|
On December 25 2012 20:17 KingAlphard wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 19:46 Asmodeusx wrote:On December 25 2012 16:53 KingAlphard wrote:
It's a matter of unit composition. At that point, a zerg playing standard can have only roaches and lings, which are hard countered by zealot+sentries+immortals. The only thing that counters lings and roaches there are forcefields/positioning/micro. I'm tired of people saying that stalkers/imortals counter roaches. Just open a test map and a move equal cost of those units against eachother, you'll see it's all about micro. In a world without micro zealots beat roaches and speedlings beats zealots, and drones beat stalkers. So stop saying that X unit counters Y when its PLAIN WRONG. It's annoying, misleading, and doesn't solve anything. So you are saying that when people at first read "immortal sentry all in" think that they build a bunch of sentries and then amove with them? It's obvious that if you play with a caster based composition you need to micro them. Not all the people are as stupid as you think. Also I described carefully the importance of force fields and warp prism micro, so what is the point of your post? The only explanation I can find is that you didn't even read after the first line.
Read my post again.
|
Incredibly useless thread, op doesn't do his homework (there are several threads on this already) and then acts bewildered when people call him out on it. Then he tries to talk down to people who are actually just being upfront with his poor theorycrafting.
|
On December 25 2012 20:19 Asmodeusx wrote:
Read my post again.
When I say " immortal/sentry counters roach/ling" I don't mean that in amove vs amove it wins with a big edge. It's implied that you know how to use a composition, otherwise it's your fault if you lose.
I can agree that if this all in is executed at bronze level it is harder for the protoss player (since roach/ling requires less micro) but I don't think it's the point of the discussion.
Again, it's a matter of unit composition, because the zerg player can't have lair tech units at that timing (if he plays standard) which would be quite good against immortals/sentries/zealots.
|
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.
I'm sorry but i'm intrigued.
Doing this build order (round of speedlings/macro hatch/round of roaches) you have enough unit to bait FF, starting from his base ?
:O
|
The reason is rather simple:
it's because of the ridiculous hardiness of P units (meaning you need to hit them hard and often before they go down), combined with the fact that they lose absolutely nothing in the first engagements except energy due to FFs, and that they reinforce not from their bases but directly in your face with Warpprisms and Pylons.
Basically, they get more and more stuff that's hard to kill in the first place while losing absolutely nothing, and the Zerg shreds wave after wave of inefficient units and reinforcements into their ball. In addition, this attack hits before Zerg can have ANY serious tech on the field.
Pretty simple concept. Oh, and you can't possibly "bait out" 14 sentries worth of energy.
|
On December 25 2012 19:51 ktimekiller wrote:
At this point, I believe everyone can soundly agree Rossie has absolutely no fucking clue what he is talking about. Come on. I wasn't insisting it would work; I was just offering one particular suggestion and asking why it wouldn't work. So far only one or two people have given a valid reason (which turns out to be more of a "maybe" than a knock-down argument).
I have no intention of responding point-by-point to every insulting post in the thread. In fact, this will probably be my last post. But just as an example of a general trend we're seeing, I'd like to demonstrate that you don't give a single valid reason why the build wouldn't work, and there's nothing to your post but content-free posturing and browbeating intimidation tactics.
On December 25 2012 19:51 ktimekiller wrote:1. Speed will never finish during the all in We're not talking about attacking stimmed marines, but units with relatively low DPS, or rate of fire in the case of immortals. And they're still faster than sentries even without speed. And as has observed by another commenter, even A-move with banes and lings (without the follow-up with roaches) has been known to work against fairly good players.
On December 25 2012 19:51 ktimekiller wrote:2. Due to the cost inefficiencies of bane against all toss units in early stages of the game minus sentry, the toss has to simply FF his own sentries, thus HIGHLY minimizing the need to preemptively FF in any complicated manner. As long as FFs cover sentries, even if the banes connect, it is in the toss' favor. No. Dumb argument. Roach/ling isn't just cost inefficient, but massively cost inefficient against a well-microed sentry-immortal. And generally speaking if Toss loses all his sentries or force field energy then the push fails. And a simple bit of arithmetic suggests that Zerg can afford banelings + zerglings + a good amount of roaches for the same cost in worker production (i.e. converting the excess gas to minerals) as teching to spire and getting mutas.
On December 25 2012 19:51 ktimekiller wrote:3. You are spending extra resources on a tech structure when zerg would already be stressed on resources to hold the all in. By that logic, mutas would be a no-go. And that puts you in opposition with every Code S and grandmaster Zerg who seriously entertains mutas as a counter.
4. banes are simply expensive, and not worth getting simply to bait FF and die. For which you give no argument. It stands to reason that if force fields tend to increase the cost effectiveness of an army (and they most definitely do), then they have a value in resources in any particular battle. Maybe banes are worth the trade; who knows? You don't give any reason why not. You don't give any arithmetic or even claim to have done the experiment.
I happily defer to the experience of anyone who has actually tried the strategy of using bane/ling to deplete sentry energy and following up with roach/ling to finish the job. That's very different from being put off by armchair theorists who browbeatingly pound their fists on the coffee table whenever someone doesn't appear to be fully convinced.
User was temp banned for this post.
User was temporarily forum banned for this post.
|
On December 25 2012 10:03 Grobyc wrote:Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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
There is a meta in that the both sides can guess how the opponent will react to or execute the said build, thus influencing how they execute the build or how the zerg chooses to start off the game with the plan of defending said all-in in mind.
|
Pretty simple concept. Oh, and you can't possibly "bait out" 14 sentries worth of energy. You can. Idra does it again grandmasters all the time on his stream, and that's his recommended strategy. Please read the OP.
|
On December 25 2012 21:56 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 19:51 ktimekiller wrote:1. Speed will never finish during the all in We're not talking about attacking stimmed marines, but units with relatively low DPS, or rate of fire in the case of immortals. And they're still faster than sentries even without speed. And as has observed by another commenter, even A-move with banes and lings (without the follow-up with roaches) has been known to work against fairly good players.
But it is still relying on protoss making a mistake. You have a fairly slow unit, banelings, that move at 2.5 speed. The only unit they need to protect from the banelings are sentries, so they can easily control click them and pull them back through the immortal/zealot/stalker. Further, they could just use force fields to defend themselves with, the same amount of force fields they would need to use if you attacked them with zerglings. So how do you think you will be forcing more force fields with banelings, then you would be forcing with just zerglings? If you do not have a reason why you will be forcing more force fields with bane/sling vs just sling, then you are just risking more expensive units when you try to trade for force fields.
On December 25 2012 21:56 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 19:51 ktimekiller wrote:2. Due to the cost inefficiencies of bane against all toss units in early stages of the game minus sentry, the toss has to simply FF his own sentries, thus HIGHLY minimizing the need to preemptively FF in any complicated manner. As long as FFs cover sentries, even if the banes connect, it is in the toss' favor. No. Dumb argument. Roach/ling isn't just cost inefficient, but massively cost inefficient against a well-microed sentry-immortal. And generally speaking if Toss loses all his sentries or force field energy then the push fails. And a simple bit of arithmetic suggests that Zerg can afford banelings + zerglings + a good amount of roaches for the same cost in worker production (i.e. converting the excess gas to minerals) as teching to spire and getting mutas.
As I said above and in my previous post, why do you think bane/sling will force more force fields as they cross the map vs pure sling? You get a surround on sentry/immortal with sling and you can stop it anyway as sentry/immortal is not efficient against slings. However, you don't get that surround as they do FF out your lings anyway. You seem to be under the impression that making them burn force fields, any at all, is the magical way to win. However they can have enough sentries to burn force fields as they come across keeping slings out and still have enough once they get to your base.
On December 25 2012 21:56 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 19:51 ktimekiller wrote:3. You are spending extra resources on a tech structure when zerg would already be stressed on resources to hold the all in. By that logic, mutas would be a no-go. And that puts you in opposition with every Code S and grandmaster Zerg who seriously entertains mutas as a counter.
Do you have any replays/VOD's of zerg going muta that held a well executed sentry/immortal all in? Guardian shield tends to work wonders against mutas and they need less force fields since you don't have a sizeable roach army. Generally, muta's work by taking out the warp prism to delay reinforcements/high ground vision and then go and assist in a base trade as you spine up. When using muta's, you aren't trying to hold the attack, you are using your spread out bases and speed/high dps (of lings) to win a base race.
On December 25 2012 21:56 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +4. banes are simply expensive, and not worth getting simply to bait FF and die. For which you give no argument. It stands to reason that if force fields tend to increase the cost effectiveness of an army (and they most definitely do), then they have a value in resources in any particular battle. Maybe banes are worth the trade; who knows? You don't give any reason why not. You don't give any arithmetic or even claim to have done the experiment. I happily defer to the experience of [b]anyone who has actually tried the strategy of using bane/ling to deplete sentry energy and following up with roach/ling to finish the job. That's very different from being put off by armchair theorists who browbeatingly pound their fists on the coffee table whenever someone doesn't appear to be fully convinced.
Most of us have. Toss is coming across bunched up, one of their key units is light, 3 of their units are low dps against zerglings, the fourth is also light. It sounds like theorycrafters would love to use sling/bane against it. However it does not work as well as the banelings are too slow and it is too easy to force field out the banelings, after a few have been killed. Further these are not 'extra' force fields that roach/ling does not pull out as they need to FF out the speedlings anyway. It is usually the second warp in where there are enough zealots to make a pure speedling surround not efficient, and at this point they are outside your third.
|
On December 25 2012 22:23 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +Pretty simple concept. Oh, and you can't possibly "bait out" 14 sentries worth of energy. You can. Idra does it again grandmasters all the time on his stream, and that's his recommended strategy. Please read the OP.
IdrA doing it against some non-pro non-korean scrubs doesn't bring too much to the table, really. Any strategy that relies on the opponent making mistakes isn't a counter strategy.
The problem atm is, this is the only really uncounterable strategy that's even hard to hold when you know it's coming when the game starts. Against every other build, there's a more or less simple answer along the lines of "well, just go X and you're miles ahead when he does this strategy".
|
Show nested quote +4. banes are simply expensive, and not worth getting simply to bait FF and die. For which you give no argument. It stands to reason that if force fields tend to increase the cost effectiveness of an army (and they most definitely do), then they have a value in resources in any particular battle. Maybe banes are worth the trade; who knows? You don't give any reason why not. You don't give any arithmetic or even claim to have done the experiment.
Neither you do.
Come back with replays showing that it can work. But until now, people who tried that didnt manage to win, so they didnt suggest this as a counter.
|
On December 25 2012 22:29 Mahtasooma wrote:
IdrA doing it against some non-pro non-korean scrubs doesn't bring too much to the table, really. Any strategy that relies on the opponent making mistakes isn't a counter strategy. Hardly "scrubs", and100% of the QQing in this thread and elsewhere about immortal-sentry all-in is by Zergs who aren't close to Code S level. If non-pro is irrelevant to the discussion, then master-level Zergs should stop QQing about their own personal experience against the all-in.
And another way to look at it is that the micro of the Zerg is also a big factor. If you don't get good flanks, don't even attempt to deplete force field energy, then you don't deserve to win.
|
lol was getting temp banned not enough?
you should probably look into how life handled the immortal/sentry all ins from parting in the blizzard cup finals
|
On December 25 2012 22:47 musai wrote:
lol was getting temp banned not enough?
I'm also wondering this.. he was actually temp banned for exactly the same statement before.
|
On December 25 2012 20:42 Insoleet wrote:Show nested quote +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. I'm sorry but i'm intrigued. Doing this build order (round of speedlings/macro hatch/round of roaches) you have enough unit to bait FF, starting from his base ? :O
Yes you will. 40+ speedlings do pretty well and arrive at his base at 8:30 with speed done. This is a full 20 seconds before parting himself is able to execute this push. Anyone we face will be inferior to his execution.
I refer you to this post in the other thread summarizing all my findings on stopping immo/sentry.
Please keep in mind this is just my findings and my opinions. Nothing more.
On December 25 2012 23:57 Mahtasooma wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 22:47 musai wrote:
lol was getting temp banned not enough?
I'm also wondering this.. he was actually temp banned for exactly the same statement before.
You guys are continuing a discussion with someone that should've stopped at the second page basically lol.
If you had read the previous 2 pages of his posts, you'd know this was like talking to a brick wall. He was just being a silly child of a troll yet again at the expense of those foolish enough to actually try discussing things with him or rendering him aid.
|
it all comes down to forcefield usage and how "well"(how many units were trapped) they were placed, It also has everything to do with the size of the ramp. Smaller ramps only need 1 ff to block off 1 base ( most often your main from helping )
like the OP has posted you must bait well and even then it is still difficult, but if the bait doesn't go well, well you probably will not be doing so well when the army gets to the z base
|
if you really want to counter immortal sentry, you really need to do something out of standard to beat it, and if the protoss knows it, he just transitions into later but safer third with more units and tech to twilight quickly, thats why its hard to take down immortalsentry, because you normally use them as defence for your third base, but you also can use them for an all in attack. also this strat purely works for top of the top protoss with incredible execution and micro like Parting for example to be really really strong
|
Ohana LE is to blame. It's an issue of the current map pool imo.
|
On December 25 2012 23:57 sCCrooked wrote:I refer you to this post in the other thread summarizing all my findings on stopping immo/sentry.
Interesting findings... you should think about making a guide out of these Life vs PartinG finals as you said.
I will be toying around with a 9:10 speed and +1/+1 timing for lings, as zealots won't be too much of an issue here. I will be at lower supply, but 1 supply of +1/+1 lings is obviously more useful than 1 supply of +0/+0 lings against +1 zealots.
Gasses need to be taken at 5:30ish and +1/+1 needs to start before speed because of upgrade time for this. Delay Lair, skip warren. But who am I to judge :D
|
On December 26 2012 01:23 wcLLg wrote:
Ohana LE is to blame. It's an issue of the current map pool imo.
If you're referring to ladder pool, then there are MUCH worse maps and even if you're referring to competitive play, TDA is still somehow managed to stay hidden in the rotation and it's not unlikely to see SP from time to time either..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
