[TSL] Ro16 Day 4 - Page 283

On April 18 2011 08:04 RuneZerg wrote:


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 07:46 EscPlan9 wrote:


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 08:08 namedplayer wrote:


why? code-a is very competitive. I believe its harder than iem & mgl etc..

On April 18 2011 07:47 oZii wrote:



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.

On April 18 2011 08:13 diverzee wrote:


No, I commented on where your focus obviously laid. You commented on his claim he is terran, I responded to that. Regarding his 1 statement about protoss being overpowered unless you're in a box I haven't touched on it. However I do think he is correct as to the current state of the game. Not that I know what being in a box means.

On April 18 2011 08:10 imareaver3 wrote:



Not to mention that the P were actually right. The map pool back in November 2010 was very good for T against P (And everything else, for that matter...). In addition to that, these posts were made before the medivac and autorepair nerfs, both of which were very significant in TvP--the medivac nerf, of course, made drops manageable, and the autorepair nerf meant that Thor-SCV all-ins could be beaten without immortals. Since those changes balanced TvP, there has been no P balance whine.

On April 18 2011 08:23 oZii wrote:


Huh? Terrans Dropped harassed Zergs all day long with stimmed marines and hellions! You can't just say medevac drops where only to affect the PvT matchup. They also increased the health for many building to include Hatchery and Spawning pool. Protoss got Nexus health increase thats it. Auto repair nerf for Thor-Scv all in effected all the matchups all so. To include Planetary fortress and repairing scvs.

Maybe Im reading what you wrote wrong but you make it sound like all the changes made to terran where only for TvP. I bunker time increased 2 times I believe. I remember zergs upset about marine scv all-ins. Remember the Big reaper nerf? Remember Select Dropping all over everybody winning MLG? Remember Drewbie dropping all over idra? Remember terran dropping all over everybody? IntoTheRainbow should also come to mind also. Point is those balances changes to terran affected every single matchup. Only 1 that least affected Protoss was 5 rax reaper because terrans didnt really use reapers against Protoss.

I don't even play zerg and I remember all of this

On April 18 2011 08:16 oZii wrote:


Breaking it down even further I was replying to him saying that it adds nothing to the discussion. So you picked out one piece of my response and wrote a small paragraph on it. My point is don't just make a statement like that without back up.

The mods understood cause he was temped banned for it.

On April 18 2011 07:24 Azarkon wrote:


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 PvZ 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 devastating, 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.

On April 18 2011 08:08 namedplayer wrote:


why? code-a is very competitive. I believe its harder than iem & mgl etc..

On April 18 2011 08:11 Fungal Growth wrote:
Regarding Stalkers, they're really not that cost effective... The key why toss needs to make so many is toss ends up with so much more minerals than gas, that they need a mineral dump and the stalker at 125/50 are tied for 2nd best with the immortal and behind the zealot (obviously). In PvZ zealots can't really be that mineral dump because it takes away from your AA and you need critical mass of zealots to engage roach/hydra balls (can be done...just need numbers).

So basically they are (vs zerg) tanking units so your gas units (colossi/hts/dts/voids/phoenix/sentries/archons) can work their magic. (that and anti-muta guards) If it wasn't for their 'relative' cheap gas cost and ability to to shoot air, you wouldn't see that many of them in PvZ matches because they are just so expensive per their stats.

On April 18 2011 07:11 mordk wrote:


I do play protoss, and I watch SC2 all day lol. Some players have achieved remarkable consistency in PvP. Mc for example has like >80% win rate in PvP. If you read carfeully, I fully understand PvP's volatility, however I don't think "anyone" can win at any time. There's a distinct "hierarchy" of skill in PvP and it's certainly visible

Tier 1: MC
Tier 2: White-ra, Naniwa, Inca
Tier 3: HuK, Kiwikaki, Hasuobs (Add most korean protoss)
Tier 4: Axslav

After these come all other protoss. It's obviously possible that Cruncher takes a game off nani, it's pretty obvious 0% chance is a bit overzealous, but it's just an exaggeration complementing how strong I feel naniwa is at the moment. Don't take everything so literal, after all, cruncher did knock out Inca 2-0 in FXOpenis, and Inca is considered almost a PvP god. I still believe, from seeing cruncher's and naniwa's play, that cruncher's PvP looks normal and naniwa's looks exceptional. In my opinion anyways.

On April 18 2011 08:10 imareaver3 wrote:
Not to mention that the P were actually right. The map pool back in November 2010 was very good for T against P (And everything else, for that matter...). In addition to that, these posts were made before the medivac and autorepair nerfs, both of which were very significant in TvP--the medivac nerf, of course, made drops manageable, and the autorepair nerf meant that Thor-SCV all-ins could be beaten without immortals. Since those changes balanced TvP, there has been no P balance whine.

On April 18 2011 08:27 diverzee wrote:


Okay then. One would get the impression your original point encompassed a little bit more than you claim (ie i am terran btw), but fine. As to such one liners like his' most people would agree they don't bring very much to the discussion.

On April 18 2011 08:28 VoirDire wrote:

I still don't see it that way. P usually has something like 1 starport, 1 robo-bay and 10+ gateways. They can easily rebuild their entire stalker army in 2-3 rounds of warp-ins.

At first P builds 20 or so stalkers to get some mobility, then it's all about getting a critical number of voidray/colossus and then go kill em. It's a small matter replacing those stalkers that P loses. I feel that lategame zvp is all about picking off and/or circumventing those colossus/voidrays and mopping up the remaining stalkers with low tier units rather that the other way around.

The reason we only see about 2-4 colossi and 4-5 voidrays is that it is just about the critical mass when a deathball becomes "imba". Ideally P wants about 20 stalkers and the rest colossus and voidrays when they move out, but that's overkill and not really necessary.

The reason P wants to retain his stalkers is that they need a minimum of 20 stalkers as a buffer before they can move out with their muscle units. They are not cost effecive and thus expensive to replace, but P has to send them to deal with harass/run-bys/drops etc as void/colossus are so immobile.