On June 18 2010 07:54 Sueco wrote: Making the DT rush harder was a good move. Any tech path that makes invisible units available too soon makes gameplay very all-or-nothing, ergo boring. Good move by Blizzard.
As for DT's being useless:
White-ra won that game with DT usage, and he didn't need to go for a rush to be effective. The sky is the limit if you are a truly creative player, so stop asking for your old metagame conventions back.
You missed the point COMPLETLY, TT1 never said DT were bad, he said their was NO ISSUE with the unit itself.
He said it is impossible to OPEN DT and transition after that.
So that create the problem of a 1 dimensional match up where everyone always do the same because you CANT open with another tech tree and transition into mid game without been behind.
again
THE UNIT IS OK THE possible TRANSITION out of IT are bad in PvP if you OPEN with it so the problem is ?
One dimensional opening in PvP !
Thats the entire point. There isn't supposed to be a DT "opening" as much as there isn't supposed to be any banshee "opening". High-tech cloaked units are not supposed to be an main opening unit in SC2 by design. Just because something could be done in BW due to HT's and DT's coming out of the same tech doesn't mean its an idea worth carrying over.
Are we playing the same PvP? I've seen a bunch of different effective openings in this match up...assuming the game gets beyond Zealot vs Zealot, anyway. One guy going early Zealot spam tends to force the other guy to do the same until he wants to give up.
Just because DTs isn't one of the non all-in versions, doesn't mean there's only one other strat. You're implying a LOT by saying PvP is a one-dimensional battle right now.
On June 18 2010 07:54 Sueco wrote: Making the DT rush harder was a good move. Any tech path that makes invisible units available too soon makes gameplay very all-or-nothing, ergo boring. Good move by Blizzard.
White-ra won that game with DT usage, and he didn't need to go for a rush to be effective. The sky is the limit if you are a truly creative player, so stop asking for your old metagame conventions back.
You missed the point COMPLETLY, TT1 never said DT were bad, he said their was NO ISSUE with the unit itself.
He said it is impossible to OPEN DT and transition after that.
So that create the problem of a 1 dimensional match up where everyone always do the same because you CANT open with another tech tree and transition into mid game without been behind.
again
THE UNIT IS OK THE possible TRANSITION out of IT are bad in PvP if you OPEN with it so the problem is ?
One dimensional opening in PvP !
Thats the entire point. There isn't supposed to be a DT "opening" as much as there isn't supposed to be any banshee "opening". High-tech cloaked units are not supposed to be an main opening unit in SC2 by design. Just because something could be done in BW due to HT's and DT's coming out of the same tech doesn't mean its an idea worth carrying over.
Cloaked unit can be an opener their is no design flaw about that, Bainshee opening are viable in many circumstances.
I think the post name is wrong tho atm, I think we are more looking about another OPENING for protoss vs protoss then a DT opening.
I mean all we want is more diversity in the PvP match up right ? if thats all we want then it can come from DT, Phoenixes, VR opening. anything else then 4 gate / 3gate,robo.
Then we should consider every options available.
So we kinda said already that opening with DT isnt viable Is opening with TEMPLAR with storm viable? Is opening with Phoenixes into VR/Zlot viable ? Is opening with VR into Expo vible ?
All those question remain on the subject that was WE NEED MORE DIVERSITY IN THIS MATCH UP.
Asking for a SPECIFIC opening to work because it worked in BW is silly I kinda agree, but asking for MORE diversity in opening possibility in a match up is not.
There's the Banshee rush but you can hardly call that an opening since cramming out banshees that fast is a pretty much all-in. If he scouts you and has several queens ready into hydras/mutas you're an expansion down and half his army to start. Pro players actually get banshees a bit slower as not to completely rely on their sucess.
Same principle goes for DT's. The BW DT opening was feasible because DTs happened to come out of the templar archives, a building you would need anyway in most matchups. That sort of gave you a free cloak opening that forced almost every terran to turret up everywhere just in case. Moving cloak to a separate tech is a good move overall. As to the perceived monotony of PvP, its far too early in the metagame to determinate that, and there are probably better ways to mix it up than to make DT's more accesible.
There's the Banshee rush but you can hardly call that an opening since cramming out banshees that fast is a pretty much all-in. If he scouts you and has several queens ready into hydras/mutas you're an expansion down and half his army to start. Pro players actually get banshees a bit slower as not to completely rely on their sucess.
Why does any of that matter? This is a discussion about DTs in PvP.
Versus Z and T I have success with DT openings. It's just the nature of PvP that whoever makes the fastest Gates wins, whether it's 2gate vs 1 gate/cyber/gas or 3/4 Gate Robo vs anything else.
Why does any of that matter? This is a discussion about DTs in PvP.
Versus Z and T I have success with DT openings. It's just the nature of PvP that whoever makes the fastest Gates wins, whether it's 2gate vs 1 gate/cyber/gas or 3/4 Gate Robo vs anything else.
While I may agree that warpgates are so obviously powerfull they require no choice in upgrading, moving the DT's tech tree position could cause all sorts of clusterfucks in other matchups. I'd prefer other changes were suggested.
I feel like this topic is misguided, as it operates under the assumption that the only viable opening in PvP is some kind of Robo build. Not only do I not understand how a DT build is supposed to become viable in a MU that's allegedly dominated by fast Robo's without breaking DTs in other match ups, but I don't even think that Robo is the only way to play PvP. TC, and Stargate also seem viable on some maps.
Why does any of that matter? This is a discussion about DTs in PvP.
Versus Z and T I have success with DT openings. It's just the nature of PvP that whoever makes the fastest Gates wins, whether it's 2gate vs 1 gate/cyber/gas or 3/4 Gate Robo vs anything else.
While I may agree that warpgates are so obviously powerfull they require no choice in upgrading, moving the DT's tech tree position could cause all sorts of clusterfucks in other matchups. I'd prefer other changes were suggested.
What if they put some sort of archon researchable buff on the DT shrine? It would not only make archons more viable, but make DT tech more viable as well. For example, archons could fill that "dead space" while storm is being researched and after DTs are in play. Would that break other match ups though?
Then again, I also don't like the thought of an archon buff being on the DT shrine...oh well, just throwing ideas out there.
What about storm being more affective on "shielded" units. I never see storm used in PvP anyways. Perhaps this could encourage HT and DT use? I don't know...probably just another stupid idea
I think this is very true. I forget how much HP Dts have now (something like 80?), but I think most people also forget that even with detection, DTs still dealalmost 4x the damage of a zealot, are faster than a zealot, and force your opponent to be very careful when moving out. I've personally come up against DTs and thought making more zealots would be enough to deal with them - it wasn't (I already had colossus and stalkers, etc).
Also, I'm not sure why PvP is plagued with the robo v 4gate builds. Phoenix are very good against immortals, not to mention that Void rays are uber with proper support.
- DTs deal more damage than a Zealot. - DTs are the same size as a Zealot. Added together these two things increase the "damage per attack space" and especially for melee units, which only have a limited front of enemies available, this is important. Another good one is: - DTs do NOT deal specialized damage and are equally good against everything they can attack.
So in any case it seems a good thing to include DTs into a regular army in addition to their harrassment potential. You "only" need to take care of the Observers of the opponent and you are fine. "Taking care of the observers" is a good thing if your opponent is using Colossi or Immortals, because it either a) blocks the Robotics Facility from making more fighting units so he can get another Observer or b) leaves him without detection and no defenses against your DTs. In any case the Observers are not cheap, so you might as well think of it this way: "I get DTs, so he needs Observers and if I kill his Observers he spends more gas on stuff that does not attack than I do." If the opponent - after experiencing some time without detection - suddenly produces an excess of Observers he is left with relatively useless non-fighting units if you stop making DTs.
Playing with DTs is all a mind game and if you only think about the brute force way to deal with your opponent it is certainly useless.
This seems like a terribly presented and thought out thread by someone who wishes sc2 was more like bw for the sake of it being more like bw. I'm guessing what you're trying to say is that you wish dt rushing wasn't cheese. As in it would still work if scouted. But there's no reason for it too. You're worried about the diversity of the matchup? Why are you focusing on dt's? Why not argue for the mothership rush to be a viable strategy. What you're saying is comparable to saying my carrier rush was scouted and my opponent went mass blinking stalker, Blizzard should modify the game so that Its possible to defend against the counter attack. Quotes like this "i challenge anyone to come up with a macro build that u can transition into after dt rushing (assuming your dt rush was blocked) that is safe vs every b.o.. theres nothing you can do" combined with your poor grammer and bullshit poll (Polls are pointless if you don't give you to chance to disagree with you) makes me disappointed with someone who has been here so long.
On June 18 2010 17:04 TheFinalWord wrote: This seems like a terribly presented and thought out thread by someone who wishes sc2 was more like bw for the sake of it being more like bw. I'm guessing what you're trying to say is that you wish dt rushing wasn't cheese. As in it would still work if scouted. But there's no reason for it too. You're worried about the diversity of the matchup? Why are you focusing on dt's? Why not argue for the mothership rush to be a viable strategy. What you're saying is comparable to saying my carrier rush was scouted and my opponent went mass blinking stalker, Blizzard should modify the game so that Its possible to defend against the counter attack. Quotes like this "i challenge anyone to come up with a macro build that u can transition into after dt rushing (assuming your dt rush was blocked) that is safe vs every b.o.. theres nothing you can do" combined with your poor grammer and bullshit poll (Polls are pointless if you don't give you to chance to disagree with you) makes me disappointed with someone who has been here so long.
You completely missunderstand the dynamics of Starcraft 2 gameplay and what the OP said. I make it as easy for you as I can:
A) The DT opening is far less viable in PvP, because its way harder to transition out of it. B) This makes the PvP matchup less interesting than in BW because there you had more possible openings thus a more dynamic matchup.
at the moment there are only two standard openings: 4gate all-in, 3/2gate robo. there are a number of cheeses as well but were not discussing this here.
1. Some people are saying stargates are viable PvP 2. Some are saying it's only mass gates or robo.
Yet nobody saying the 2nd has tried to contradict the 1st while they whine about there being no dimension in PvP.
So are they just bad? Do stargates really not work PvP? I haven't played any SC2 and wouldn't have a clue. And yet this has barely been discussed in the thread at all, despite it being a very important point as to just how varied the PvP matchup is, which is the excuse reason the OP argues for cheesy free wins coming with a backup plan DT viability.
Oh, and anytime anybody disagrees, they are accused of not understanding XD
On June 18 2010 17:51 Turbovolver wrote: This thread is just embarrassing.
1. Some people are saying stargates are viable PvP 2. Some are saying it's only mass gates or robo.
Yet nobody saying the 2nd has tried to contradict the 1st while they whine about there being no dimension in PvP.
So are they just bad? Do stargates really not work PvP? I haven't played any SC2 and wouldn't have a clue. And yet this has barely been discussed in the thread at all, despite it being a very important point as to just how varied the PvP matchup is, which is the excuse reason the OP argues for cheesy free wins coming with a backup plan DT viability.
Oh, and anytime anybody disagrees, they are accused of not understanding XD
I do and like stargate openings but they are very risky on certain maps. you cant compare them to 4 gate all-ins and robo openings that give you much more stable results. actually i consider the robo opening as the only viable one that leads to a standard match.
the DT opening is not a cheese. its an opening that buys you time. thats the value of it. you wont get freewins against anyone with it even if the templar tech is merged.
On June 18 2010 17:51 Turbovolver wrote: This thread is just embarrassing.
1. Some people are saying stargates are viable PvP 2. Some are saying it's only mass gates or robo.
Yet nobody saying the 2nd has tried to contradict the 1st while they whine about there being no dimension in PvP.
So are they just bad? Do stargates really not work PvP? I haven't played any SC2 and wouldn't have a clue. And yet this has barely been discussed in the thread at all, despite it being a very important point as to just how varied the PvP matchup is, which is the excuse reason the OP argues for cheesy free wins coming with a backup plan DT viability.
Oh, and anytime anybody disagrees, they are accused of not understanding XD
1st: this thread is normal, only the people who post incorrect stuff are embarrasing 2nd: PvP is a mirror match up there for anytech would be "useable" in some sort of ways... most of the time, PvP spins around stalker and imo and collo with some additional sentries. early on, since stalker dominating the battle field, air tech would be consider as a risky strat since we know stalker can shoot air but if one side choose to go collosus with all the gas into the range tech and shits and one side going phoenixes => clearly air tech has a dominant advantage now!
PvP is decided most of the time by: 1/ scouting infomations into countering "rock paper scissors" 2/ if mirror tech, the timing on the push, the "containment into expan", the transporting distant and most of all, micro intense will decide the battle 3/ those 2 above are not applying for cheesy plays
back to topic: Consider "DTs into Expan" Reason: DTs tech cost a HUGE amount of gas. as a Protoss player, you should be able to feel the excessive minerals count after spending all those gas on such "tier 3 melee tech". => mineral as protoss means only: zelots/pylons/probes/nexus => nexus :D Problem: Different from sc1, DTs tech cost lot, lots of gas and time build. During these vulnerable time period, there highly chance for your foe to scout your tech tree and easily get counter such as cannons or obs.
Solution: 1/ DTs mid game play: a lot of people would consider DTs as a mid game harrass/ anti expan tech in mid game and it works great. but thats not what we want, we want DTs RUSHHHH 2/ if you watched day9 daily the ep with qxc's BO tester map, you can see how he invested the minerals in some extra zealots and gates ==> problem: as we mention, in PvP, battle is normally occur with lots of stalkers on the fields and the first push should be way before the first DT wave comes out => zealots would be nice to tanks and wait for DTs. but when DTs come out, the damge already put you behind and a simple "hold" at the enemy ramps will block your DTs to enter (as high level, you will see there will be a pylons wall block off entrance when you come there =D)
Conclusion: DTs will put you into early game vulnerable, Fast expand will also put you into early game vulnerable, when these 2 goes together, i dont see how will one pull this off
On June 18 2010 17:04 TheFinalWord wrote: You're worried about the diversity of the matchup? Why are you focusing on dt's? Why not argue for the mothership rush to be a viable strategy. What you're saying is comparable to saying my carrier rush was scouted and my opponent went mass blinking stalker, Blizzard should modify the game so that Its possible to defend against the counter attack.
You completely missunderstand the dynamics of Starcraft 2 gameplay and what the OP said. I make it as easy for you as I can:
A) The DT opening is far less viable in PvP, because its way harder to transition out of it. B) This makes the PvP matchup less interesting than in BW because there you had more possible openings thus a more dynamic matchup.
at the moment there are only two standard openings: 4gate all-in, 3/2gate robo. there are a number of cheeses as well but were not discussing this here.
I'll edit the post you quoted to make it as easy for you as I can. There is nothing wrong with sc2 just because something that worked in BW doesn't work now. I'm arguing that there is no reason to completly change tech trees just for 1 matchup when the other 2 mu's are fine. What makes dt rushing less cheesy than the cheese openings "we're not discussing here"?
I'm curious how many openings were considered equally powerful in Broodwar. Earlier discussion in this thread makes it sound like DTs defined the entire matchup. It sounds like you either went DTs with a Cannon (so you could spot your opponent's DTs if they went for them), or you went for a quick Observer (so you didn't get fucked by DTs...) into Reavers and Goons as the natural transition.
I lost to super-fast DT's when I was first starting with protoss(and I learned from there on out to always get a robo first :S), and I can see where the OP is coming from, but I'd have to disagree.
I found this replay recently of HuK vs HasuObs, and HuK uses DT's to really good use. The replay is self-explanatory. You can get it here:
It's not the fastest possible DT's, though it's probably the most reasonable time to get them. Maybe HuK just got lucky, but this does show that obs don't neccessarily negate DT use, because obs are so slow.
EPT
