|
Its time to enjoy the matches, keep the whining out of this thread. GL HF!
Also, don't reply to the whining and ignore it: have faith in the mods, we read every post and act swiftly. You're making it worse. Enjoy! |
United States17042 Posts
On April 18 2011 07:27 Authweight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 07:24 Azarkon wrote:On April 18 2011 07:13 VoirDire wrote:On April 18 2011 06:56 sc2olorin wrote:On April 18 2011 06:44 Azarkon wrote:
The backbone of the Protoss late-game vs. Zerg is basically mass blink stalkers. Retaining stalker count is everything. The high-tech units are there to support. How many colossi you mass really isn't as important as how many stalkers you mass as it's those crucial units that give Protoss the versatility to handle Zerg tech switches.
Every Protoss unit but the stalker is basically specialized. For this reason the main variation in Protoss composition comes from what you add to your stalker army. If Zerg goes muta ling or baneling, you add HTs. If Zerg goes roaches or ultras, you add immortals. If Zerg goes hydras, you add colossi. If Zerg goes broodlord you might consider adding some void rays.
The point of getting Infestors is to cut down on that stalker count. Stalkers are relatively expensive, and they are armored, so they take extra damage from FG, and when held in place by FG they will fall cost efficiently to roaches. The issue with going Infestors however is that Blink Stalkers can snipe your Infestors if the Protoss has fast reaction time, and Colossi in the back can do the same. Having the level of control necessary to land FGs and keep down the number of stalkers is going to be critical to doing well. Excellent post. I disagree, actually. In the lategame, stalkers are what vultures were in sc1 T-mech style. They are mobile buffer units, meant for map control/harass/dealing with drops etc, and from preventing the real muscle (void/colossus) from getting picked of. Most zerg units are pretty cost effective against stalkers. The only time in lategame when you'd want to focus on your stalker-army is if the Z has overproduced corrupters. This really isn't the right way to look at it, and I think if Zergs are looking at it this way then that is one reason they are losing. In BW TvP, you couldn't win the game if your tanks died, and the entire game was about retaining high tank count. Vultures were throw away units in this respect, though in some cases you can harass your opponent to death with them. In SC 2, however, it's the opposite. You make Colossi EXPECTING them to die, and your hope is that they'll force the Zerg to produce enough Corruptors that your Stalkers can mop up the Zerg army after your Colossi are dead. This is actually the insight that allowed Protoss players to go from losing a huge number of PvZs to winning almost all of them - not over-building Colossi. Most pro Protoss players get by with just 2-4 Colossi at most. The bulk of the army is stalkers. PvZ today really isn't about protecting your Colossi until you have a critical mass of them. It's more about protecting your Stalkers until you have a critical mass of them. Blink Stalkers are actually cost efficient vs. most Zerg units but that's not really the point. The point is that a few specialized Protoss support units can make your army VERY cost efficient as long as you have a lot of stalkers. The basis of the Protoss army in SC 2 is really stalker + support. You don't need to make a lot of support units. You just need a few. For this reason losing all your support units isn't that important, but losing all your stalkers is. By contrast, in BW if you lost all your vultures your tank army is still powerful enough to stand on its own until you rebuild those vultures. In SC 2 if you lose all your stalkers it's basically game over if the opponent has anything resembling an economy/army left since they can just stream units to your base until you crumble. Stalker retention is a key concept of PvZ, in a way reminiscent though not exactly the same as tank retention in BW TvP. Wow, this is really insightful actually, I hadn't seen it like that before
possibly the more correct way to think about it is thinking about stalkers exactly like dragoons - you can have a dragoon backbone, but to deal with hydralisks in bw you needed HT. Very similar, except replace HT with colossi, and you get exactly the same effect.
|
On April 18 2011 07:17 raist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 07:15 branflakes14 wrote:
I'm gonna be watching the next Funday Monday with interest. What is it??
no roaches hydras mutas banelings and max 12 lings
I'm getting completely stomped unless I do some retarded proxy hatch or something :p
|
On April 18 2011 07:34 GHOSTCLAW wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 07:27 Authweight wrote:On April 18 2011 07:24 Azarkon wrote:On April 18 2011 07:13 VoirDire wrote:On April 18 2011 06:56 sc2olorin wrote:On April 18 2011 06:44 Azarkon wrote:
The backbone of the Protoss late-game vs. Zerg is basically mass blink stalkers. Retaining stalker count is everything. The high-tech units are there to support. How many colossi you mass really isn't as important as how many stalkers you mass as it's those crucial units that give Protoss the versatility to handle Zerg tech switches.
Every Protoss unit but the stalker is basically specialized. For this reason the main variation in Protoss composition comes from what you add to your stalker army. If Zerg goes muta ling or baneling, you add HTs. If Zerg goes roaches or ultras, you add immortals. If Zerg goes hydras, you add colossi. If Zerg goes broodlord you might consider adding some void rays.
The point of getting Infestors is to cut down on that stalker count. Stalkers are relatively expensive, and they are armored, so they take extra damage from FG, and when held in place by FG they will fall cost efficiently to roaches. The issue with going Infestors however is that Blink Stalkers can snipe your Infestors if the Protoss has fast reaction time, and Colossi in the back can do the same. Having the level of control necessary to land FGs and keep down the number of stalkers is going to be critical to doing well. Excellent post. I disagree, actually. In the lategame, stalkers are what vultures were in sc1 T-mech style. They are mobile buffer units, meant for map control/harass/dealing with drops etc, and from preventing the real muscle (void/colossus) from getting picked of. Most zerg units are pretty cost effective against stalkers. The only time in lategame when you'd want to focus on your stalker-army is if the Z has overproduced corrupters. This really isn't the right way to look at it, and I think if Zergs are looking at it this way then that is one reason they are losing. In BW TvP, you couldn't win the game if your tanks died, and the entire game was about retaining high tank count. Vultures were throw away units in this respect, though in some cases you can harass your opponent to death with them. In SC 2, however, it's the opposite. You make Colossi EXPECTING them to die, and your hope is that they'll force the Zerg to produce enough Corruptors that your Stalkers can mop up the Zerg army after your Colossi are dead. This is actually the insight that allowed Protoss players to go from losing a huge number of PvZs to winning almost all of them - not over-building Colossi. Most pro Protoss players get by with just 2-4 Colossi at most. The bulk of the army is stalkers. PvZ today really isn't about protecting your Colossi until you have a critical mass of them. It's more about protecting your Stalkers until you have a critical mass of them. Blink Stalkers are actually cost efficient vs. most Zerg units but that's not really the point. The point is that a few specialized Protoss support units can make your army VERY cost efficient as long as you have a lot of stalkers. The basis of the Protoss army in SC 2 is really stalker + support. You don't need to make a lot of support units. You just need a few. For this reason losing all your support units isn't that important, but losing all your stalkers is. By contrast, in BW if you lost all your vultures your tank army is still powerful enough to stand on its own until you rebuild those vultures. In SC 2 if you lose all your stalkers it's basically game over if the opponent has anything resembling an economy/army left since they can just stream units to your base until you crumble. Stalker retention is a key concept of PvZ, in a way reminiscent though not exactly the same as tank retention in BW TvP. Wow, this is really insightful actually, I hadn't seen it like that before possibly the more correct way to think about it is thinking about stalkers exactly like dragoons - you can have a dragoon backbone, but to deal with hydralisks in bw you needed HT. Very similar, except replace HT with colossi, and you get exactly the same effect.
Yup, stalkers are basically like dragoons, but I'd like to point out that in BW it was possible to win with an archon zealot HT reaver composition late-game vs. Zerg. In SC 2 this doesn't really work because 1) roaches demolish zealots and 2) archons aren't as good and 3) reavers don't exist, and colossi are easily countered by corrupters; not to mention there's no dark swarm to ruin your dragoon army. Consequently, stalkers are even more important.
|
On April 18 2011 06:15 Denzil wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 06:13 zeru wrote:On April 18 2011 06:12 Denzil wrote:On April 18 2011 06:10 zeru wrote:On April 18 2011 06:08 CScythe wrote:
Months later and people are still saying Zerg need to learn to play. You guys make these threads hard to read. It's because zergs refuse to use infestor, and its frustrating. And Protoss don't use Carriers or Warp Prisms. It frustrates me more to see such an ability to have such diversified play not used. People tell Zerg to use Overlord drops and be inventive. No one tells Protoss to use Warp Prisms to beat Roach Hydra Corruptor or use Carriers to harass mineral lines. They already use warp prisms. And protoss dont need to switch up their play because it currently works, and until it gets figured out how to beat it they can do what they are doing atm. And Zerg already uses Overlords drops and Infestors. What else do you want us to do to beat the Deathball? User was temp banned for this post.
Brood Lords???
|
On April 18 2011 06:54 oZii wrote:For anyone thinking PvZ is imbalanced I present to you 107 pages of Protoss Tears from November 2010. 107 Pages of Protoss Thinking they where Underpowered. November 2010Dont look at that thinking they didn't know how strong they where look at it as Protoss players have been where many Zerg players think their race is Currently in the State of the Game. The point is the match up isnt broken it just looks that way. When your the one affected by it. If anyone was following Sc2 during that time. They should realize that this is how the game works its aways going to sway. If anyone actually takes to the time to look through that thread you will see intelligent discussion soon become consumed by balance whines and people think all hope is lost. Just something to think about.
Read the first page of that thread... and the responses were very much "I dont think its a balance issue, I think its a style issue..." and other reasonable responses "small sample pool" etc.
I agree that it'll take time for Zergs to adjust to new styles of ZvP but I have faith they'll make some huge strides.
|
On April 18 2011 07:24 diverzee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 07:13 oZii wrote:On April 18 2011 07:07 sGDaevil wrote:
Anywon who says Protoss isn't an overpowered race is in a box. Especially in PvZ (i am terran btw) Cause your terran doesn't help a post like that at all. Just means your not really familiar with either of the races involved outside of what you see and how you play against P and how you play against Z. Which doesn't deal with PvZ. So I am terran BTW doesnt really help the discussion. Or it is saying that he is not making this observation based on bias, but rather on information gained from his perception. The majority of disappointment displayed in this thread comes from zerg players who actually themselves have had to play the matchup from the zerg side, but sGDaevil's post is different in that it is saying "I never play the matchup myself, but observation alone gives a strong indication of how very favoured protoss is in PvZ".
Or it is saying he left a 1 statement post with nothing to support his observation. All he said was anyone that disagree's with his same observation that Protoss is overpowered is in a box. Supporting statement "I am terran BTW". Not much to go on there. I don't know how you divulged that much information from that post.
|
That's all absolutely true (regarding the stalkers). It's also hugely important to note that the cost-efficiency allows Protoss to spend all that extra money on extra gateways, allowing them to replace stalkers extremely quickly. Hasuobs vs Morrow was a great example of this; Hasuobs would add plenty of gateways when approaching max.
Zerg's ability to build a lot of stuff at once isn't magical, it's just cheaper than for Protoss to do it.
|
On April 18 2011 07:27 Authweight wrote:
Stalker retention is a key concept of PvZ, in a way reminiscent though not exactly the same as tank retention in BW TvP.
That true, but and an important aspect or the real reason for that is that Stalkers are way to expensive to play them as meatshields.
If you have constantly to replace Stalkers you will lose the game cause they are the most cost ineffective unit in the game. In that regard your right, it is more solid if you can trade your colossus costeffciently while keeping your Stalkers alive. So your Stalkers become actually more costeffective (in relation to the initial investment).
But that is also the weakness of Protoss if you can kill of a decent number of Stalkers, the Protoss is set back a huge amount. (same for sentries)
and i think that will be were the other races will have to aim too.
Terrans of course already do this (i remember a Day9 Daily with Select who talked about this)
|
Azarkon those are fantastic posts, and i have noticed the same things too. Much faster blink (even before taking a third) and collosus numbers never go over 4. I didn't actually think like that, but i noticed how effective using blink stalkers are.
Having your roach/hydra army retreat from an even battle knowing he can blink his stalkers and pick off so many free units, and if you fight you die, if you run you continue to lose more units. It's quite true what you said.
|
People where whining? man the TSL is so great, when i compare it to the NASL (wich i payed for) i feel truely blessed the TSL has been such a great tournament so far and id just like to thank all the tournament organizers for making such a fantastic tournament. When comparing it to the NASL it just seems so much more Polished!
|
That true, but and an important aspect, but the reason for that is that Stalkers are way to expensive.
If you have constantly to replace Stalkers you will lose the game cause they are the most cost ineffective unit in the game. I
In small numbers they're not good, but as army size grows (and combined with sentries and blink micro), they're way more cost-efficient than roaches/hydra or ling/bling or whatever else is thrown at it. The extra range of the stalkers and the sentry forcefield and guardian shield is a huge, huge factor.
|
On April 18 2011 05:28 Amo.amo wrote:
we need cruncher vs MC showmatch who is best protoss in world!
are you serious? the kid has done a few wins and youre already comparing him to MC? im amazed about how quickly and irrationally people jump into conclusions.
|
On April 18 2011 07:46 EscPlan9 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 06:54 oZii wrote:For anyone thinking PvZ is imbalanced I present to you 107 pages of Protoss Tears from November 2010. 107 Pages of Protoss Thinking they where Underpowered. November 2010Dont look at that thinking they didn't know how strong they where look at it as Protoss players have been where many Zerg players think their race is Currently in the State of the Game. The point is the match up isnt broken it just looks that way. When your the one affected by it. If anyone was following Sc2 during that time. They should realize that this is how the game works its aways going to sway. If anyone actually takes to the time to look through that thread you will see intelligent discussion soon become consumed by balance whines and people think all hope is lost. Just something to think about. Read the first page of that thread... and the responses were very much "I dont think its a balance issue, I think its a style issue..." and other reasonable responses "small sample pool" etc. I agree that it'll take time for Zergs to adjust to new styles of ZvP but I have faith they'll make some huge strides.
It also talks about MLG season 1, Blizzcon and the Thread lasts until GSL 3. It takes shapes I know I posted in that thread so I remember how it was all dark and gloomy. Alot of the responses about style issues where from non-toss players(though there are many that agreed) Later it turned into Protoss being underpowered and needing buffs all the way to the inherent design of the Race is why it will always be last. People referencing Broodwar and how Protoss mostly seemed like it was #3.
I don't know for me that discussion is still fresh in my mind. So I can sympathize with those that take the approach that something needs to be done instead of the matchup is imbalanced.
|
On April 18 2011 07:21 Pwere wrote:
The zealots are only there to block the ultras, while the stalkers deal the damage. Ultras deal terrible damage to zealots, and cannot go around them. Try it out however you want, ultras get easily destroyed by anything other than a pure sentry/stalker/colossus ball outside of a choke. Maybe on paper it looks ok, but in a real match, it's sad. They seem to have some potential with banelings, but I don't know enough about these style to comment. With Ultras vs lots, it really comes down to the ultra upgrades... +1 and +3 and +2 mean the lots will only do 2 per hit which means one Ultra can take on a lot of zealots (or marines/lings). The Ultra does do good DPS vs zealots 17.4 (with splash can hit about a total of 3 lots per round for roughly 34 DPS). Not in the class of the colossi but still pretty good. Also very good at tanking damage and smashing forcefields.
The real problem with our poor ultra is its sheer size and that it constantly acts like a friendly fire forcefield blocking other zerg melee and ranged units from getting in on the action which obviously kills everybody else's DPS. If there was a stat for DPS per space displaced, Ultras wouldn't be that good.
The big problem is really Ultra herds...key is just to make a couple of Ultras to tank damage and break forcefields. If you make too many (which zerg players tend to do) then they just logjam up and their aggregate DPS is awful.
On paper Ultra's are incredible... Their DPS*HP/cost vs unarmored is third only behind the thor for mobile units at 32 and their DHC vs armored is a whopping 41.8...clearly the best for mobile units in the game and that's not counting their AOE damage, ability to get defensive ugprades, resistance to spells and ability to knock down forcefields.
The next generation of zerg tactics vs toss could very well be the ultra but not 10 at once which zerg players like to do now which is stupid but as a complimentary tanking entity (just 2-3) with DPS units like the hydralisk. That or ultra/flying unit combos to mitigate log-jamming.
|
guys remember! the winner of code-A was zerg. Zerg is not bad.
|
Great play by Mondragon! Hope we'll see more and more of him soon! :D
|
On April 18 2011 07:52 Dragar wrote:
In small numbers they're not good, but as army size grows (and combined with sentries and blink micro), they're way more cost-efficient than roaches/hydra or ling/bling or whatever else is thrown at it. The extra range of the stalkers and the sentry forcefield and guardian shield is a huge, huge factor.
i agree, but you can't max out on stalkers in a straight up game. (cause they still deal crap damage)
that why getting supporting Damagedealers are neccessary.(Colossus/HT)
After the engagement when Colossus/HT are dead and supplys are about even.
That is when their time to shine has come (obviously 1:1 BlinkStalkers are the superior unit)
and i.e. Zerg is forced to retreat.
i have been playing similar to that concept recently in PvT/PvZ and it works ok so far.
but still it relies on the opponent to overproduce units (Corruptor/Viking)
so it not a super safe strategy i.e. Infestors deal with that really good.
|
On April 18 2011 07:58 namedplayer wrote:
guys remember! the winner of code-A was zerg. Zerg is not bad.
Of all the losers, we have the best. </smirk>
|
On April 18 2011 07:58 namedplayer wrote:
guys remember! the winner of code-A was zerg. Zerg is not bad.
Wow... zergs isnt bad because they can get first in the 2nd division... your just making it worse for yourself dude.
|
On April 18 2011 07:56 Fungal Growth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 07:21 Pwere wrote:
The zealots are only there to block the ultras, while the stalkers deal the damage. Ultras deal terrible damage to zealots, and cannot go around them. Try it out however you want, ultras get easily destroyed by anything other than a pure sentry/stalker/colossus ball outside of a choke. Maybe on paper it looks ok, but in a real match, it's sad. They seem to have some potential with banelings, but I don't know enough about these style to comment. With Ultras vs lots, it really comes down to the ultra upgrades... +1 and +3 and +2 mean the lots will only do 2 per hit which means one Ultra can take on a lot of zealots (or marines/lings). The Ultra does do good DPS vs zealots 17.4 (with splash can hit about a total of 3 lots per round for roughly 34 DPS). Not in the class of the colossi but still pretty good. Also very good at tanking damage and smashing forcefields. The real problem with our poor ultra is its sheer size and that it constantly acts like a friendly fire forcefield blocking other zerg melee and ranged units from getting in on the action which obviously kills everybody else's DPS. If there was a stat for DPS per space displaced, Ultras wouldn't be that good. The big problem is really Ultra herds...key is just to make a couple of Ultras to tank damage and break forcefields. If you make too many (which zerg players tend to do) then they just logjam up and their aggregate DPS is awful. On paper Ultra's are incredible... Their DPS*HP/cost vs unarmored is third only behind the thor for mobile units at 32 and their DHC vs armored is a whopping 41.8...clearly the best for mobile units in the game and that's not counting their AOE damage, ability to get defensive ugprades, resistance to spells and ability to knock down forcefields. The next generation of zerg tactics vs toss could very well be the ultra but not 10 at once which zerg players like to do now which is stupid but as a complimentary tanking entity (just 2-3) with DPS units like the hydralisk. That or ultra/flying unit combos to mitigate log-jamming.
Very good points about the ultra, and one nitpicky thing the players can control, although it is a pain, is rally points. How many bad rally pointed ultras have we seen go down? Happens way too often if your enemy has a "pin" dividing your bases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
