|
8751 Posts
i was working on a dt build that is decent against every build like we had in bw but i never tried it vs anyone. then beta went down.
On June 13 2010 10:49 AncienTs wrote:
OP... why is it so important that a DT "rush" becomes standard viable play?
If DT rushing was such a viable opening that PvP players don't get punished adequately for its failure... then what kind of "interesting" meta-game would that bring?
I'm getting my fireproof jacket ready as I claim that "DT rushing" is borderline cheese-play. Why would anyone stake their game upon a unit that's dependent on the single attribute that it is cloaked.
All-in-all, its not a safe opening, one deserves to get punished for rushing DT... you're playing as the protoss, not japanese ninjas.
Oh, and DTs probably won't even win against a 4-gate all-in.
in BW, the "dt rush" was really just the standard way of going templar tech as opposed to mass dragoon or robotics tech. you'd send out dt's and expand, build cannons at expansion, get high templar with storm. dt could usually contain long enough so that when an attack finally comes (even if it has reavers, which could outrange cannons) there would be enough storm to fend it off. so you dont rely on the dt's doing a ton of actual damage, but their role is very important. they buy time
|
On June 13 2010 10:43 iamtt1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 10:36 Severedevil wrote:
If you're not using Phoenix, you have no right to complain that PvP is boring.
I've not been very impressed with DT builds in any matchup, but bear in mind that DT allows you to backtech Charge or Blink, and if your opponent doesn't have at least two observers (one in their base and one with their army) they can't move out, because you can either DT counter or cut up their army. A DT rush followed by some combination of Speedlot/Sentry/DT/Archon might be viable against robo openings.
But, seriously, if you want to rape Robo openings, get Phoenix. again ur relying on wat ur opponent is doing, u have to be under the assumption that he does have 2 obs and he did scout ur b.o, any mass gate follow up after dting puts u behind macrowise because 1base collo is so strong, ud get overrun
Oh, I see what you are saying. It's not so much the Dark Templar, but rather transitioning into something else and your opponent not just a moving into your base with the standard robo build. I don't think this problem is coming from the DT as a unit, but rather from just not finding a good transition. I only see DT harass working in PvP if you get lucky and can sneak around. And if you want to go DT's in PvP your harass is going to have to be really good, if the tech is going to be worth it. The only thing I can think of for a transition is going blink stalkers and focusing down observers. Then just run away and let some DT's kill enough of the zealots and damage tanking units so you can come back and focus the immortals and colossi quickly. Even that seems like a really big longshot anyways. But as I can't play Beta I really can't experiment with anything either.
I see what you're saying, and I'm glad other people want some variety in PvP (because we need it), but I don't think changing the tech to fix PvP will help the overall game.
On June 13 2010 10:49 AncienTs wrote:
OP... why is it so important that a DT "rush" becomes standard viable play?
Because PvP is boring as hell with just robo all the time. I can't even use void rays in PvP anymore. He just wants variety in the match ups and more options, which PvP needs. PvP is pretty much as bad as ZvZ was.
|
"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"
I am a Zerg player, so I have no idea about whether Dark Templars are inefficient in PvP or not, but I would like to draw your attention to a fatal flaw in your thinking. That is, why would there be a transition that is safe versus every build order? If there was, then there would be no risk in going Dark Templars. The point of Dark Templars is that it's a big risk but with a potentially big payoff.
And if you know that there are only certain builds that you can use Dark Templars against AND safely transition back out of, then why not ONLY use Dark Templars versus those builds? You can't expect Dark Templars to be good against every build, so only use Dark Templars when you think they will be.
Everywhere I look there's someone whinging about some unit/build that doesn't work when they want it to, therefore it's 'inefficient', 'imbalanced' - whatever. Every build doesn't (and shouldn't) work against every build safely/effectively. You should be scouting your opponent so you can select the best build possible rather than guessing, failing, then coming on TL to complain about it.
Once again, I have no idea on the actual efficiency of Dark Templars in PvP, but if you could demonstrate it via a replay showcasing a flawless execution in the RIGHT situation and it still not working, then I will happily admit that you are right.
|
I think you should rename this "The Inefficiency of DT tech in all matchups"
because as it is now with them split and the DS taking 10 years to build..plus the really easily accessed detection i just dont even see a reason to go DT at all cause its just going to fail most likely..
|
On June 13 2010 10:49 AncienTs wrote:
OP... why is it so important that a DT "rush" becomes standard viable play?
If DT rushing was such a viable opening that PvP players don't get punished adequately for its failure... then what kind of "interesting" meta-game would that bring?
I'm getting my fireproof jacket ready as I claim that "DT rushing" is borderline cheese-play. Why would anyone stake their game upon a unit that's dependent on the single attribute that it is cloaked.
All-in-all, its not a safe opening, one deserves to get punished for rushing DT... you're playing as the protoss, not japanese ninjas.
Oh, and DTs probably won't even win against a 4-gate all-in.
dts were of one the main elements of pvp metagame in sc1, it adds an extra element to the mu, right now the mu is so 1 dimentional that there arnt any mind games involved, players dted in sc1 to keep their opponents honest when they tried to be greedy, if it did fail you wouldnt risk much because you had a follow up(it would put you behind because youd have no idea what your opponent wat your opponent was doing but not as much as it currently does in sc2).. in sc2 if ur dt rush fails you might as well f10 + q, just the thought of having a b.o control the outcome of a game is proof enought that somethings wrong
honestly its hard to explain but as a competitive player i can feel like theres something missing in the mu.. it feels unsastisfying
|
On June 13 2010 10:53 Liquid`NonY wrote:
i was working on a dt build that is decent against every build like we had in bw but i never tried it vs anyone. then beta went down.
in BW, the "dt rush" was really just the standard way of going templar tech as opposed to mass dragoon or robotics tech. you'd send out dt's and expand, build cannons at expansion, get high templar with storm. dt could usually contain long enough so that when an attack finally comes (even if it has reavers, which could outrange cannons) there would be enough storm to fend it off. so you dont rely on the dt's doing a ton of actual damage, but their role is very important. they buy time
imo, dts are so far down the tech tree in sc2 (arriving 6~7mins after game begins when playing standard), establishing map control with them seem a bit exorbitant in comparison to using blink stalkers.
i agree with the mentality that DTs aim to buy time (and also their role in bw), but how much time can they buy, really? and for what, especially in PvP?
In PvP:
early game blink stalkers from 3~4 gates puts a lot of pressure on your opponent (reference: white-ra vs tester on metalopolis)
*to OP: yeah i agree it's unsatisfying, but the way things are right now with the dark shrine deviating from HT and costing 250 gas... it seems like phoenix into speed-upgraded void rays might be a better choice.
|
I'm pretty sure Broodwar also had builds that bent DT rushes over a table. Builds that got 1 gateway + dragoon range + robo obs + nexus early, for example.
I doubt DT openings will ever be very strong against Robo openings (particularly now that obs are cheaper and faster to build), hence my suggestion of Phoenix, which are strong against Robo openings. DT openings might end up strong against Phoenix openings, or strong against mass gate openings which might in turn be strong against Phoenix openings.
But larger maps will probably help, as they slow down a robotics push and pre-DT rushes without delaying your DTs' arrival via warpgate.
|
United States10774 Posts
i basically agree with most of the problems you addressed. the exact reason why DTs aren't used in sc2 is that dark shrine tech/the actual units take forever to build, and there is no strong follow-up to it. some obvious solutions come to mind: combining dark shrine and templar archives like you mentioned or implementing a storm tech on dark shrine somehow with increased cost, build time or something. i remember a pvp game on metapolis - nony vs nazgul, i believe - where nony goes for dt and nazgul does a 3 gate - expo - robo build. even though nazgul's robo was ridiculously late, the obs arrived just a few seconds too late and nony was able to inflict sufficient damage to take the lead. he followed it up with cannons/expo + warp gate. i just see too many holes with this build as of now though. the fact that a straight up standard robo/2 gate or even 3 warpgate into robo beats this dt build doesn't really make sense. the match-up has "shrunk" down, in a way. if dark templars remain expensive, i am not certain why combining dark shrine and templar archives would cost problems.
|
it's more of an escalating arms race, the ramp mechanics in sc2 doesn't allow you to defend until dt tech or any deviant play like that, unfortunately
|
On June 13 2010 11:16 OneOther wrote:
i basically agree with most of the problems you addressed. the exact reason why DTs aren't used in sc2 is that dark shrine tech/the actual units take forever to build, and there is no strong follow-up to it. some obvious solutions come to mind: combining dark shrine and templar archives like you mentioned or implementing a storm tech on dark shrine somehow with increased cost, build time or something. i remember a pvp game on metapolis - nony vs nazgul, i believe - where nony goes for dt and nazgul does a 3 gate - expo - robo build. even though nazgul's robo was ridiculously late, the obs arrived just a few seconds too late and nony was able to inflict sufficient damage to take the lead. he followed it up with cannons/expo + warp gate. i just see too many holes with this build as of now though. the fact that a straight up standard robo/2 gate or even 3 warpgate into robo beats this dt build doesn't really make sense. the match-up has "shrunk" down, in a way. if dark templars remain expensive, i am not certain why combining dark shrine and templar archives would cost problems.
yea there are so many options, either mass gating and busting their front works, going collo and busting their front, making a pylon outside their base and warping units into their base with an ob to see the high ground, a warp prism elevator... there are soooo many holes, it would be impossible to defend everything
|
8751 Posts
On June 13 2010 11:00 Swede wrote:
The point of Dark Templars is that it's a big risk but with a potentially big payoff.
I think it's foolish to say what the point of a unit is. A unit has strengths and weaknesses and it can do certain things and it can't do certain things. There are plenty of uses of DT's that don't involve big risks. For example, harassing with just 2-3 DT's here and there in the late game can take advantage of an opponent lazy with detection while not risking much at all (a strong 3+ base economy makes the cost of 3 DT's small).
If Blizzard looked at the DT build in PvP and said they were satisfied with it because it's high risk high reward, then they're misguided. But I doubt they did that.
That's all TT1 is trying to say is that in BW there was more than one tech option that had a relatively safe build. It made the matchup better. And hell, both options had riskier ways of doing it and safer ways of doing it. A Robotics build can cut Probes and get Shuttle Reaver before any Observers, which is slightly risky against a possible DT opening but not fatal. And that first attack is risky anyway. The DT build could skip Dragoon range or build the Nexus before the Cannons, etc. Risk isn't determined by what tech you choose but rather by a number of other variables that can be adjusted. If a Templar tech build could work in SC2 PvP, it'd improve the matchup.
|
Another thing I have a problem with: "(assuming that your dt rush was blocked)". Well, obviously Dark Templars will be inefficient if they are blocked. This is terrible reasoning. You may as well have said "Assuming that Dark Templars are inefficient, Dark Templars are inefficient".
|
i have a feeling blizzard really won't want to remove a building for DT's as it might cause some of their single player campaign some issues, but i think a good way to mitigate that factor would be to require a templar archives in order to make the dark shrine, but make it a less expensive building with little warp-in time - that way it is more like the robotics support bay in terms of being a step forward into a tech tree, but impacts the game balance in a positive way.
|
On June 13 2010 11:29 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 11:00 Swede wrote:
The point of Dark Templars is that it's a big risk but with a potentially big payoff. I think it's foolish to say what the point of a unit is. A unit has strengths and weaknesses and it can do certain things and it can't do certain things. There are plenty of uses of DT's that don't involve big risks. For example, harassing with just 2-3 DT's here and there in the late game can take advantage of an opponent lazy with detection while not risking much at all (a strong 3+ base economy makes the cost of 3 DT's small).
Actually I completely agree with that. I suppose I should have mentioned that I was referring to fast Dark Templars, or at the very least, going Dark Templars before your economy has the room for them to fail (as I got the feeling that that was what the OP was talking about).
It's like going 1 base mutas, finding out that your opponent has mass stalkers, and subsequently losing when he counter attacks.
1 base mutas will work in a limited number of situations, and likewise 1 base Dark Templars will only work in a limited number of situations. The key is in finding out when they will work and when they won't.
|
well in bw, dts were something that you did a long the way. You used them to buy time like ppl have said and harrass and such. Then you would do a smooth switch to templars with storm because it comes from the same building. But in SC2 the dark shrine is expensive and only allows you to make dts. This is really whats messing everything up because if you then want to switch to templar you have to build a new building first. Not to mention that the dark shrine set you back quite a bit since its pretty expensive for not allowing you to build ht's. So most people (if they go the templar route) will skip dt's alltogether since its an expensive investment and go straight high templars.
Dt's should never be the goal. You shouldn't, in my opinion, say "ill go dt's and win." You should go dt's to harrass to buy time for storm. If you win with dt's then sweet, you got lucky, but that should never be the end of your plan. Right now, if you go dt's, you have basically commited to that prettys strongly because of how expensive the dark shrine and dt's themselves are. It was a commitment in sc1, but its a much bigger one in sc2 imo.
|
Wow tt1, Im really dissapointed in your post, while we are dealing with balancing issues, why arent scouts viable in PvP in BW? But seriously we all know there are only two builds that consistently work in PvP and there is very little room for creativity, but take BW zvz for example, it works the same way, hold off the mass ling attack (gate units) until you get mutalisks (immortals) and youre ahead.
I will say that making DTs stronger or faster build time wont likely unbalance the game since their use is very limited but fast DTs will make PvP a rock paper scissors match up, DTs beat 4 gate, robo beats dt, and well 4 gate doesnt really beat robo so 1 gate robo would be standard. I think PvP will evolve like SC1 zvz and there will be some interesting things, i dont see a way to change PvP without completely redesigning the game.
|
So the problem is that when the DT tech'ed toss wants to follow up with macro, he gets stomped by the opposing army... i think the key is to keep the 2nd DT alive assuming the first one died at his base. The key term is "alive" as in consistently slashing something to let him know that you have a threat. It doesnt have to be something important, you r just telling him to look at it and beef up his security. This should by you some time. Recently, instead of fast DT which makes ur army very zealot heavy, making it with spare gas while going blink stalker works pretty well. the building itself puts pressure on opponent and its just an excellent unit to stop/kill expansions. Gomtv Star2play Clan battle: oGs vs Prime had an excellent example of this when sSks(tester) did a near impossible come back against anypro in game 7.
|
On June 13 2010 11:39 Skillz_Man wrote:
Wow tt1, Im really dissapointed in your post, while we are dealing with balancing issues, why arent scouts viable in PvP in BW? But seriously we all know there are only two builds that consistently work in PvP and there is very little room for creativity, but take BW zvz for example, it works the same way, hold off the mass ling attack (gate units) until you get mutalisks (immortals) and youre ahead.
I will say that making DTs stronger or faster build time wont likely unbalance the game since their use is very limited but fast DTs will make PvP a rock paper scissors match up, DTs beat 4 gate, robo beats dt, and well 4 gate doesnt really beat robo so 1 gate robo would be standard. I think PvP will evolve like SC1 zvz and there will be some interesting things, i dont see a way to change PvP without completely redesigning the game.
lol wat, so ur saying because people didnt scout rush in sc1 pvp they shouldnt be able to dt rush without dying in sc2?
|
On June 13 2010 11:29 Swede wrote:
Another thing I have a problem with: "(assuming that your dt rush was blocked)". Well, obviously Dark Templars will be inefficient if they are blocked. This is terrible reasoning. You may as well have said "Assuming that Dark Templars are inefficient, Dark Templars are inefficient".
He's saying if the DT's are blocked you have no transition to save the game. Not that if the DT's are blocked they are an inefficient unit.
|
On June 13 2010 11:49 Alou wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 11:29 Swede wrote:
Another thing I have a problem with: "(assuming that your dt rush was blocked)". Well, obviously Dark Templars will be inefficient if they are blocked. This is terrible reasoning. You may as well have said "Assuming that Dark Templars are inefficient, Dark Templars are inefficient".
He's saying if the DT's are blocked you have no transition to save the game. Not that if the DT's are blocked they are an inefficient unit.
But that's no different than rushing ANY other higher tier unit in the early game. If it doesn't pay for itself then you are massively behind because of the investment you made in that higher tier unit.
Like Nony said, the later in the game you go for Dark Templars (or x unit) the less risk there is if they are blocked because your economy has more wiggle room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
