|
I recently aroused the wrath of a number of Zergs on the board by making a dismissive comment about the difficulty of stopping the immortal-sentry all-in.
So I come to this thread not to state my opinion, but to hear the Zerg perspective. The question I'd like to raise for discussion is: What makes immortal-sentry all-in so hard to stop?
Idra has said that this build can be stopped by simply baiting force fields at the other end of the map. And you can watch his stream and see that he succeeds in implementing this strategy a good percentage of the time.
On the other hand, Parting has got away with making it work almost every time until quite recently.
So what is going on? Does anyone understand the meta-game surrounding the immortal-sentry all-in?
|
Looks to me like only Parting gets away with it most of the time. No other protoss pro employs it on as regular a basis as Parting does.
From my point of view it goes back to what is generally seen as a fundamental design issue in starcraft 2's PvZ:
Protoss needs to have perfect micro, zerg need protoss to NOT have perfect micro.
In other words, Zerg depends on protoss to make mistakes, much like how we need Zerg to make a critical mistake versus broodlord-infestor. Sure you can bait forcefields, but for someone who is as skilled as (or just has enough soul) like Parting, this tactic may not work so much. Also if you overextended just a teensy little bit when baiting, protoss cuts off a significant portion of your army.
Just how I see it from a toss p.o.v.
|
So what is going on? Does anyone understand the meta-game surrounding the immortal-sentry all-in?
I don't think you're using the term meta-game properly here.
The immortal-sentry allin is simply just a very powerful push due to the limitations of both races unit compositions at that point and the synergy of those Protoss units. That's it, there's not much else to it. A Zerg can know it's coming and still die to it easily, that's how strong it is.
There's nothing "meta" about it. meta-game refers to things that don't alter in game circumstances and capabilities, such as the extra pressure put on you by being down in a series, or the fact that your opponent is known for allins all the time.
If you haven't already, read this thread. It contains pieces of why it is strong, such as the following excerpt:
Zerg Scouting
I think we need to assume the worst when skill is not involved.
Standard scouting assumption:
1. Zerg can scout 3rd&4th gas timings (Cloud Kingdom 4th gas is the only one hard to scout on ladder)
2. Zerg cannot scout any tech buildings including robo with overlord sacrifice. (not always reliable, so assume the worst)
3. Zerg cannot see the sentries with overlord sacrifice. (1 stalker is already out at 6:15 to kill the overlord)
4. Zerg can know that protoss doesn't have 7:30ish fast 3rd. (1 ling can easily scout it)
5. Zerg can see the move out around 9:00-9:30 in front of protoss base. (lings with careful micro is skill-based, not luck-based)
6. Zerg cannot find/kill all proxy pylons, espcially non-close ones. (It is OK to assume you can kill close proxy before 9:30, but hidden mid map ones are not always found/killable)"
In a typical game, you will not be certain that you've seen every last gateway. You can't always scout every last inch of his base, so you can't definitively rely on this. The difference between a 5gate robo expand and a 7gate robo all-in is minimal
|
On December 25 2012 09:55 xAdra wrote:
Looks to me like only Parting gets away with it most of the time. No other protoss pro employs it on as regular a basis as Parting does.
From my point of view it goes back to what is generally seen as a fundamental design issue in starcraft 2's PvZ:
Protoss needs to have perfect micro, zerg need protoss to NOT have perfect micro.
In other words, Zerg depends on protoss to make mistakes, much like how we need Zerg to make a critical mistake versus broodlord-infestor. Sure you can bait forcefields, but for someone who is as skilled as (or just has enough soul) like Parting, this tactic may not work so much. Also if you overextended just a teensy little bit when baiting, protoss cuts off a significant portion of your army.
Just how I see it from a toss p.o.v.
Skilled maybe, soul never. You can never have as much soul as Parting, hence why he is one of the most successful toss with this build.
|
tbh its just micro , crisp build order and decision making, with micro and decision making being parting's strongest point
|
On December 25 2012 10:03 Grobyc wrote:
The immortal-sentry allin is simply just a very powerful push due to the limitations of both races unit compositions at that point and the synergy of those Protoss units. That's it, there's not much else to it. A Zerg can know it's coming and still die to it easily, that's how strong it is. That doesn't answer the question. You can't simply say "This build is very powerful -- end of story". You need to explain why it cannot be countered. Otherwise the meta-game (yes, I am using it correctly) would never have evolved past "4 gate is very powerful". Infestors cannot be countered for reasons which are pretty clear...they can't be dodged and it's not realistic to feedback every single infestor. But I see no such argument regarding the immortal-sentry all-in. It's a super-fragile build which any slight delay will throw out of whack, and fails if somehow Zerg can procure a round of wasted force fields. So why is it so difficult to counter? That's my question.
|
PartinG has more soul than everybody else, that's why he's the only one who can make it work.
|
Not sure quite what you're looking for, but basically immo/sentry is hard to stop because immo/sentry is incredibly cost-effective vs roach/ling with good forcefields once the protoss gets to the zerg's base. So basically zerg has to waste a bunch of forcefield energy before the toss gets to his base.
However, in the current meta, ling speed finishes slightly after a good 8:50 moveout, and it is difficult to get out enough lings in time to be cost-effective vs the immo/sentry ball; you have to stop at or before 60 drones and have perfect macro. If you are a few seconds late, you lose; if you overdrone, you lose. Furthermore, you must maintain your macro back at home while engaging mid-map. Also, if the toss sees a ling mass and retreats, then waits for one round of zealots, you can no longer cost-effectively engage with lings. You must simply poke and prod with the lings, but toss doesn't really have to use FF's at this point since the zeals will shred the lings anyway. Combine that with a ton of FF's and immortals, which are tanky as hell, and it becomes one helluva push to stop.
|
Defenestrator, good answer. Starting to make sense to me now.
But one thing I don't understand (maybe it's a noob question; if so, I apologize): if it's just the zealots that are stopping you from baiting enough force fields, why not throw in some banelings? How does he stop that without using any force fields?
|
On December 25 2012 11:06 Rossie wrote:
Defenestrator, good answer. Starting to make sense to me now.
But one thing I don't understand (maybe it's a noob question; if so, I apologize): if it's just the zealots that are stopping you from baiting enough force fields, why not throw in some banelings? How does he stop that without using any force fields?
You really should've just asked or read the Immo/sentry all-in thread already quoted here several times.
The people you'll see answering here are very likely the same ones regarded as heading the initiative to finding a reliable way to killing it and still saving economy.
Forcefields stop Zerg units cold and prevents Z from microing at all.
The problem is that Zerg literally must achieve 60+ drones and 3 bases with 4 queens creep lair ling speed upgrades roach warren with upgrades and either a macro hatch or a 4th base while all this happens.
There is probably nothing you're going to be able to theorize or come up with we haven't already seen or heard and shot down a million times (your bane idea is incredibly old and recycled a lot) hence why I strongly recommend we close this and move back to the other thread where there's a ton more research being done.
|
On December 25 2012 11:45 sCCrooked wrote:
There is probably nothing you're going to be able to theorize or come up with we haven't already seen or heard and shot down a million times (your bane idea is incredibly old and recycled a lot) hence why I strongly recommend we close this and move back to the other thread where there's a ton more research being done. Even Nobel prize winners would hesitate mightily before making an argument from authority. And you aren't a Nobel prize winner by any stretch. You lack reading comprehension -- for instance, alluding to a guide in which the only mention of banelings was baneling drops (very different from my proposal of using banelings to provoke force fields).
If there is some reason why banelings can't be used in the way I suggested, then it won't hurt you to explain why.
|
On December 25 2012 11:58 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 11:45 sCCrooked wrote:
There is probably nothing you're going to be able to theorize or come up with we haven't already seen or heard and shot down a million times (your bane idea is incredibly old and recycled a lot) hence why I strongly recommend we close this and move back to the other thread where there's a ton more research being done. Even Nobel prize winners would hesitate mightily before making an argument from authority. And you aren't a Nobel prize winner by any stretch. You lack reading comprehension -- for instance, alluding to a guide in which the only mention of banelings was baneling drops (very different from my proposal of using banelings to provoke force fields. If there is some reason why banelings can't be used in the way I suggested, then it won't hurt you to explain why.
Because if you have banelings then Protoss will forcefield them away and kill them with his ranged units. And you'll lose a ton of resources for nothing.
I think the point some people are missing, is that Zerg is not at a position at that point in the game to throw away units. It's not a position where you can waste units, as long as you're wasting forcefield energy. If you waste units, you can't keep up.
|
On December 25 2012 12:04 sitromit wrote:
Because if you have banelings then Protoss will forcefield them away and kill them with his ranged units. And you'll lose a ton of resources for nothing. But that's the whole point. He burns his force fields energy. You've thereby exchanged your resources for force field energy. And then he's naked.
On December 25 2012 12:04 sitromit wrote:
I think the point some people are missing, is that Zerg is not at a position at that point in the game to throw away units. It's not a position where you can waste units, as long as you're wasting forcefield energy. If you waste units, you can't keep up. No. That reasoning is unsound. If force fields make the Toss army more cost effective, then it follows logically that force fields have a resource value in a particular battle. So maybe "banelings for force fields" is a good trade.
Of course, I'll defer to the expertise of anyone who has experimented with this. But anyone who has to resort to table-pounding and foot-stamping intimidation tactics to try to scare people into backing off has probably not carried out the experiment. Otherwise he would merely be pleased for a chance to relate the results, which have not, let's face it, been widely publicized.
|
United States7483 Posts
On December 25 2012 12:09 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 12:04 sitromit wrote:
Because if you have banelings then Protoss will forcefield them away and kill them with his ranged units. And you'll lose a ton of resources for nothing. But that's the whole point. He burns his force fields energy. You've thereby exchanged your resources for force field energy. And then he's naked.
Banelings are expensive, and making them will cut into your ling/roach count. It also hinders your ability to commit to a flank, and unless you engage with a large amount of forces (in which case you aren't baiting FF's anymore, you're committing), he won't have to forcefield to deal with the banelings, just do some basic micro.
|
On December 25 2012 11:58 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 11:45 sCCrooked wrote:
There is probably nothing you're going to be able to theorize or come up with we haven't already seen or heard and shot down a million times (your bane idea is incredibly old and recycled a lot) hence why I strongly recommend we close this and move back to the other thread where there's a ton more research being done. Even Nobel prize winners would hesitate mightily before making an argument from authority. And you aren't a Nobel prize winner by any stretch. You lack reading comprehension -- for instance, alluding to a guide in which the only mention of banelings was baneling drops (very different from my proposal of using banelings to provoke force fields). If there is some reason why banelings can't be used in the way I suggested, then it won't hurt you to explain why.
You're coming to a forum of experts asking for advice on a topic that is very commonly brought up and answered the same way every time. It gets old.
Your lack of understanding lead you to believe I was talking about bane drops when in fact I was referring to banes in general. You are in fact talking to someone who is quite a bit more of an authority than you are on this subject and it wouldn't hurt for you to show the community a little respect when a suggestion following our own etiquette and protocol is made. Instead you choose to throw petty insults like suggesting a lack of reading comprehension on my part while simultaneously demonstrating not only that your statement to me is ignorant and egotistical but also that you lack any knowledge on how this forum operates. My suggestion is simply asking you to read that which is already there.
|
On December 25 2012 12:09 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 12:04 sitromit wrote:
Because if you have banelings then Protoss will forcefield them away and kill them with his ranged units. And you'll lose a ton of resources for nothing. But that's the whole point. He burns his force fields energy. You've thereby exchanged your resources for force field energy. And then he's naked. Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 12:04 sitromit wrote:
I think the point some people are missing, is that Zerg is not at a position at that point in the game to throw away units. It's not a position where you can waste units, as long as you're wasting forcefield energy. If you waste units, you can't keep up. No. That reasoning is unsound. If force fields make the Toss army more cost effective, then it follows logically that force fields have a resource value in a particular battle. So maybe "banelings for force fields" is a good trade. Of course, I'll defer to the expertise of anyone who has experimented with this. But anyone who has to resort to table-pounding and foot-stamping intimidation tactics to try to scare people into backing off has probably not carried out the experiment. Otherwise he would merely be pleased for a chance to relate the results, which have not, let's face it, been widely publicized.
Baiting forcefields is not wasting units. If you've lost units, you can't say you're coming out ahead. You're also forgetting that in order to get banelings, you have to mine more gas, which results in less mineral income which results in less production of roaches (which, despite having 3 immortals, is still the most cost effective way Z has to deal with P prior to a proper dealthball).
|
On December 25 2012 12:30 sCCrooked wrote:
You're coming to a forum of experts asking for advice on a topic that is very commonly brought up and answered the same way every time. It gets old. Let me tell you something. I've corresponded over email with Nobel-prize winning scientists. They would never resort to argument from authority, and they aren't a hundredth as full of themselves as you are.
"Just take my word for it and accept that it is true". Who the hell do you think you are to give out such an injunction?
On December 25 2012 12:30 sCCrooked wrote:You are in fact talking to someone who is quite a bit more of an authority than you are on this subject and it wouldn't hurt for you to show the community a little respect when a suggestion following our own etiquette and protocol is made. sCCrooked isn't the community. And I already did refer to the opinion of Idra -- the top Zerg player who posts on this forum.
On December 25 2012 12:30 sCCrooked wrote:Instead you choose to throw petty insults like suggesting a lack of reading comprehension on my part while simultaneously demonstrating not only that your statement to me is ignorant and egotistical but also that you lack any knowledge on how this forum operates. My suggestion is simply asking you to read that which is already there. Which doesn't give an answer to my question on banelings. And the answer isn't to be found either on the thread which you referred to.
|
On December 25 2012 12:42 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 12:30 sCCrooked wrote:
You're coming to a forum of experts asking for advice on a topic that is very commonly brought up and answered the same way every time. It gets old. Let me tell you something. I've corresponded over email with Nobel-prize winning scientists. They would never resort to argument from authority, and they aren't a hundredth as full of themselves as you are. "Just take my word for it and accept that it is true". Just who the fuck do you think you are to give out such an injunction? Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 12:30 sCCrooked wrote:You are in fact talking to someone who is quite a bit more of an authority than you are on this subject and it wouldn't hurt for you to show the community a little respect when a suggestion following our own etiquette and protocol is made. "You" aren't the community. And I already did refer to the thoughts of Idra -- the top Zerg player who posts on this forum. Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 12:30 sCCrooked wrote:Instead you choose to throw petty insults like suggesting a lack of reading comprehension on my part while simultaneously demonstrating not only that your statement to me is ignorant and egotistical but also that you lack any knowledge on how this forum operates. My suggestion is simply asking you to read that which is already there. Which doesn't give an answer to my question on banelings. And the answer isn't to be found either on the thread which you referred to.
Look, you're looking more and more like an ego freak who is trolling the people of this forum. You can't come in here acting like you're a king and trying to kick down the people who spend a lot of time compiling information and expect us to respond well. Just like I might have no idea who you associated with, you also have no idea who I associate with. I have far more pro/semi-pro and connections within the e-sports organization than you probably are giving me credit for having.
I'm sure you think you're Nobel-winning and hang out with the elite of humanity but you've done nothing but be incredibly rude to those trying to help you.
That being said, I will do something that is in line with those Nobel-winners you're so fond of associating yourself with. I'm going to help you and refer you to other resources to support this stance, a good bit of which you'll find my contributions in regardless of how you've acted.
Winning with Ease
If you look at this series, he shows many types of holds with all 3 races. One of them is vs the immo/sentry. He executes it blindly with ling/bane vs a semi-pro friend of mine on isurus. Although it works, its mainly because of some pretty big mistakes by the P's execution. Darkness did not know the build at all and was just learning the style. Now he knows it considerably better and its a lot harder to do these things to him now that he knows how to position.
Your bane idea was actually my idea back then and we were testing this as far back as September. Since then I have found it ineffective at high masters and top 50 GM level on the NA server. banes that cannot reach their targets because of forcefields are useless.
The best counter I've found is to stop at 54-56 drones and make a round of speedlings before you make lair or macro hatch. Follow with lair and macro hatch, then make a round of roaches. The lings are for baiting ffs. The roaches are for attacking all the zealot warp-ins you're opponent will undoubtedly make in response to seeing all the lings.
My source for this counter? Simple. I suggested it and was experimenting with it in mass games vs GMs as long ago as November when Parting's variation was still brand new. Then we saw ST_Life do exactly as I theorized was possible in the Blizzard Cup GSL Grand Finals and it worked not just once, but twice.
My replays vs Top GMs are also in these threads and I beat them using my method as well. It works at the top top level.
|
On December 25 2012 12:42 Rossie wrote:
Let me tell you something. I've corresponded over email with Nobel-prize winning scientists. They would never resort to argument from authority, and they aren't a hundredth as full of themselves as you are.
You don't realize how full of yourself you sound when you tell everyone "I've corresponded with Nobel-prize winning scientists"? This is a SC2 forum, nobody gives a fuck how many scientists you've talked to.
|
On December 25 2012 12:46 sCCrooked wrote:
Look, you're looking more and more like an ego freak who is trolling the people of this forum. You can't come in here acting like you're a king and trying to kick down the people who spend a lot of time compiling information and expect us to respond well. "King"? It was the exact opposite. I was about as deferential as you realistically get short of backing down to browbeating intimidation tactics. You were the one who was condescending and acting like you were above it.
Whitefall has given a good answer to my question. That's all that I wanted: a couple of sentences, explaining why you feel teching to banelings isn't a good idea. The possibility still remains that some Code S Korean will unlock the full potential of the baneling nest. You don't know because you don't have precognition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
