What do you guys think is the best way to open.
|
On June 10 2012 23:04 -MoOsE- wrote:
What is the general consensus. Is going for double zealot pressure into dual stargate better or is opening phoenix with range? I'm trying to decide how I should open into this build. It seems like opening with the zealots can snipe a third and kill drones and force worthless roaches, but it delays the tech while the phoenix kill queens and force preemtive anit air. What do you guys think is the best way to open.
I haven't tried opening double zealot yet, but I've found that the faster I get the mothership, the better I do holding off a mid game zerg push. Phoenix also seem like a lot more reliable damage since Zergs are getting better at scouting and stopping zealot pressure, especially with the new ranged queen. Phoenixes, however, can disrupt production cycles, and can force at least 6 drone losses when the zerg makes spores, gives you perfect scouting, and leaves you with a ready response to a deadly muta counter.
|
On June 10 2012 23:02 Harbinger631 wrote:
Anyone else playing the style enjoy watching the Zerg army evaporate to Skytoss/mass void over and over and over again in your replays?
Yeah. It's especially hilarious with the "resources lost" tab :o
|
The main problem with this build is that you have to take double gas at your nat.
To most zergs this is an obvious indicator of a tech heavy build, making your double SG pretty transparent. This means that Zerg can take all their gasses and tech super quick to spire, skipping the roach warren and upgrades on roaches.
It is crucial to note that the zerg does not have to make mutas. If it's evident that you're taking a 3rd, we can just make a minimal amount of corruptors to supplement the spore crawlers around the bases and take a 4th and maybe even a 5th. At this point, we have the potential to bank a ridiculous amount of gas, allowing us to continue to tech in any direction we want. I might even suggest a nydus hydra push with drones to build spore crawlers, if I were certain this build was going to happen.
Perhaps more reliable is the answer already mentioned: stephano style except supplemented with mass ling and some overseers. This can reliably deny the 3rd for a very long time so long as the zerg is dilligent about not letting you get infinite cannons up. With proper macro, the zerg should be able to take a 4th while you're still stuck on 2 base.
|
On June 10 2012 23:02 Harbinger631 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2012 20:49 Nyast wrote:
Quick question to all tosses playing that style: do you aim at a long term macro game ( using your air army to secure a fourth and more ), or do you aim at doing a 200/200 all-in timing by playing purely defensively and staying on 3 bases ?
I find that if I sit on 3 base to get 5 phoenix, 20 voids, 4 carriers with 3/3/3 with 6ish templar with storm and a robo for observers, it takes forever and I have a ton to mineral banked. I'm more comfortable attempting to take a 4th so that when I'm maxed, I'm equal on upgrades or ahead. All my battles have been total annihilations if I had an upgrade advantage with storm. Anyone else playing the style enjoy watching the Zerg army evaporate to Skytoss/mass void over and over and over again in your replays?
Pretty much this.
You do have alot of those free minerals, and cannons, pilons, gateways and nexi cost only minerals, so not attempting to set up a 4th is kinda "Why not?".
Only if i would fail at establishing 4th for couple of time, i would go for 3 base-allin.
Most important is to keep your air alive and not throwing it away.
Losing minerals is bad, but acceptable, losing gas is no-no.
And yea replays with resources lost tab open is just sooo hillarious.
|
After trying this build 5 times I can say that this works very well (I'm a Masters Toss). My record w the build is about 6-1 with the 1 loss being a 6 pool transition into mass baneling. I go mainly VR's w a mothership around 10 min and constantly harass w recall ready. Very fun and works quite well.
On June 10 2012 22:59 Cheerio wrote:
Well this is a nice abusive strategy that requires very little skill to execute. The problem is that when P goes air you'd like to get corruptors since hydras would lose to robo switch. And corruptors lose vs voids. I still believe the zerg has no good ground to air unit and was quite surpised they didnt add one in the HOTS. Anyway the strat is good if you dont have much skill to utilize but if you do have there is no place to put it to good use in this strat. You dont need scouting (well u need in the early game since it is forge expo but every forge expo requires it so its not relevant to this strat). Your units composition is the same. You make lots of cannons so u dont need micro defending. Your attacks basicly dont need micro too and depend more on how the opponent responds to determine success or failure. The only things that is important are mothership spells and making probes. So I believe this strat is bad at higher level and especially bad if the opponent expects it. People at higher level treat Skytoss as all-in or early game harrass because if you commit to it its up for the zerg to take the game. He responds well you lose, he doesnt - u win. Certainly you can win games with it but its a deadend improvement-wise.
I'm not sure if I agree with the things this guy is saying. Yes you have to make probes, but how is this much different than someone who plays Terran and goes MMM? I often do 2 pronged attacks with the VR's provided there is recall available all the while continuing production and expanding aggressively. Don't quite understand how this is a deadend improvement wise.
|
Yeah I mean its not like the level of execution doesn't matter.
|
On June 12 2012 00:14 AxonHD wrote:After trying this build 5 times I can say that this works very well (I'm a Masters Toss). My record w the build is about 6-1 with the 1 loss being a 6 pool transition into mass baneling. I go mainly VR's w a mothership around 10 min and constantly harass w recall ready. Very fun and works quite well. Show nested quote +On June 10 2012 22:59 Cheerio wrote:
Well this is a nice abusive strategy that requires very little skill to execute. The problem is that when P goes air you'd like to get corruptors since hydras would lose to robo switch. And corruptors lose vs voids. I still believe the zerg has no good ground to air unit and was quite surpised they didnt add one in the HOTS. Anyway the strat is good if you dont have much skill to utilize but if you do have there is no place to put it to good use in this strat. You dont need scouting (well u need in the early game since it is forge expo but every forge expo requires it so its not relevant to this strat). Your units composition is the same. You make lots of cannons so u dont need micro defending. Your attacks basicly dont need micro too and depend more on how the opponent responds to determine success or failure. The only things that is important are mothership spells and making probes. So I believe this strat is bad at higher level and especially bad if the opponent expects it. People at higher level treat Skytoss as all-in or early game harrass because if you commit to it its up for the zerg to take the game. He responds well you lose, he doesnt - u win. Certainly you can win games with it but its a deadend improvement-wise. I'm not sure if I agree with the things this guy is saying. Yes you have to make probes, but how is this much different than someone who plays Terran and goes MMM? I often do 2 pronged attacks with the VR's provided there is recall available all the while continuing production and expanding aggressively. Don't quite understand how this is a deadend improvement wise.
Try hiding your mothership at your opponents 4th, as close as you can get to his 3rd without it being spotted.
Send your void rays to the edge of his main and start attacking. Wait for him to move in his army to defend as far away from his 3rd as possible.
Recall to his third and send your mothership back home.
Enjoy the luls.
|
On June 08 2012 23:30 Rimak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2012 23:09 denyeverything wrote:On June 07 2012 14:49 Rimak wrote:On June 07 2012 12:38 Quasi.In.Rem wrote:On June 07 2012 04:27 HelioSeven wrote: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. 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. 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.
I'm am the same persion. whateversclever=denyeverything=quasi.in.rem. I just forget my password, so I set up a new account on each computer. (Work laptop, desktop, home laptop). LOL.
Anyways, just for clarification, where I'm coming from is early air (and i prefer fast 4-5 Phoenix... so hearing people say to build more phoenix was werid) to fast mothership while stocking up on Void Rays...
And then at that point where do you transition from? My perspective is that rather than stocking up on more and more Void Rays, use your air superiority to buy time to build up your Warpgate infrastructure.
I'll still slowly roll out the some Void Rays, but I don't like doing things like 4 Stargates all building Void Rays. It just feels very all-in ish because you're army rebuild time is going to be much slower than the Zerg if you mutually wipe out (which is about how Corruptor/Void Ray works out in my experience). Not to mention Fungal. Sure, you have Mass Recall but you'll only have so few, whereas he'll have so many.
If they go heavy Roach, keep pushing out the basic Void Ray/Cannon strategy, but otherwise I prefer to go to build out my Warpgate infrastructure while I have the tech advantage. At that point, if I build an air for, I generally go for Phoenix over Void Ray since they deal with mass expo better in my opinion, since Infestor or Corruptors are a sign of passivity.
|
Hi I'm a zerg player, and I've never particularly struggled against this.
I defend 2-star with queens/spores and eventually infestors, while using zerglings to make sure you work for your 3rd base, while I take many bases.
I go double upgrade corruptors, trying to make sure my +air carapace keeps up with your +air attack (or stays as close as possible) and fight with queen/infestor/corruptor while using zerglings to slow down your expansion attempts, and even do zergling drops if I know your air units are not in a defensive position.
If I can neural units to prevent defensive recalls, I will.
If your air units ever step away from one of your bases, I cover it with infested terrans to kill all the cannons, and then bring in lings to finish it off if you don't come back.
my gameplan is more or less to starve you out without losing too many units, and then I can spam 3/3 corruptors at you.
So far I haven't had to face anyone who was able to work storm and archons into the composition, but can you even afford that (along with your air units) if you never get a 4th base?
|
On June 12 2012 09:18 Oboeman wrote:
Hi I'm a zerg player, and I've never particularly struggled against this.
I defend 2-star with queens/spores and eventually infestors, while using zerglings to make sure you work for your 3rd base, while I take many bases.
I go double upgrade corruptors, trying to make sure my +air carapace keeps up with your +air attack (or stays as close as possible) and fight with queen/infestor/corruptor while using zerglings to slow down your expansion attempts, and even do zergling drops if I know your air units are not in a defensive position.
If I can neural units to prevent defensive recalls, I will.
If your air units ever step away from one of your bases, I cover it with infested terrans to kill all the cannons, and then bring in lings to finish it off if you don't come back.
my gameplan is more or less to starve you out without losing too many units, and then I can spam 3/3 corruptors at you.
So far I haven't had to face anyone who was able to work storm and archons into the composition, but can you even afford that (along with your air units) if you never get a 4th base?
Depends entirely when the Protoss transitions. You do have what I think is pretty much the correct response on the part of a Zerg player facing a Skytoss opener, and I will assume you play reactive enough to be able to see a gateway transition coming and react accordingly, but it is a danger. Double stargate production isn't as income intensive as you would otherwise think, particularly carriers, because of their long build time. If your Toss opponent keeps up with his ground upgrades and has enough gateways he can make a very sudden transition into chargelot/archon w/ storm, and that can be very dangerous. Even on only 3 bases a Toss should be able to support 8-10 gateways, 2 stargates, and upgrades. I think it really all comes down to how well the mothership is controlled and if it can be kept alive long enough. Even if you defend well against the mass recall harass, a well placed vortex could still absolutely wreck your army. It's not a situation I particularly like (as discussed above, I generally avoid the 3 base all-in if at all possible), but with a good vortex and good storms it can absolutely clean house.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
