|
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! |
On April 18 2011 08:38 Trajan98 wrote:
Maybe a zerg Bisu will emerge and show everyone the way.
Or maybe a Savior will emerge (you know person who made zerg powerful and perhaps 'balanced' without any balance patch from Blizzard)
|
On April 18 2011 08:54 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 08:28 VoirDire 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 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. 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. Stalker retention is more important than Colossi retention because, first of all, a dozen Colossi isn't going to do anything by themselves except die to Corrupters, Mutas, and/or even Roaches, and if you build that many big tech units your economy isn't going to be able to support warping in 2-3 rounds of stalkers after a fight. Fifty stalkers, however, is nearly unstoppable by anything short of a huge, dedicated anti-Stalker ball or very well-used infestors. Try streaming in low tech units against blink stalkers sometimes - you will barely kill anything. Once the Stalker count gets above the Roach/Hydra/Zergling count it's pretty much over because the Stalkers are so cost effective when they out-number you. Every top level PvZ recently has come down to something like this (when they don't end in 4 gates): Protoss pushes in with death ball. Zerg kills all the high-tech units including sentries. Protoss has a bunch of stalkers remaining. Protoss proceeds to mass more stalkers and roll Zerg, adding more colossi only if Zerg no longer has any corrupters left. Sometimes Protoss builds a few immortals. By contrast, every top level PvZ where Zerg wins basically comes down to something like this: Zerg relentlessly attacks Protoss early on. Protoss has a few colossi and void rays but not enough stalkers because his stalkers keep dying to roaches without ever reaching large numbers. Zerg continues to stream in roaches and hydras and eventually overwhelms the Protoss because colossi and VRs by themselves just can't hold back the swarm. From this my conclusion is that stalker count is the most important feature going into the mid and late game. Of course, there are other factors and units involved in maintaining your stalker count. For example, sentries are needed early on or else your stalkers will be surrounded and killed by mass speedlings. But the goal for the Protoss going into mid-game is really to have a large stalker count and the ability to reinforce it. Stop that from happening and Protoss usually loses.
Do you have a suggestion of how to play against it?
|
On April 18 2011 08:37 Azarkon wrote:
While stalkers aren't that cost efficient before blink, they're versatile. They're mobile, good on the offense, good on the defense, good against ground, good against air, good for harass, and good at taking damage. That's why you can afford to get a huge stalker army, whereas you cannot afford to get a huge colossi army or a huge immortal army or a huge void ray army, because those units, being highly specialized, are all easily countered by tech switching. The only high-tech composition that's been known to work is colossi + void ray + phoenix, but even then this can be countered by mass air from Zerg if you don't have stalkers to fall back on. Yeah, their flexibility is key... They do of course pay for this flexibility when it comes to their DPS per cost and HP per cost. Their DPS*HP / (just gas) however isn't that bad...which is a big deal because in late game everybody has too many minerals and not enough gas.
Something to consider with stalkers (and why they dominate in PvZ) is their production ability from warpgates. With colossi the build time is 75 seconds...immortal 55 seconds...Void Ray 60 seconds...Carriers 120 seconds. But with Stalkers you can front-load their capacity with warpgates so their production time is essentially 0 (more so for late game situations where you have 8 warpgates just chillin). Zealots in small numbers get focused fired too fast by hydra/roach to be practical and sentries late game steal gas from void/colossi. So with the exception of the curveball DT's or mass archons, protoss really doesn't have a way to effectively utilize their warpgates. And waiting a minute for those slow stargate/robos to finish just takes to long against a swarming zerg which is one of the big reasons we see so many stalkers vs Zerg.
That and they can effectively utilize forge upgrades unlike say air units/spell casters/cannons.
|
On April 18 2011 08:54 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 08:28 VoirDire 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 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. 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. Stalker retention is more important than Colossi retention because, first of all, a dozen Colossi isn't going to do anything by themselves except die to Corrupters, Mutas, and/or even Roaches, and if you build that many big tech units your economy isn't going to be able to support warping in 2-3 rounds of stalkers after a fight. Fifty stalkers, however, is nearly unstoppable by anything short of a huge, dedicated anti-Stalker ball or very well-used infestors. Try streaming in low tech units against blink stalkers sometimes - you will barely kill anything. Once the Stalker count gets above the Roach/Hydra/Zergling count it's pretty much over because the Stalkers are so cost effective when they out-number you. Every top level PvZ recently has come down to something like this (when they don't end in 4 gates): Protoss pushes in with death ball. Zerg kills all the high-tech units including sentries. Protoss has a bunch of stalkers remaining. Protoss proceeds to mass more stalkers and roll Zerg, adding more colossi only if Zerg no longer has any corrupters left. Sometimes Protoss builds a few immortals. By contrast, every top level PvZ where Zerg wins basically comes down to something like this: Zerg relentlessly attacks Protoss early on. Protoss has a few colossi and void rays but not enough stalkers because his stalkers keep dying to roaches without ever reaching large numbers. Zerg continues to stream in roaches and hydras and eventually overwhelms the Protoss because colossi and VRs by themselves just can't hold back the swarm. From this my conclusion is that stalker count is the most important feature going into the mid and late game. Of course, there are other factors and units involved in maintaining your stalker count. For example, sentries are needed early on or else your stalkers will be surrounded and killed by mass speedlings. But the goal for the Protoss going into mid-game is really to have a large stalker count and the ability to reinforce it. Stop that from happening and Protoss usually loses.
Hmm this is actually pretty interesting and I think maybe correct. Worth thinking about carefully for sure.
Certainly its a good argument for using just a few infestors as fungal is a great way ensure that every time the toss would retreat they lose extra stalkers.
|
I'm curious whether reinforcing with Zealot/Archon would be as effective (or more) than reinforcing with Stalker. If your stack of Blink Stalkers can properly restrict kiting by the Zerg forces, Zealot/Archon has much more DPS and durability than a corresponding cost in Stalkers. Although the lack of Zerg bonus damage against armored (except ultras, which currently are rare to see) makes Stalkers a more attractive option than you'd otherwise expect.
Zealot/Archon also has the bonus of producing Templar that you could use to Feedback Infestors.
On April 18 2011 09:00 eloist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 08:54 Azarkon wrote:On April 18 2011 08:28 VoirDire 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 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. 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. Stalker retention is more important than Colossi retention because, first of all, a dozen Colossi isn't going to do anything by themselves except die to Corrupters, Mutas, and/or even Roaches, and if you build that many big tech units your economy isn't going to be able to support warping in 2-3 rounds of stalkers after a fight. Fifty stalkers, however, is nearly unstoppable by anything short of a huge, dedicated anti-Stalker ball or very well-used infestors. Try streaming in low tech units against blink stalkers sometimes - you will barely kill anything. Once the Stalker count gets above the Roach/Hydra/Zergling count it's pretty much over because the Stalkers are so cost effective when they out-number you. Every top level PvZ recently has come down to something like this (when they don't end in 4 gates): Protoss pushes in with death ball. Zerg kills all the high-tech units including sentries. Protoss has a bunch of stalkers remaining. Protoss proceeds to mass more stalkers and roll Zerg, adding more colossi only if Zerg no longer has any corrupters left. Sometimes Protoss builds a few immortals. By contrast, every top level PvZ where Zerg wins basically comes down to something like this: Zerg relentlessly attacks Protoss early on. Protoss has a few colossi and void rays but not enough stalkers because his stalkers keep dying to roaches without ever reaching large numbers. Zerg continues to stream in roaches and hydras and eventually overwhelms the Protoss because colossi and VRs by themselves just can't hold back the swarm. From this my conclusion is that stalker count is the most important feature going into the mid and late game. Of course, there are other factors and units involved in maintaining your stalker count. For example, sentries are needed early on or else your stalkers will be surrounded and killed by mass speedlings. But the goal for the Protoss going into mid-game is really to have a large stalker count and the ability to reinforce it. Stop that from happening and Protoss usually loses. Do you have a suggestion of how to play against it?
Stalkers suck against ling/roach (and hydra and whatever) without the ability to retreat (and blink-cycle the injured to the rear). So fungal them --> damage + no retreat + no cycling.
You can also use Broodlords for a similar effect (because you can't beat Broodlords by keeping your distance) but Broodlords are very expensive and don't prevent Stalkers from escaping. (Plus, Broodlords can't retreat, whereas sacrificing a single Infestor to Fungal part of the Protoss's army pretty much guarantees your escape. A fraction of a Blink-Stalker force cannot afford to blink after your force unless you've already lost the game.)
|
On April 18 2011 08:46 oZii wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 08:27 diverzee wrote:On April 18 2011 08:16 oZii wrote:On April 18 2011 08:13 diverzee wrote:On April 18 2011 07:47 oZii wrote:On April 18 2011 07:24 diverzee wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. + Show Spoiler + My original point.
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.
Here we go. First I look at his supporting statement (which is him showing that he is unbiased) I get that. Him showing that he is unbiased has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that people that disagree with his observation live in a box. So my original point is saying that your supposedly unbiased because you don't play either race doesn't mean that everyone that doesn't agree with you is in a box. Which implies those that play P might not see the beyond themselves.
Second we don't know if he hates protoss in TvP cause he loses to protoss most of the time. So is he really unbiased? So based on his statement all he has is observations of the matchup. We can assume has has some idea of protoss tactics in TvP and some idea of Zerg tactics in ZvT. Neither TvP or ZvT = PvZ. The matchups are really different outside of your basic early agression builds which work in just about all matchups i.e. 4 gate, Marine bunker scv all in, Cannon rush, Proxy barracks, 6 pool, 7 RR. All can be used in all matchups just some are more effective than others in each matchup. When you get into 1 gate Fe. 3 gate Robo. 3 Rax. Hatch first vs Gas First things become more complicated. But all races have XvX builds.
Lastly I reiterate my point that you can't just say if you disagree with me you are in a box and that I don't play either of the races involved in this current discussion doesn't support your statement what so ever. Because it adds nothing to the discussion. He didn't say anything similar to my above paragraph. Nothing about builds, the matchup, timings, he didnt even point to a specific reason why its imbalanced.
broken down a little farther since it seems like your taking something else from what I originally posted. All of that above was implied so I didnt think I would have to write all this to respond to a one-liner.
Okay, I had to get up from bed just to post a quick reply, because this is stupid.
No, this is not at all obviously deduced from your original post. You are making additions now, and I see how they would've been relevant in a response to his original post.
As an addition of my own, I myself I find it interesting every time a terran comments on protoss' strength in pvz. I'm zerg and can't easily gauge the balance of the TvP matchup, even though I get the feeling protoss has got a lot going for them late game. Perhaps many terrans feel the comparatively same way about trying to comment on PvZ balance, and yet, the bad state of the game as to this matchup is so obvious even someone who never played it himself can't help but have an opinion on it.
|
I've got to stop underestimating Cruncher but god damn it I CAN'T BELIEVE HE KEEPS WINNING. Every time it's a mild shock.
God DAMMIT taking out Mondi as well :'(
|
On April 18 2011 09:00 eloist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 08:54 Azarkon wrote:On April 18 2011 08:28 VoirDire 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 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. 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. Stalker retention is more important than Colossi retention because, first of all, a dozen Colossi isn't going to do anything by themselves except die to Corrupters, Mutas, and/or even Roaches, and if you build that many big tech units your economy isn't going to be able to support warping in 2-3 rounds of stalkers after a fight. Fifty stalkers, however, is nearly unstoppable by anything short of a huge, dedicated anti-Stalker ball or very well-used infestors. Try streaming in low tech units against blink stalkers sometimes - you will barely kill anything. Once the Stalker count gets above the Roach/Hydra/Zergling count it's pretty much over because the Stalkers are so cost effective when they out-number you. Every top level PvZ recently has come down to something like this (when they don't end in 4 gates): Protoss pushes in with death ball. Zerg kills all the high-tech units including sentries. Protoss has a bunch of stalkers remaining. Protoss proceeds to mass more stalkers and roll Zerg, adding more colossi only if Zerg no longer has any corrupters left. Sometimes Protoss builds a few immortals. By contrast, every top level PvZ where Zerg wins basically comes down to something like this: Zerg relentlessly attacks Protoss early on. Protoss has a few colossi and void rays but not enough stalkers because his stalkers keep dying to roaches without ever reaching large numbers. Zerg continues to stream in roaches and hydras and eventually overwhelms the Protoss because colossi and VRs by themselves just can't hold back the swarm. From this my conclusion is that stalker count is the most important feature going into the mid and late game. Of course, there are other factors and units involved in maintaining your stalker count. For example, sentries are needed early on or else your stalkers will be surrounded and killed by mass speedlings. But the goal for the Protoss going into mid-game is really to have a large stalker count and the ability to reinforce it. Stop that from happening and Protoss usually loses. Do you have a suggestion of how to play against it?
I dont agree at all, of course all unit retention is important, but stalkers are the least important to keep alive. Sentrys are so expensive once colossus production is going and they need to stockpile energy, colossus take a long time to build in large numbers and also deal a vast amount of damage, stalkers on the other hand are quite inefficient and easily replaced. If you see a protoss roll over zerg with mass stalker, its usually because their colossus/sentrys enabled them to kill a lot of the zerg army, colossus and sentrys are the units which enable protoss to fight roach/hydra efficiently, stalkers are just secondary damage dealers/good to use to roll over a zerg that has already had their armies severely weakened/built lots of corruptors.
|
On April 18 2011 09:13 The KY wrote:
I've got to stop underestimating Cruncher but god damn it I CAN'T BELIEVE HE KEEPS WINNING. Every time it's a mild shock.
God DAMMIT taking out Mondi as well :'(
I think Mond was getting a little hyped. But I still feel the same as you when Cruncher wins. I thought for sure he was going to lose only cause he didnt do as well in Dallas as I thought he'd do.
|
Wow and now its gonna be Cruncher vs NaNiwa. That match is gonna be sick hopefully. Too bad its PvP.
|
On April 18 2011 09:00 eloist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 08:54 Azarkon wrote:On April 18 2011 08:28 VoirDire 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 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. 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. Stalker retention is more important than Colossi retention because, first of all, a dozen Colossi isn't going to do anything by themselves except die to Corrupters, Mutas, and/or even Roaches, and if you build that many big tech units your economy isn't going to be able to support warping in 2-3 rounds of stalkers after a fight. Fifty stalkers, however, is nearly unstoppable by anything short of a huge, dedicated anti-Stalker ball or very well-used infestors. Try streaming in low tech units against blink stalkers sometimes - you will barely kill anything. Once the Stalker count gets above the Roach/Hydra/Zergling count it's pretty much over because the Stalkers are so cost effective when they out-number you. Every top level PvZ recently has come down to something like this (when they don't end in 4 gates): Protoss pushes in with death ball. Zerg kills all the high-tech units including sentries. Protoss has a bunch of stalkers remaining. Protoss proceeds to mass more stalkers and roll Zerg, adding more colossi only if Zerg no longer has any corrupters left. Sometimes Protoss builds a few immortals. By contrast, every top level PvZ where Zerg wins basically comes down to something like this: Zerg relentlessly attacks Protoss early on. Protoss has a few colossi and void rays but not enough stalkers because his stalkers keep dying to roaches without ever reaching large numbers. Zerg continues to stream in roaches and hydras and eventually overwhelms the Protoss because colossi and VRs by themselves just can't hold back the swarm. From this my conclusion is that stalker count is the most important feature going into the mid and late game. Of course, there are other factors and units involved in maintaining your stalker count. For example, sentries are needed early on or else your stalkers will be surrounded and killed by mass speedlings. But the goal for the Protoss going into mid-game is really to have a large stalker count and the ability to reinforce it. Stop that from happening and Protoss usually loses. Do you have a suggestion of how to play against it?
Other than - Zergs need to find some way to keep the stalker count low?
Don't get me wrong, it's not that you shouldn't focus down colossi and void rays - those are, after all, big expensive units and killing them will strain the Protoss's economy (and indeed cut into his stalker production). The problem comes when you kill those off but let the stalker count grow, especially the Protoss decides he's not going to replace them but will simply get more stalkers.
This is what becomes an insurmountable problem in these PvZ fights where the Zerg is trying to pick at the death ball: invariably the Protoss has a bunch of blink stalkers left over and then he just exploits them in a cost efficient way to prevent you from ever re-maxing again. Streaming roaches hydras or zerglings into a blink stalker ball is a losing proposition. Zerg really must regroup and remax, but sometimes that's not possible because blink stalkers are so mobile and will simply sit in between your bases picking off small groups of reinforcements, something they're very good at.
In my observation Protoss did not start winning a lot of PvZs until they started upgrading blink relatively early and going stalker heavy every single game. Before that Protoss used to lose all the time because they'd overbuild Colossi, after which the Zerg just gets a mass of Corrupters, kill all the Colossi, and roll the remaining zealot/sentry/stalker force with low tech units. Or Protoss would stay on zealot sentry for too long and Zerg would just roll them with hydras.
To face the new PvZ, I think infestors are going to play a big role. But I don't know how viable they are, yet, mainly because the a lot of the infestor uses we've seen so far largely consists of Zerg running a bunch of infestors into colossi and losing them all. I don't know, I feel like great infestor usage hasn't yet taken off, but that when it does, it may make a difference.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On April 18 2011 09:13 The KY wrote:
I've got to stop underestimating Cruncher but god damn it I CAN'T BELIEVE HE KEEPS WINNING. Every time it's a mild shock.
God DAMMIT taking out Mondi as well :'(
Hahaha this is exactly how i feel! Everytime i open my liquibet and see his name i get so damn confused; what do i do? I know he is going to win but i can't bring myself to vote for him haha - maybe i'll learn my lesson next time.
Then again, his next game is against Nani :p
|
absolutely incredible that cruncher beat Mondragon. Cruncher was vastly outplayed in every single game. The game on Shakuras was a complete joke. one control group A move.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I'm surprised the liquibet was in favor against Cruncher... Did nobody not catch a glimpse of his weekly series where he beat like Axslav/Strifecro/PainUser/LzGamer all 4-1 (4-0 against Strifecro), as well as beating some good players at FXO and MLG?
|
On April 18 2011 09:09 diverzee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 08:46 oZii wrote:On April 18 2011 08:27 diverzee wrote:On April 18 2011 08:16 oZii wrote:On April 18 2011 08:13 diverzee wrote:On April 18 2011 07:47 oZii wrote:On April 18 2011 07:24 diverzee wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. + Show Spoiler + My original point.
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.
Here we go. First I look at his supporting statement (which is him showing that he is unbiased) I get that. Him showing that he is unbiased has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that people that disagree with his observation live in a box. So my original point is saying that your supposedly unbiased because you don't play either race doesn't mean that everyone that doesn't agree with you is in a box. Which implies those that play P might not see the beyond themselves.
Second we don't know if he hates protoss in TvP cause he loses to protoss most of the time. So is he really unbiased? So based on his statement all he has is observations of the matchup. We can assume has has some idea of protoss tactics in TvP and some idea of Zerg tactics in ZvT. Neither TvP or ZvT = PvZ. The matchups are really different outside of your basic early agression builds which work in just about all matchups i.e. 4 gate, Marine bunker scv all in, Cannon rush, Proxy barracks, 6 pool, 7 RR. All can be used in all matchups just some are more effective than others in each matchup. When you get into 1 gate Fe. 3 gate Robo. 3 Rax. Hatch first vs Gas First things become more complicated. But all races have XvX builds.
Lastly I reiterate my point that you can't just say if you disagree with me you are in a box and that I don't play either of the races involved in this current discussion doesn't support your statement what so ever. Because it adds nothing to the discussion. He didn't say anything similar to my above paragraph. Nothing about builds, the matchup, timings, he didnt even point to a specific reason why its imbalanced.
broken down a little farther since it seems like your taking something else from what I originally posted. All of that above was implied so I didnt think I would have to write all this to respond to a one-liner.
Okay, I had to get up from bed just to post a quick reply, because this is stupid. No, this is not at all obviously deduced from your original post. You are making additions now, and I see how they would've been relevant in a response to his original post. As an addition of my own, I myself I find it interesting every time a terran comments on protoss' strength in pvz. I'm zerg and can't easily gauge the balance of the TvP matchup, even though I get the feeling protoss has got a lot going for them late game. Perhaps many terrans feel the comparatively same way about trying to comment on PvZ balance, and yet, the bad state of the game as to this matchup is so obvious even someone who never played it himself can't help but have an opinion on it.
It is all obviously deduced from my post if you play the game. Why do I need to type out the differences in PvT and PvZ and TvZ and TvP. Instead of just typing what I originally typed which was. You saying that your knowledge of the matchup is what you see and your experiences of TvP and TvZ? It should be obvious to anyone that has played Sc2 that there are differences to all the matchups. So my bold statement is obvious to anyone that plays the game.
Phoenix harass is exactly that harass. But Phoenix harass to a Zerg early game is a bit easier than phoenix harass to a terran whos base combat unit can shoot air. I shouldn't have to describe to a zerg player how its harder to harass a terran with phoenix than is with zerg in the early game. We all know marines shoot air and zerglings don't.
Why do I need to type all of that out what is so hard to understand about the above bold? Maybe many terrans feel comparatively that way and maybe they don't but you and this poster you seem to be defending completely agree.
Obviously I added stuff because you seem to not comprehend what I wrote with out me adding all that stuff in there.
|
Archons are such an intriguing option vs Zerg... They do bonus vs biological which is all zerg units (I think), can tank a ton of damage, they do splash and REALLY benefit from attack upgrades (on a cost basis...there is quirky math behind this of why archons benefit more than other units when it comes to attack upgrades).
Their HDC (dps*hp/cost) is 14.37 compared to say 8.89/6.35 for stalkers and 12 for colossi. If their splash can hit say 3 units...their HDC can balloon to 42 which is incredible.
The downside is their tech tree competes with colossi/voids/phoenix...so to justify the sunk cost you put into the high templar archives, you probably have to be 3 base to justify mass archon production.
Problem is they just aren't mobile enough vs air (although they do great damage to muta/corrupter/broodslords if within range).
|
United States13896 Posts
On April 18 2011 09:25 SniXSniPe wrote:
I'm surprised the liquibet was in favor against Cruncher... Did nobody not catch a glimpse of his weekly series where he beat like Axslav/Strifecro/PainUser/LzGamer all 4-1 (4-0 against Strifecro), as well as beating some good players at FXO and MLG?
I think most people liquibet with their heart rather than their minds for that one. (I know I did) There's so many Mondi fans out there still from BW and so many CrunCher haters from recent events. (I fall into the former)
Predicted the score to the t but couldn't get the guts to vote against Mondi. T-T
|
On April 18 2011 09:16 HuHEN wrote:
I dont agree at all, of course all unit retention is important, but stalkers are the least important to keep alive. Sentrys are so expensive once colossus production is going and they need to stockpile energy, colossus take a long time to build in large numbers and also deal a vast amount of damage, stalkers on the other hand are quite inefficient and easily replaced. If you see a protoss roll over zerg with mass stalker, its usually because their colossus/sentrys enabled them to kill a lot of the zerg army, colossus and sentrys are the units which enable protoss to fight roach/hydra efficiently, stalkers are just secondary damage dealers/good to use to roll over a zerg that has already had their armies severely weakened/built lots of corruptors.
I don't think you quite get what I'm saying. It's not that you should sacrifice your sentries for your stalkers, but that how well you retain your stalkers has become key to this match-up. When Protoss builds colossi he's not necessarily thinking "let me sacrifice these colossi so I can get a larger stalker army," yet that's what it ends up being because the colossi are almost certainly going to be throw-aways - this is the reason Protoss have learned not to over-build them. The point is to force the Zerg to throw away even more resources than you do so that you can get up a higher stalker count that then wins you the game.
The implications of this dynamic is that Zerg needs to figure out a way to cut down the number of stalkers. It's not enough to have a build that's capable of taking down the high-tech units if it leaves you with a huge number of blink stalkers afterward. In fact, most Zerg losses can be attributed to "overbuilding corrupters," but that's really just not being able to deal with the stalker count after you take down the colossi.
|
Cruncher really needs to apologize from playing his race
User was warned for this post
|
On April 18 2011 09:22 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2011 09:13 The KY wrote:
I've got to stop underestimating Cruncher but god damn it I CAN'T BELIEVE HE KEEPS WINNING. Every time it's a mild shock.
God DAMMIT taking out Mondi as well :'( Hahaha this is exactly how i feel! Everytime i open my liquibet and see his name i get so damn confused; what do i do? I know he is going to win but i can't bring myself to vote for him haha - maybe i'll learn my lesson next time. Then again, his next game is against Nani :p
I think it's also just from his playstyle and his interviews, I find it very hard to root for Cruncher.
This time however I am confident; if Nani can beat Kiwikaki in PvP, he can beat Cruncher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
