|
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.
|
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.
Not really because after the toss forcefield and wipe all the banelings, he will then march onto your base and wipe everything else because you wont have anything left. This build hits at a timing where getting drop is risky (ovie speed + drop 300 gas down the drain) and baneling = more gas spending so you have to cut some drones meaning you wont be able to afford an army. Smaller army = toss can just split vs your baneling drops and they can target fire ovies. If you dont get drop, then you must at least get speed (slowblings can just be targeted down). The difference is that the toss will have A LOT of force field, parting goes somewhere like 12 sentries? Half of those sentries would have full energy and the rest would have at least half. That is about 30-45+ forcefield. No matter how much you trade, resources will never be good for energy, and what are you trading for ? After he uses his forcefield to kill your army, what can you make? Not infestor because all the gas went to banelings to delay forcefield, and zerglings get massacred by that toss ball without infestor backup and so will spines. Sure trading banelings for forcefield is fine, but at that time in the game, wasting that much gas on forcefield is not worth it (how many banelings are you planning to make?).
If you were to put 2 geyser at 6 minutes, thats 114 gas per minute from each of those geyers ~. Then maybe another 2 geyser at 7 minutes (more geyser = less drone mining = less units) and the push hits around 9 minutes. and remember, you gotta spend some gas for lair/zerglingspeed/ some upgrades (centrifugal hooks/drop(maybe)/ovie speed(if you are getting drops)). This doesnt give you much gas or time to both tech/make units so maybe you have one try to do this baneling drop/baneling bait. Hence, banelings to bait forcefield is not a good idea because you wouldn't actually be baiting the sentries, you would actually just having the toss use the forcefield to actually kill the banelings. Unless somehow you are imagining the toss miss the forcefield completely and all your banelings gets away which doesnt happen off creep. Like Destiny once said on some random video of his, "its forcefield, it's not throwing darts at a dartboard", protoss will not miss the forcefield and your banelings will die.
|
On December 25 2012 12:56 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I also answered your question but I answered it when other people asked them and I've been answering the same questions about "why have you tried this?" for 4+ months now.
I referred you to the other threads because they're tens of pages long. If you're really such a knowledgeable researcher in the science fields (you're talking to another one right here and I recognize those who preach the mentality and the philosophy of the scientific method without actually following it) you'd do all your reading and you'd find all the solutions that have worked before and thus are being explored further.
I gave you references, I gave you information and you still act so childishly egotistical and rude. I cannot help you further than I already have in this manner.
|
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.
There's a difference between accepting an argument because the one who's making it is an authority and accepting an argument because it's been done over to death numerous times with no definite conclusion.
|
On December 25 2012 12:51 Enhancer_ wrote:
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. I only gave a personal example to add it some colour; I'm not saying anyone should give a shit. The only point I was trying to demonstrate was that EVEN THEY aren't sufficiently full of themselves to use arguments from authority. Even their domain of expertise isn't considered sufficiently advanced that they don't have to explain themselves.
|
On December 25 2012 12:56 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Oh for the love of god, if you want to bicker like children get off the forum. I wanted to read about the topic, not wade through this shit.
|
On December 25 2012 13:00 sCCrooked wrote:
I also answered your question but I answered it when other people asked them and I've been answering the same questions about "why have you tried this?" for 4+ months now. Talk about ego? You don't own these forums. Questions are likely to get repeated. That's the nature of a forum. Nobody gives a shit if some guy called sCCrooked has already given an answer buried in the middle of some old thread that's five dozen pages long. It only becomes a concern if members are constantly spamming threads on the same question, and that is not what is happening here, even remotely.
Not to mention that you still haven't linked to a prior post in which you gave an answer to the question I raised.
|
On December 25 2012 13:00 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 12:51 Enhancer_ wrote:
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. I only gave a personal example to add it some colour; I'm not saying anyone should give a shit. The only point I was trying to demonstrate was that EVEN THEY aren't sufficiently full of themselves to use arguments from authority. Even their domain of expertise isn't considered sufficiently advanced that they don't have to explain themselves.
Sorry but this is a game forum. There are actually people here who really do know what they're talking about and try to help others who are nice in how they ask.
You immediately attach that we shouldn't be allowed to speak from authority when you're asking a very basic question that not only is best answered in another thread but there's sufficient resources and people already monitoring it that you'll probably get a bigger audience. Who are you to come in here and tell everyone who speaks from experience they're out of line because you've sent an email to some Nobel-winner guy and got a response? Do you not see how we're thinking "... who the hell is this guy?"
We're trying to help you despite your question being very old and having already been answered many times by us. I'm sure if you went with such a demanding attitude to Stephen Hawking and told him he was out of line for speaking with authority on the subject of Physics, you would simply be laughed out of the room.
|
Wow Rossie, ease it up. Posters should read topics like Z help me thread and "how to defend sentry immo all-in" before creating new topics themselves. This rule aims at avoiding a situation where a thousand threads with exactly the same op appears every week. Because you are not the only one wondering about this all-in, why wouldnt you read the threads that specifically talks about it before creating your own topic? It simply makes sens. Your question are very likely to be answered there. (I didnt say they would be for sure, but to keep the forum clean, you should've read them first if you didnt).
About authority, scientists, of course, never use the argument of autority if the form of "I know, you dont, now listen and dont dare to think by yourself". But EVERY scientific in the world will agree that there are some authorities that needs to be studied before writing anything of your own. What kind of scientist would you be if you tried to write something about a specific topic without knowing what others have wrote before? If scientists worked that way, each scientist would work on his own and it would simply make their research meaningless. If you are to write a new theory about a specific field, you have to take other major scientific works seriously and explain why you disagree with them. It means you have to read them first.
About the all-in, I think a there is a set of reasons why it is powerfull. The first reason according to me, is that 3 hatch gasless builds are standard as an answer to forge fe because they provide the best possible economy against the most economical build protoss can come up with. And unless you want to cheese, you want economy, dont you?
This way of thinking about the match up lead to a situation where zergs are left with low tech unit by 10:00, mainly ling and roaches, some would say lings and roaches only.
Forcefields are insanely powerfull against those low tier units because 1) ling heavys styles needs, i'd say, more than 4 hatcheries to produce of 54 drones (seems to me that if u pump ling only and have 2 gas, you're going to float minerals for sure)
2) roaches are hard countered by forcefields and immortals. Ideally, forcefields will trap some roaches in that get smashed in 3 seconds and leave the rest of the army unable to help. Then protoss can repeat the process if he is in a tiny choke untill he can take a frontal assault from the Z because he will have killed too many units for free.
3) combination of ling roach seems better because it's more easily produced, because lings tank immortals shot easily and because they're harder to forcefield out. Especially, if you forcefield them out, roaches can still fire on your unit from outside the forcefields since the said forcefields have to hug your own units. So you need to use forcefields differently against ling and against roaches and there are no ideal forcefields against a combination of both (unless you're in a tiny choke)
4) because the solution 3) would be easy to execute for Z if maps didnt have a continuous change of open spaces where you can engage and tiny chokes where u cant. It means Zergs must be ready during a very precise window to engage from multiple angles, bait forcefields and retreat. Doing so once will sometimes not even be enough. And how can you see that window coming? It requires to scout non-stop the position of the protoss army, which requires insane control if you're macroing at the same time since it requires to have your units at all time close enough to the protoss forces that they could die if you didnt pay attention for 2-3 seconds. Even pros have a hard time baiting forcefields for no unit lost continuously because they dont wanna slip on their macro and if you have to inject, your window for your triple front forcefield bait might be gone, windows are like 3-4 seconds wide or something.
So, to sum up, Z have to see it coming, dont slip in macro and control 2-3 different army groups at the same time, knowing they cant let a single of those groups uncontrolled for more than 3 seconds in a row. If they're too far and out of danger, they might also not have enough time to attack when the protoss is in the very precise area where you have to engage.
|
On December 25 2012 12:57 phodacbiet wrote:
Not really because after the toss forcefield and wipe all the banelings, he will then march onto your base and wipe everything else because you wont have anything left. This build hits at a timing where getting drop is risky (ovie speed + drop 300 gas down the drain)... NO. Please. I am not suggesting dropping banelings into the sentries. The idea was that you get some banelings to draw force fields and get him to waste all his energy. Not using force fields would be extremely dicey for a Protoss, as he could lose all his sentries. Even the best micro in the world can't hide 10-12 sentries from enough banes. Once the force fields are gone, you can engage cost effectively and hopefully win if you have enough army. If he has no force fields he can't stop you moving forward with roaches to kill his immortals.
As for this being too expensive...I don't see how it's any more expensive than mutas. A baneling nest is 100/50 compared with 200/200 for a spire. 10 banes costs 500/250, compared with 1000/1000 for 10 mutas.
|
On December 25 2012 13:17 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 12:57 phodacbiet wrote:
Not really because after the toss forcefield and wipe all the banelings, he will then march onto your base and wipe everything else because you wont have anything left. This build hits at a timing where getting drop is risky (ovie speed + drop 300 gas down the drain)... NO. Please. I am not suggesting dropping banelings into the sentries. The idea was that you get some banelings to draw force fields and get him to waste all his energy. Not using force fields would be extremely dicey for a Protoss, as he could lose all his sentries. Even the best micro in the world can't hide 10-12 sentries from enough banes. Once the force fields are gone, you can engage cost effectively and hopefully win if you have enough army. If he has no force fields he can't stop you moving forward with roaches to kill his immortals.
Once again I already linked you to a VOD of a friend pulling off regular old bane/ling vs the 10:00 3 immo/sentry all-in. The idea of ling/bane was mine and as already stated, I was pulling it off as early as August of this year before this style was even all that popular.
However good Ps will have better positioning and will use ffs to keep the banes out. They can even stick the immortals up front so after the ffs go up, immo/sentry fire kills all your banes. You can't possibly have speed done so slow banes are it and they're too slow to do anything against Parting's version which isn't a 10:00, but a 8:50 move-out timing.
My newest findings are roach/ling-based and were proven by ST_LIfe vs Parting himself very recently although you have to have paid to see those games.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My gosu sleuthing seems to have greatly shortened this thread's life and also explains why the OP is so rude and didn't even read the other threads lol
Quoted from http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=360647¤tpage=25#494 which is the other more complete and official discussion of ZvP: Defeating the Sentry/Immortal thread
On December 23 2012 05:16 Rossie wrote:
It's not hard to defeat the sentry-immortal all-in. You merely have to make Toss waste their force fields on the other side of the map. Then it's gg. The fact that this appears to be an "advanced concept" for Zerg players says a lot about the creativity, or rather the lack thereof, of that community.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 25 2012 10:47 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Excuse me, can you point out where I wrote "This build is very powerful -- end of story"? Because as far as I know quotation marks are used to word for word copy a phrase/passage from somewhere and I don't see that in my post. In fact, it looks like you just cut out half of my post in your response which had important information pertaining to my point.
I did answer your question, perhaps you will be able to see that if I put it in point form. I'm going to take the exact same information I posted and reword it here with spoilers containing information I thought was obvious:
- At the point of time for the push, there are limitations of what units compositions the players can have. Hint: it's a timing attack
+ Show Spoiler +If it isn't obvious what these units are they are roaches and lings for Zerg (or mutas if they went fast fast mutas which is gone over in the thread I linked) and zealots, sentries, stalkers, and immortals for Protoss
- These Protoss units have a high synergy level against the units that Zerg has.
+ Show Spoiler ++1 Zealots kill speedlings, immortals and stalkers kill roaches, forcefields enable good engagements for Protoss to let the other units do their job effectively
- Zerg has a difficult time scouting and anticipating the push
- Zerg has a difficult time eliminating all proxy pylons
Those four important points help in answering your question.
Also, I never said the build can't be countered, I just said it's very powerful. If it couldn't be countered Protoss would win 100% with it.
Otherwise the meta-game (yes, I am using it correctly) would never have evolved past "4 gate is very powerful".
I don't know how to answer this because I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. Let me direct you to a wiki that reiterates what I said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming
used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.
Which translates to what I said. I'm wondering how this is relevant to explaining why the immortal-sentry allin is so strong. The immortal-sentry allin is hard to stop because of the four points I listed above. None of those four points have anything to do with the meta-game, they are all in-game factors that directly impact the game. There's probably other, less important points to add too, but I felt those were especially important.
In the end, it seems like you're trying to discuss how to beat it now, but that second part is what the whole discussion is about in the first thread I linked, so if your question has been answered now (which it appears to have been), you'd probably benefit most by moving the discussion there.
|
On December 25 2012 13:28 sCCrooked wrote:
Once again I already linked you to a VOD of a friend pulling off regular old bane/ling vs the 10:00 3 immo/sentry all-in. The idea of ling/bane was mine and as already stated, I was pulling it off as early as August of this year before this style was even all that popular. And your "friend" utterly cleans the guy's clock. That's the only VOD you cite. Way to prove me wrong.
[However good Ps will have better positioning and will use ffs to keep the banes out. They can even stick the immortals up front so after the ffs go up, immo/sentry fire kills all your banes. You can't possibly have speed done so slow banes are it and they're too slow to do anything against Parting's version which isn't a 10:00, but a 8:50 move-out timing. OF COURSE he will use FF. That is the entire point. Get him to use FF, THEN kill his immortals with roach/ling. You're thinking in terms of killing him outright with bane/ling, whereas I'm talking about something quite different. I'm talking about baiting FF with bane/lings on the other side of the map, then finish him off with roach/ling when he arrives at your third with no force field energy.
|
On December 25 2012 13:17 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 12:57 phodacbiet wrote:
Not really because after the toss forcefield and wipe all the banelings, he will then march onto your base and wipe everything else because you wont have anything left. This build hits at a timing where getting drop is risky (ovie speed + drop 300 gas down the drain)... NO. Please. I am not suggesting dropping banelings into the sentries. The idea was that you get some banelings to draw force fields and get him to waste all his energy. Not using force fields would be extremely dicey for a Protoss, as he could lose all his sentries. Even the best micro in the world can't hide 10-12 sentries from enough banes. Once the force fields are gone, you can engage cost effectively and hopefully win if you have enough army. If he has no force fields he can't stop you moving forward with roaches to kill his immortals. As for this being too expensive...I don't see how it's any more expensive than mutas. A baneling nest is 100/50 compared with 200/200 for a spire. 10 banes costs 500/250, compared with 1000/1000 for 10 mutas.
Banelings don't trade efficiently with any toss unit except for sentries. You should not be able to hit his sentries with banelings while they still have force fields. They are able to cross the map and don't run out of force fields until they hit your third/natural. Once they hit the third/natural, they spread out and get a better concave, see they clump as they come across so that they can either FF across from map walls AND they can encircle themselves from ling surrounds but when they are at your base the zealots move out front, ranged are in the back and are spread in a concave around your base. Force fields here are used entirely to block chokes to limit reinforcements.
If you are suggesting attacking with the banelings to force the force fields, why would you do that (attack with a weak, low hp no armor, expensive unit) to draw out FF's when you can draw out FF's with zerglings? Since we can already draw out FF's with zerglings and toss still crosses the map as we are down all the zerglings lost, how is drawing out FF's with a more expensive unit better? Further, if you do use banelings to draw out force fields, you won't have enough roaches to mop up due to gas cost.
Also, unless you can get a surround with the 2.5 speed unit, toss could control click the sentries and pull them back through the immortals/stalkers/zealots (banelings do not trade efficiently with zealots unless you hit about 5 per baneling).
Expensive wise, there is a difference in approach. When you go muta against immortal sentry, you are aiming to base trade. Your muta's should take out the warp prism and run to their base to depower the gateways/kill sentries/walls so that your lings can backstab in. Muta's do not come out in time to kill the sentry/immortal push, unless P did not warp in any stalkers. Unless you have a VOD of a sentry immortal push that leaves at 8:50, hits just before/around 10 minutes and the main force is killed by muta/ling.
Since going baneling is looking to kill their army with your bane/lings, banes do not do much for their expense compared to roaches. A baneling is about 3 roach attacks on sentries/zealots and 1.25 roach attacks on anything else, but they can only attack once and have very low hp/armor.
|
Its the only all-in in the game that you can know is coming before the game, and still get rolled. It has an insanely high win ratio. Beating it almost relies entirely on the protoss making mistakes, and on certain maps it damn near impossible to beat if done well. You can't "bait out" 100 force fields before they back you into a corner, and once that happens your army is useless. The build is clearly over-powered and everyone knows it , how many times do you watch a tournament where Z just gets rolled by this build. It has been around forever now and no one has figured out a consistent strat to beat it which shows just how powerful it is.
However if you nerf it does Z get to BL Infestor quickly a higher percentage of the time and their win ratio suddenly jump up? Idk but this build makes me want to quit the game.
|
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.
Another toss chiming in; this is pretty much exactly how I feel.
Edit: Read more of the thread. OP seems a bit defensive TT.
Also, temp banned for this already? >.<
|
hmmm looks like this topic isn't going anywhere....
Anyways, to answer the question on the title of the thread:
- Defending the immortal all in isn't hard because of your micro (u won't be able to micro much anyways), but rather because you have to follow your build pretty much perfectly for the 11 mins the game will last, a missing inject can make all the difference between life and death.
- Its also difficult because it relies more on the protoss's ability to force field and gain ground (positioning and pushing) rather than your ability to flank and control your army.
- Its incredibly difficult to scout, because protoss can hide the immortals. Seeing sentries, +1 being researched, or a robo doesn't tell you anything besides the fact that the protoss will either try to expand or all in you (even if you see his first unit from the robo is an observer it can still be an immo all in, if you see two obs though then you can be sure its an expand build)
- The responses to the build have to be in your mind even before the game starts (if you are gonna use fast mutalisks, Fast infestors, or just pure roach ling is a decision you make conciously before you even scout the build, scouting the immortals is just your TRIGGER).
----
To add to this, banelings do NOT work, force fields block banelings, they will never hit the protoss army, if you take the time to watch any of parting's games you will see that he actually does not runs out of force fields until he pretty much has the game in the bag. Also I've used the immortal all ins on zergs that have tried banelings and its the easiest response to stomp, like literally u can even have the immortal suck banelings then lift it with the warp prism when the shields are down (or if they are good enough to keep the banelings from hitting the immortals you just get a few free shots).
|
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. It's like chargelot archon vs mass marauder.
The protoss player can minimize the attack surface from zerglings with not so many force fields (because of zealots which are good against lings so you don't need to FF around them). FF are also very good against roaches since they have only 3 range. Even if you miss some of them, you can load the immortals into the prism and drop them behind. Then, it's not needed to add that they have insane DPS against roaches.
Finally, the zerg player can't even try to defend himself with spinecrawlers because they die in only 2 shots against 3 immortals (and also make only 10 damage to their shields instead of 30).
|
Do what IdrA said + flank, even most pro players still fail at it and headbutt the roaches into FF's at their 3rd, so depressing to watch them playing so bad and then complain. I mean, IdrA holds it off correctly and he used to have the worst ZvP in universe, and likes to throw his units away.
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.
|
At this point, I believe everyone can soundly agree Rossie has absolutely no fucking clue what he is talking about.
Primary problem with banelings.
1. Speed will never finish during the all in
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.
3. You are spending extra resources on a tech structure when zerg would already be stressed on resources to hold the all in.
4. banes are simply expensive, and not worth getting simply to bait FF and die.
|
On December 25 2012 19:46 Asmodeusx wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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
