I brought this point up in another thread because i feel like this is a topic that needs more attention. As of now, the thing that worrys me the most about protoss is how inefficient dt techs are in pvp because its impossible to transition into a safe macro build(i.e fast expansion) due to the build time and cost of both the dark shrine and templar archive(impossible to get storm before dying), imo this makes the mu very 1 dimentional, essentially its handicapping it by removing a whole tech branch.
The difference is unlike individual unit imbalances the problem lies within the building mechanics, which is much more worrisome because it can easily effect the balance of other mu's if u try tweaking it around.
Most pvp's only revolve around robo play or 4g/3g b.os, its impossible to dt because if u do and if it gets blocked(which it does 99% of the time, the only way dt rushs work is if u get lucky and ur oppo doesnt robo or if he robos late, this statement alone shows theres a flaw with the tech because in a game ur never supposed to rely on what your opponent does) your automaticly screwed because theres nothing to transition into, in sc1 pvp there were alot of follow ups to a dt rush, players wouldnt necessarily dt to kill their opponents, if u did it was a plus but even if ur build was perfectly countered by your opponent it still wouldnt put you in a huge disadvantage.
In sc2 its impossible to follow up a dt rush without dying(or without being put in a big disadvantage), if u go for a macro build ud end up getting overrun.. the possiblitys of a bust are endless, theres the 2g or 3g mass unit+immortal bust from the front, theres the collo bust, your opponent can also make a pylon outside of your base and warp units in by simply using an ob as a high ground spotter, or he could do a warp prism elevator (version 2.0, imagine trying to defend vs an elevator + instant reinforcements lol)... there are soooo many holes, it would be impossible to defend vs all the possibilities, this problem is mostly due to not having enought time to temp tech(due to the cost of the templar archive and the build time), even if you do have enought time to tech to temps + storm the cost of the tech is so high that its impossible to have any supporting units.. the other alternative b.o to a dt opener would be allining which again is easy to counter(3g stalker blink/4g mass zeal + charge etc.).
Its impossible to be in a decent position after dt rushing.. your opponent already has an ob out so he can see whatever b.o you decide to transition into, ur basically dead because EVERY follow up to a dt rush is so easy to counter, 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
One way of fixing this problem would be to fuse the dark shrine + the templar archive into 1 building like in sc1 but the problem with that is who knows how this would effect the balance within the other mus. I remember Tester talking about adding an upgrade to the dark shrine itself in one of Artosis's interviews which could be a viable option, adding a warpgate-esque tech(kinda like spire > greater spire) to the dark shrine could work if the upgrade time of the templar archive is fast and if the cost is cheap, or you could change up the tech tree (i prefer this alternative because it feels less far fetched and it basically gives the same outcome), for example instead of it being twilight council > templar archive + dark shrine, the tech tree could be twilight council > dark shrine > templar archive but the archive tech needs to be cheap and the build time has to be short.
EDIT 1: Basically heres a breakdown of the main point of my post for our non bw bretherens. The building time/cost of the dark shrine and the building time/cost of the templar archive make it impossible to follow up dt openings into storm in order to transition into a fast expansion after dt rushing, this was one of the fundemental openers in bw pvp. Removing this aspect in sc2 pvp takes away a huge part of the metagame, finding a fix to this problem would add a new dimension to the mu, because imo as of now the matchup is incomplete.
i would love to hear the opinions of the more experienced players on this matter, agree or disagree? if u disagree pls elaborate
EDIT 2: added a poll, PLS ANSWER ACCORDINGLY!
Poll: Should there be a viable DT into fast expand build in SC2 pvp?
Yes (i come from a BW background) (91)
44%
Yes (i come from a non BW background) (52)
25%
No (i come from a BW background) (48)
23%
No (i come from a non BW background) (16)
8%
207 total votes
Your vote: Should there be a viable DT into fast expand build in SC2 pvp?
(Vote): Yes (i come from a BW background) (Vote): No (i come from a BW background) (Vote): Yes (i come from a non BW background) (Vote): No (i come from a non BW background)
On June 13 2010 09:53 iamtt1 wrote: because it can easily effect the balance of other mu's if u try tweaking it around.
Most pvp's only revolve around robo play or 4g/3g b.os, its impossible to dt because if u do and if it gets blocked(which it does 99% of the time, the only way dt rushs work is if u get lucky and ur oppo doesnt robo or if he robos late, this statement alone shows theres a flaw with the unit because in a game ur never supposed to rely on what your opponent does) your automaticly screwed because theres nothing to transition into, in sc1 pvp there were alot of follow ups u could do to a dt rush, players wouldnt necessarily dt to kill their opponents, if u did it was a plus but even if ur build was perfectly countered by your opponent it still wouldnt put you in a huge disadvantage.
i would love to hear the opinions of the more experienced players on this matter, agree or disagree? if u disagree pls elaborate
That's your problem ur alwais supposed to rely and react to what your opponent is doing, yes DT dont have much use but that is normal, not every unit is supposed to be use in every matchup lets take an example of lets say SC1
1) it is not a balance problem when X rush doesnt work in Y matchup
2) lategame DT drops are usefull to harass undefended areas. the damage/cost is bigger than any other drop you can make and the distraction is more intense because of the need of mobile detection to snipe the DTs.
On June 13 2010 09:53 iamtt1 wrote: because it can easily effect the balance of other mu's if u try tweaking it around.
Most pvp's only revolve around robo play or 4g/3g b.os, its impossible to dt because if u do and if it gets blocked(which it does 99% of the time, the only way dt rushs work is if u get lucky and ur oppo doesnt robo or if he robos late, this statement alone shows theres a flaw with the unit because in a game ur never supposed to rely on what your opponent does) your automaticly screwed because theres nothing to transition into, in sc1 pvp there were alot of follow ups u could do to a dt rush, players wouldnt necessarily dt to kill their opponents, if u did it was a plus but even if ur build was perfectly countered by your opponent it still wouldnt put you in a huge disadvantage.
i would love to hear the opinions of the more experienced players on this matter, agree or disagree? if u disagree pls elaborate
That's your problem ur alwais supposed to rely and react to what your opponent is doing, yes DT dont have much use but that is normal, not every unit is supposed to be use in every matchup lets take an example of lets say SC1
and lets take the example of sc1 where dts were actually viable. sc1 pvp was essentially a trio of techs: observer first, reaver first, and dt first. each had a decent chance against the other. sc1, not so much. you will always go robo first, regardless of what you're doing, because templar tech and dt tech are both very very fragile.
also, the problem isnt BALANCE, because mirrors are technically always "balanced". the problem is that the mu is broken, its "one-dimensional"
On June 13 2010 10:00 Darkren wrote: That's your problem ur alwais supposed to rely and react to what your opponent is doing, yes DT dont have much use but that is normal, not every unit is supposed to be use in every matchup lets take an example of lets say SC1
Is anyone asking for DTs to be used in every matchup? DTs are used a lot.. wait, let me stress that.. a LOT less than they ever were in BW for a number of reasons. The first one being the very obvious time and resource investment coupled with the split from the HT tech.
As for the OP - yes DTs are usually a crap choice and will fail against anything but a 4gate allin (which is rare on single entrance bases), and yes this is a problem as PVP is probably the most predictable/boring mu.
I am not sure how this would be solved. There are several possibilities but any of them would affect the other matchups.
In my opinion, the only mu DTs are worth getting is against Terrans, due to the harder availability of their mobile detector.
Funny because DTs are my favorite way to win in PvP, and yes at diamond league. No they don't work every time, but the vast majority of players I've faced go 4 gate. Those who get Robo don't even get an obs sometimes, as they'd rather spend the gas on getting those immortal/collo out (like how in TvT it's a game of chicken who will give up a MULE to scan.)
People seem to be under the impression that going DTs either fails or succeeds, meaning if they fail you lose the game right there or if they succeed you win automatically. They allow you to contain your opponent and drastically slow his expansion rate. Now every mineral line he needs at least 2 photons or he risks losing many probes. Meanwhile you can expand and take map control much more easily.
T and Z both need much more ressource investment to counter cloaked units than in BW. DTs are very strong in this matchups as openeners and mid/late harassers. the templar tech split counterbalances that.
In PvP i would solely use them against 4 gate or lategame. probably also midgame against robotech because you force him to make more obs instead of colossi. if you have your own observers then you might get 1-2 chances to snipe his and delay pushes etc.
On June 13 2010 10:27 lyk503 wrote: Think about what you have just said, and think about the usage of ghosts. Ghosts are really mainly used for TvP, and RARELY EVER used for TvZ or TvT
ghosts are very important in TvZ to protect your thors.
.... i dont want to sound like an ass but this is why i asked for the opinions of more experienced players, most of you dont even understand what im talking about.. you just come up with a random 2 line post that has nothing to do with the topic
On June 13 2010 10:27 lyk503 wrote: Think about what you have just said, and think about the usage of ghosts. Ghosts are really mainly used for TvP, and RARELY EVER used for TvZ or TvT
ghosts are very important in TvZ to protect your thors.
I'm not sure I follow. Would the ghost be sniping Mutas/zerglings or something? The 150 (I think) gas needed for ghost is so high (and don't forget about the ghost academy) that I think that there are WAAAY better options.
I've only used DT's in PvP a few times. I would just play defensively and snipe his observers with the army so I could back some units off and let the DT's rape, but that wasn't really a decent strategy.. I don't think DT's are really effective in PvP, but I really dont think they can be changed either as it could change PvZ and PvT too much. Also you could scout before and see if your opponent is committing heavy to a 4 warpgate build. If you can get enough to hold it off and get the tech going that could work really well. I agree that DT's aren't seen in PvP much, but I don't see a change coming as they are effective in other match ups.
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.
units don't need to be usable in every match up. Look at how the corsair was almost never used in anything except pvz. that is to say, i think its okay that there is no solid opening with dts, its not just pvp, pvt and pvz has similar abilities to detect and fight dts if they are scouted. i do think dts are underpowered at the moment due to the extra building (which btw is still too tall and makes it harder to click buildings built behind it)
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.
Your thoughts on the ineffectiveness of DT's is to use another unit?
On June 13 2010 10:27 lyk503 wrote: Think about what you have just said, and think about the usage of ghosts. Ghosts are really mainly used for TvP, and RARELY EVER used for TvZ or TvT
ghosts are very important in TvZ to protect your thors.
I'm not sure I follow. Would the ghost be sniping Mutas/zerglings or something? The 150 (I think) gas needed for ghost is so high (and don't forget about the ghost academy) that I think that there are WAAAY better options.
I think he means to EMP an infestor so it can't use NP, I could be wrong but that's what i think he means, although its not that big of a deal as infestors are really squishy.
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
like i said im looking for a safe macro build follow up to dt teching (AS I MENTIONED IN MY POST)
On June 13 2010 10:34 Alou wrote: I've only used DT's in PvP a few times. I would just play defensively and snipe his observers with the army so I could back some units off and let the DT's rape, but that wasn't really a decent strategy.. I don't think DT's are really effective in PvP, but I really dont think they can be changed either as it could change PvZ and PvT too much. Also you could scout before and see if your opponent is committing heavy to a 4 warpgate build. If you can get enough to hold it off and get the tech going that could work really well. I agree that DT's aren't seen in PvP much, but I don't see a change coming as they are effective in other match ups.
yea i agree that as it is the dt tech tree is effective in pvz in pvt, thats why i didnt bring it up in my post but i still feel like there could be a way of fixing dt openings in pvp without messing up the balance in other mus
i honesly cant think of a pvx mu apart from pvp where a whole tech branch is competly removed.. it just makes no sense to me
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.
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 10:36 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.
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.
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
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 11:00 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 11:29 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.
As for the OP - yes DTs are usually a crap choice and will fail against anything but a 4gate allin (which is rare on single entrance bases), and yes this is a problem as PVP is probably the most predictable/boring mu.
I'm pretty sure ZvZ is most predictable and boring MU. PvP Dts cant be used observers go out so fast, and every toss player makes them.
The Dark Shrine is the biggest joke in this game. It really should be removed because it's such a dead-end tech. You build it, you get one unit unlocked and that's it. It's also extremely vulnerable to being countered and leaves you with no options. At least if DTs came at the temp archives, you could transition into temps/archons (lol).
PvP is boring because it's balanced on a razor's edge, just like all the other matchups. Why isn't MMM viable in TvT or hydra/ling in ZvZ? It's for the same reason, the most optimal build will beat everything except that same optimal build done better.
Stargate tech in PvP is very powerful in its own right and those players usually don't have detection.
Even then, robo players sometimes skip obs or only have 1 even late in the game. This makes DTs a really good midlate-late game harass or containment tool, especially considering their strength and speed.
The Dark Shrine by itself isn't very expensive, it is really the time that is substantial. Late game you should also have a twilight council anyways, so it really shouldn't be unnatural to get DTs later on in the game.
If you have been getting rolled by a robo timing attack, or simply killed by a Colossi army with 1 observer, then you are probably playing some kind of 1 base DT all-in.
The time and resource commitment to DTs is substantial in the early game and leaves you with no flexibility. Use them as if they aren't an all-in strategy and they really aren't bad units. By the late game their tech and time cost is insignificant compared to the map control they can give.
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.
Of course you are behind if the rush fails, that's not the point. He is saying that when it fails, he has no transition, which is unlike other rush to fast tech builds, in which you have transitions to other units available.
Void Rays, Dark Templar, Thors, and Mutas can all be rushed and used in order to win the game fast or at least get you a big advantage. If that fails then you will be behind.
However, these units can also be used without being all-in strategies. The problem is that most players go all in with DTs.
What I do not understand is why you are trying to force DTs to be used as a rushed unit. There are plenty of other ways to be using DTs and just because they were used in BW that way does not mean they should be used for the same identical purpose.
If you think about the tech needed to get to the dark shrine, you need the twilight council. Why not get the blink first and get stalkers, or get chargelots, and hide your dark shrine when you do get it? DTs can still give you an advantage, as you can just invest in one or two DTs and switch back to standard play. This would keep your opponents on their toes, and possibly get them to overcommit with cannons.
Of course you are behind if the rush fails, that's not the point. He is saying that when it fails, he has no transition, which is unlike other rush to fast tech builds, in which you have transitions to other units available.
That's not what he's saying. He's saying there is no WORKING transition, which is the same as any other early tech rush (when vsing a capable player).
The way to allow for a working transition is either by ensuring that your fast tech will do enough damage to buy you the time to switch (ie, don't try it unless you are 90% sure it will work), or by teching at a later stage when your economy has some wiggle room.
The OP has only outlined one aspect of the fundamental design of SC2. It's not something specific to Dark Templars.
One way I can think of to make DTs viable into the midgame if you opened with them is to somehow get a robo and observers of your own, plus 1 or 3 phoenix to kill enemy observers. At 3 shots to kill, and neither stalkers nor sentries take down phoenixes quickly, so I'd probably stick with one until I had my natural up and running, them add up to 3 phoenixes. That being said, it seems like that's too much tech at once, and the DT opening will die without fail to any 3 gate robo build, while every time I opened DTs it was an instant win against 4 gate and stargate builds.
Even somehow combining the Dark Shrine with the Templar Archives doesn't seem like it will make DTs any more viable. In Brood War, Goon/Reaver was good because it gave you observers if needed, the potential harassment with Shuttle/Reaver, and a stable army that could deal with any enemy unit composition well before a player teching straight to Templar could have more than a few Storms available. However, in the late game, Templar tech was superior to Reavers because storm outranged Reavers, Reavers were fairly immobile, and died in two storms. Colossi, by contrast, take a whopping 5 storms to kill, outrange storm by 50%, don't run out of energy, can just amble out of storms, they're so big that one basically soaks a whole storm by itself if there's no units under it, the tech gives you options of immortals to help deal with mass stalker and observers to deal with DT. Like in BW, it's also faster to tech to. Furthermore, Colossi massacre Zealots, which a player teching to templar will have due to the mineral:gas cost ratio of Templar, and cost more minerals than gas themselves, giving the Colossi player a slightly healthier resource mix to spend on the rest of his/her army. In conclusion, I'm not going to say that Templar tech of both sorts is useless in a PvP, but I don't think it will ever create an army that can stand toe to toe with a Colossus army on equal resources until there are a large number of templar on the field (enough to blanket the entire enemy army with storms, probably twice), so the only way to win is to keep the opponent in his/her base and take an economic lead with excellent harass, because until you get that many templar, they can just push out and kill you.
Robo units are just so strong that it'd be hard to make DTs viable without breaking the game or moving the matchup more towards a coin flip situation.
I don't think it's enough to just shorten the build time or make high templars build from the same building (what are you going to do, storm the colossi to death without actually having any units that can shoot at them?).
I don't think storm+canons can hold a 1base robo tech timing in a game like SC2 tbh. You'd need some sort of added functionality to the templar tech tree. Some mind control-ish spell, or some spell to stun and/or incapacitate the immortals/colossi. Even then it'd be really hard to balance.
I think tweaking the macro mechanics (weakening them), in conjunction with shortening or cheapening the building process for DTs might make it more viable. Micro battles early game would involve less units and turn out to be more interesting, and playing "safe" would actually mean you'd have to forgo some gateways to afford to build the robo in time.
As it is now, DTs are too expensive to tech to. It takes too long a time. You have to sacrifice too many gateways and units. And even if it partially works, trying to transition into a fast expansion is borderline suicidal because the strength of the macro mechanics enable people to sustain a ridiculous amount of gateways in conjunction with a robo really early in the game.
I doubt Blizzard is ready to make a fundamental change such as weakening the macro mechanics across all the races, but I think that at some point it will be evident that they need to in order to diversify strategies. Right now the macro mechanics have too great an impact on the metagame. Everyone expects at least 3 gates, if not 4 or 5 before an expansion. I can't really argue with that either, it's evidently the best and most optimal strategy.
What bothers me about the macro mechanics are that they literally bottleneck the midgame in almost every matchup. They create this bottleneck in the early midgame where you have to keep massing units at every cost. Where there is no other option than massing units like crazy. Where diverting from the norm more often than not punishes you.
I actually think that if they slowed down the early game and early mid game somewhat, SC2 would be a much more fun and fast paced (and more balanced) game in the mid and lategames. I'd especially think a lot more odd and technical strategies such as Warp Prism Colossus drops (and who knows what other strategies) would become viable.
As it is now, if you go for a cute tactic like warp prism colossus, more often than not you just get attack moved to death by a huge fucking mass of units.
LaLush you can still get DTs later on. They are expensive and time consuming, going for them quickly and sacrificing units and money to get them makes them really weak when getting robo is extremely popular.
Even if more people opened stargates it would still be a bad choice because it is so all in.
Maybe you should instead question whether high templar should be useful in PvP.
I personally don't think high templar need to be viable in PvP because in Broodwar PvP stargates went largely unused, but now they are pretty damn viable. That makes the number of options in PvP pretty similar to Broodwar.
On June 13 2010 12:24 Percutio wrote: That doesn't seem entirely true.
Void Rays, Dark Templar, Thors, and Mutas can all be rushed and used in order to win the game fast or at least get you a big advantage. If that fails then you will be behind.
However, these units can also be used without being all-in strategies. The problem is that most players go all in with DTs.
This is the gist of it. Going DTs is a bigger resource and time investment than any of the other alternatives, and if they don't pay themselves out you are pretty much guaranteed to lose. The other options, even if not successful, do not put you in such a bad position, imo.
Darks are invisible. 1 single dark can win you a game. The payoff of the all-in in case of success is huge. So are the costs in case of a failure. They are fine the way they are imo.
In the beta I had some luck with mid-late game proxy dark templar. Basically hide the dt tech and when they attack warp in some dt at their main and wipe out probes while you force field main. Works well on maps with a small choke at your natural. You dont have to use pylons as warp prisms work just as well. Remember to keep them out of site as long as possible.
I don't understand what your issue is with DTs are. You're basically saying that DTs should be more viable in pvp with 1base vs 1base and you're complaining about it? DTs are a harassing unit and are not necessarily a game ender just because you want it to be. That's like saying nukes should be more viable in TvT "JUST BECAUSE."
There's a right time to use every unit. DTs are fine even with the tech tree. Aside from having templar and dt's using two different buildings if you think about it, it takes the same amount of buildings to get DTs as it did in Starcraft 1.
People need to stop thinking about how they can win games using cheap gimmicky tricks because it won't work on a good player.
As an avid fan of the PvP MU in BW and all the great number of openings you could do, I was really disappointed with the PvP MU in SC2.
In BW, I enjoyed DT openings a lot. Not because the slim chance of "rock-paper-scissoring" your opponent, but because it allowed for a different tech path and playstyle. You could grab an expansion and get Storm/Zealot Legs, stop counter DTs with Cannons and get fast upgrades with the Forge you built for them.
What doesn't allow for this interesting play or build orders is the expenses of the Templar route in SC2. We all know this. This is why we see most everyone go for mass gates or robo builds. Stargate is even more appealing/useful than the Templar tech.
I'd like to propose an upgrade that allows the Templar Archives tech to also allow production of Dark Templar. It would be an upgrade called something like "Dark Commune" that costs 50minerals/50gas, and takes longer to upgrade than just going straight Dark Shrine (but roughly the same if chrono boosts are saced on the upgrade) Perhaps it could be a visual/name upgrade to the Templar Archives itself (with a cool name like Templar Tribunal),
The details of the upgrade/idea aren't really important. Hell, maybe just make it so you can convert one between the other. The point is finding a balanced way to allow you to get your DTs out around the same time as building a Dark Shrine, but you will afterwards be able to immediately research Storm and not have to commit a large amount of resources on a tech that should essentially be merged together on one building.
But why not merge it? Blizzard probably wants to keep around the cool building art and place to add Dark Archon or other unit upgrades in the next two expansions.
So why not find a fun, cool, balanced and lore following alternative that spices up Protoss a bit more, and allows for more interesting play, particularly in PvP mirror matchups?
Edit: Also, maybe make Psi Storm more useful in PvP. I haven't checked it out too much, but it seems probably terrible considering Immortals shield works against it? They should just change that, its not going to hurt Immortals in any other MU anyways.
would the matchup really improve with a viable dt build? storm was a very useful part of a late game army in sc1...thus teching quickly to it was solid.
On June 13 2010 12:24 Percutio wrote: That doesn't seem entirely true.
Void Rays, Dark Templar, Thors, and Mutas can all be rushed and used in order to win the game fast or at least get you a big advantage. If that fails then you will be behind.
However, these units can also be used without being all-in strategies. The problem is that most players go all in with DTs.
Void rays, dark templars, thors and mutas are not top tier units like DT's are.... Colossi, both kinds of templars, carriers, battlecruisers, ultras and broodlords are top tier units if you consider the amount of tech needed to get to them. (Zerg is special since their unit production structures are cheaper so they have more expensive tech)
What you buy is the citadel of Adun, aka you go for gateway units, either chargelots or blink stalkers, then you might transition to DT's or HT's from that. As a comparison, how many do actually rush to colossi? And if they do aren't they royally screwed by any kind of stargate build? Why should DT's be the only endtech that is always viable to rush to?
Dt play in pvp hasn't changed at all from bw to sc2. I think its good that dt rush isn't a super viable winning strategy as it wouldn't produce great games anyhow. Besides that, who really wants to be proud of winning games with dt rush? Withering your opponent little by little is a greater challenge and provides great games from a spectator level.
On June 13 2010 20:09 nEAnS wrote: I don't understand what your issue is with DTs are. You're basically saying that DTs should be more viable in pvp with 1base vs 1base and you're complaining about it? DTs are a harassing unit and are not necessarily a game ender just because you want it to be. That's like saying nukes should be more viable in TvT "JUST BECAUSE."
There's a right time to use every unit. DTs are fine even with the tech tree. Aside from having templar and dt's using two different buildings if you think about it, it takes the same amount of buildings to get DTs as it did in Starcraft 1.
People need to stop thinking about how they can win games using cheap gimmicky tricks because it won't work on a good player.
Yeah, you don't understand, and all your babbling after you admit that was just nonsense =[
--he doesn't want DT to be a game ender --there's no useful analogy to nukes in TvT --same amount of buildings is arbitrary. cost of buildings and build time of buildings are two obvious differences. what you can get on the way and soon after DT's and what they can get on the way and soon after having a Robotics, and how all those things interact, are the most to-the-point facts --he doesn't want DT as a cheap gimmicky trick. that's exactly what he DOESN'T want --cheap gimmicky tricks have been winning games against good players for SC's entire life and SC2 isn't any different
Here are some advices about DT rush from 11 years of protoss experience - If you 4 gate, u gotta attack before he can make up any tech. That follows dark templar rush too. Many ppl thinks dt rush is anti of 4 gate but what if 4 gate player attacks earlier ? Even he fails he can see you are up to dt due to amount of zealots uve made and he can get forge in time and ruin your base. -If you are sure your oppenent is DT or fast ROBO with little amount of units. U have to wait for your second observer to scout since the first one has wait in your ramp (if u send it to his base and meanwhile he comes with DT ur likely GG) -If u see enemy's observer is up before your dark templars are dead, dont try hard. Make them Archons and take expansion meanwhile. He cant risk to attack u before getting his base safe which would cost him some units and a second observer. In this time you can make an expansion and go for cannons if he is not massing immortals. This strat used to be better in BW because you can get high templar tech as well with dark templar. -Dark Templars can be deadly in late game as well. You have to find possible routes to his mineral lines. If he attacks just warp some dark templars and get them to his mineral line while he is attacking you. There is a high possibiltiy that he wouldnt notice before u get like 10 kills.(this possbility was higher in bw because one shot killing did not used to give u a signal from minimap) -Dark Templars are very good unit in every part of game if the amount of units of both players are little. Like after a huge combat with huge casulties, you can try to support your warped units with dt since they are one of the best 1v1 melee fighter in SC2. Thats all for now.
If I where blizzard I would make the following changes ASAP:
- remove Feedback from HTs and give it to DTs. make it a darkshrine upgrade. decrease the range to 3/4.
- give HTs the SCBW feedback from the darkarchons(and name it differently). It was an AoE stun that scaled proportionaly to the numbers of enemy units it hits (stunningtime/enemyunits). the more units it hits the less is the duration.
result: DTs could snipe unprotected casters and (T/Z) detectors. they would have a much stronger role. It could also improve pvp where phoenixes, sentries, HT's are being used.
I think a large part of the reason DTs are tough to get in PvP is because of how popular the two "standard" openings are: 4gate and 2gate robo. I'm hoping that not everyone will go robotics in toss mirror after beta comes back up. I really do believe that stargate is underutilized in general, same with phoenixes, especially after their move attack buff.
Mostly, I'd like a short reduction to dark shrine build time, so it doesn't feel like you're investing so much in dark templars. Merging DTs with with templar archives is also a commonly suggested idea, not sure how that'd pan out balance wise, though.
So back to the OP: I think that if robotics tech becomes less popular, DTs will become that much stronger. Just at the moment, fast observer is way too popular. If a DT can deal sufficient damage, say, to workers or the opponent's army, then, like some other posters have suggested, it's easy enough to back tech to blink stalkers or chargelots.
I wish people would put a little more though into new topics, this topic in general doesn't have much stand point at all. Not to mention lots of people are going to read it, you could bother to spell out 'you' instead of shortening a 3 letter word, how hard can it be? I'm not even sure if 'oppo' was ever short for opponent.
This OP is painful to try and read.
Not to mention to people defending this guy saying he's complaining about the viability of dt harass, he directly complains about how dt rushes don't work the entire post
If I where blizzard I would make the following changes ASAP:
- remove Feedback from HTs and give it to DTs. make it a darkshrine upgrade. decrease the range to 3/4.
- give HTs the SCBW feedback from the darkarchons(and name it differently). It was an AoE stun that scaled proportionaly to the numbers of enemy units it hits (stunningtime/enemyunits). the more units it hits the less is the duration.
result: DTs could snipe unprotected casters and (T/Z) detectors. they would have a much stronger role. It could also improve pvp where phoenixes, sentries, HT's are being used.
I think you have some misconceptions, dark archons feedback does exactly what the ht's one does, you're thinking of maelstrom which stuns in an AoE. Plus having a permenantly stealthed spellcaster?
If I where blizzard I would make the following changes ASAP:
- remove Feedback from HTs and give it to DTs. make it a darkshrine upgrade. decrease the range to 3/4.
- give HTs the SCBW feedback from the darkarchons(and name it differently). It was an AoE stun that scaled proportionaly to the numbers of enemy units it hits (stunningtime/enemyunits). the more units it hits the less is the duration.
result: DTs could snipe unprotected casters and (T/Z) detectors. they would have a much stronger role. It could also improve pvp where phoenixes, sentries, HT's are being used.
I think you have some misconceptions, dark archons feedback does exactly what the ht's one does, you're thinking of maelstrom which stuns in an AoE. Plus having a permenantly stealthed spellcaster?
If I where blizzard I would make the following changes ASAP:
- remove Feedback from HTs and give it to DTs. make it a darkshrine upgrade. decrease the range to 3/4.
- give HTs the SCBW feedback from the darkarchons(and name it differently). It was an AoE stun that scaled proportionaly to the numbers of enemy units it hits (stunningtime/enemyunits). the more units it hits the less is the duration.
result: DTs could snipe unprotected casters and (T/Z) detectors. they would have a much stronger role. It could also improve pvp where phoenixes, sentries, HT's are being used.
That would fuck up balance in so many ways.
I think DTs are fine the way they are. Sure, PvP still is the most boring matchup in the game (even worse than ZvZ lol) and i would love to see their making Protoss mid and late game stronger, so it doesnt have to rely on 1-base-agression so much.
If I where blizzard I would make the following changes ASAP:
- remove Feedback from HTs and give it to DTs. make it a darkshrine upgrade. decrease the range to 3/4.
- give HTs the SCBW feedback from the darkarchons(and name it differently). It was an AoE stun that scaled proportionaly to the numbers of enemy units it hits (stunningtime/enemyunits). the more units it hits the less is the duration.
result: DTs could snipe unprotected casters and (T/Z) detectors. they would have a much stronger role. It could also improve pvp where phoenixes, sentries, HT's are being used.
That would fuck up balance in so many ways.
I think DTs are fine the way they are. Sure, PvP still is the most boring matchup in the game (even worse than ZvZ lol) and i would love to see their making Protoss mid and late game stronger, so it doesnt have to rely on 1-base-agression so much.
I think the situation the OP is outlying is a complete catch-22. Of course you need to get a robo before going down to DT tech, otherwise, your lack of detectors leaves you wide open to the aforementioned DT attacks. DTs aren't particularly safe as an early harass unit and I'm okay with that.
DTs are still fantastically useful for mid-late harass. They're either going to cause massive damage or make your opponent overcommit with cannons/obs everywhere.
On June 14 2010 01:30 Offhand wrote: I think the situation the OP is outlying is a complete catch-22. Of course you need to get a robo before going down to DT tech, otherwise, your lack of detectors leaves you wide open to the aforementioned DT attacks. DTs aren't particularly safe as an early harass unit and I'm okay with that.
DTs are still fantastically useful for mid-late harass. They're either going to cause massive damage or make your opponent overcommit with cannons/obs everywhere.
exactly. the problem with the DT tech is not that its not a good option in pvp. the problem is that its too specific/cost in general.
the other high tech units that have this tech structure: 1tech building->1unit. are more versatile.
I totally agree with the OP. DTs are way too dandegrous to go straight for in PvP because a simple obs will lose you the game and every decent protoss out there will have at least one observer on the field at that time.
either he scouts the shrine with it, either he spots the dts at your ramp and your screwed. Leaving DTs almost unusued in PvP.
Problem here is if you get your tech scouted, you have to change your game plans because you obviously won't do much damage with your DTs now. But you basicly have to change your whole tech, spam some more gates and expand. But it won't happen because the second your shrine is noticed, you will get rolled over by his army and you'll never be ready to defend it.
I'm not sure is has to be changed tho. Expansions will bring new units in the mix and that will affect mirror matches a lot. When PvP gets more diversified with more options to open with, maybe a DT rush will have more chances to catch your oponnent off guard at that time. Because you'll have more builds to think about..I dont know actually.
I still don't quite get this thread. I think everyone agrees that there's something wrong with dt/ht tech. What I don't get is why a DT rush needs to be a viable build in PvP. Rushing to a T3 unit in any mirror matchup will put you behind if it fails, and shouldn't that be the case?
On June 14 2010 04:59 Mack wrote: I still don't quite get this thread. I think everyone agrees that there's something wrong with dt/ht tech. What I don't get is why a DT rush needs to be a viable build in PvP. Rushing to a T3 unit in any mirror matchup will put you behind if it fails, and shouldn't that be the case?
This is not what he is saying. It's been addressed a thousand times that this isn't about " omg rush to dt's omgomg yess." It's like 75% of the people who have posted in this thread have never seen a BW PvP match in their entire life.
On June 13 2010 12:26 dignity wrote: What I do not understand is why you are trying to force DTs to be used as a rushed unit. There are plenty of other ways to be using DTs and just because they were used in BW that way does not mean they should be used for the same identical purpose.
If you think about the tech needed to get to the dark shrine, you need the twilight council. Why not get the blink first and get stalkers, or get chargelots, and hide your dark shrine when you do get it? DTs can still give you an advantage, as you can just invest in one or two DTs and switch back to standard play. This would keep your opponents on their toes, and possibly get them to overcommit with cannons.
in bw there was a build where ud go dts into a fast expansion and were able to hold off your opponent's attacks by teching to templars and getting storm while expanding, the main point of this thread is that there is no b.o as of now that can mimic this type of opening in sc2
when i use the term "dt rush" it basically means opening up with a dt build, the wording has just stuck with me from bw but wat i was trying to say is opening up with a dt tech..
Hm...i wouldnt say that DT rushes arent viable in PvP... Ok, maybe a DT Rush is kind of risky... but to add them after an standard warpgate opening is sometimes very useful...
In the later beta weeks i often met protoss players who moved away from the robo to colossi play and used warpgate and stargate openings instead. I go usually for a 3 Gate Blinkstalker Opening in PvP and if i scout another no robo player or no forge (or a forge but no cannon) i add a dark shrine to punish his play... mostly very succesful. Even if the Protoss got Cannons, some DTs can easily contain him until he sets his robo up, which leaves you some important time with total mapcontrol.
Its true... starting a game and directly run for DTs is quiet risky, because its hard to deal with an early robo push... go for DTs is nothing which should be rushed in PvP... go for a more secured opening and if there is an opportunity, add DTs asap.
PS: Ancient right over me mentions that DTs crush a 4 gate all in, which was still very common, even in higher diamond rankings.
PPS: I dont think there is big need about making DT rushes viable in PvP... its very viable in all the other MUs and a little bit later quiet useful in PvP, so i dont see why we need DT rushes in PvP?
On June 13 2010 22:47 Arikuna wrote: Why didn't NonY post this thread for tt1?
Maybe edit the OP to make your point clear and avoid further 4 pages of ppl complaining about your seemingly nooby complaint?
the only reason theres so much complaint is because 95% of the posters have no idea what im talking about, thats why i asked for the opinions of the more veteran players from the scene in order to avoid 10 pages worth of explanation on how sc1 pvp worked, also im not asking for sc2 to be a remake of bw but theres a reason why blizzard brought the same tech branch back into sc2, dt teching into ht was a fundemental aspect of pvp.. the same tools are available to us right now, why not try to make it work?
it would have been much easier if i just came out and said "plz dont post in this thread if u have no bw experience" right off the bat
On June 13 2010 22:47 Arikuna wrote: Why didn't NonY post this thread for tt1?
Maybe edit the OP to make your point clear and avoid further 4 pages of ppl complaining about your seemingly nooby complaint?
the only reason theres so much complaint is because 95% of the posters have no idea what im talking about, thats why i asked for the opinions of the more veteran players from the scene in order to avoid 10 pages worth of explanation on how sc1 pvp worked
it would have been much easier if i just came out and said "plz dont post on this thread if u have no bw experience" right off the bat
wouldnt help either.
what do you think of giving the shrine a nice upgrade? or the DTs in general?
Because I really would not like it if the templar buildings would merge. T and Z have to invest more ressources to get detection than in BW.
the problem IS NOT with the unit itself but with the building mechanics which i already adressed in my OP post(building time/cost of the DS + the building time/cost of the templar archive make it impossible to follow up dt openings into storm in order to transition into an early expansion after dt rushing), do any of you even read before posting?
On June 14 2010 05:48 iamtt1 wrote: the only reason theres so much complaint is because 95% of the posters have no idea what im talking about, thats why i asked for the opinions of the more veteran players from the scene in order to avoid 10 pages worth of explanation on how sc1 pvp worked
it would have been much easier if i just came out and said "plz dont post on this thread if u have no bw experience" right off the bat
The problem is in the communication. You're combining two games here. This is no longer BW — the units are different, the techs are different, the mechanics are different. You're trying to get a build from BW to directly translate to a SC2 build.
how can you NOT rely on what your opponent is doing??? Opponent makes rock, you keep sending scissors...
"Dear Blizzard. Paper is OP, scissors are ok.
-Sincerely, Rock"
Clearly rushing DT doesnt work...thats not a reliable BO in PvP. If you don't want robos, find a different BO (VRs perhaps? cuz immortals can't shoot up, ya?)
On June 14 2010 05:56 iamtt1 wrote: the problem IS NOT with the unit itself but with the building mechanics which i already adressed in my OP post(building time/cost of the DS + the building time/cost of the templar archive make it impossible to follow up dt openings into storm in order to transition into an early expansion after dt rushing), do any of you even read before posting?
ofc I read your OP...
but I dont agree with you. Because if there where a worthy upgrade on the shrine for the DT then it would A) make it more versatile and B) legitimate the splitted tech balance wise.
I mean there are so many possibilities that would maybe solve the problem through giving the shrine an upgrade without merging it with the templar tech.
just for the sake of examples I make some upgrades up that somehow fit the lore and the gameplay (I dont say any of them are balanced, just examples):
- detection - maelstrom - movement speed - blind - additional damage to buildings - parasite(bw) feary fire(wc3)-like spell - feedback (and adding sth different to HTs)
any of these upgrades could solve this "problem" you stated.
think of this analogy: if ghost-tech had the same problem, then it would probably be more reasonable to give the tech more versatility through an ability/upgrade rather than merging it with another tech. for example if it hadnt EMP.
On June 14 2010 06:15 GG.Win wrote: I don't think so much this is a problem with DT tech, as it is a problem with warpgates.
yea the problem isnt that easy to solve, even if you fix the building mechanics you still have to deal with the insane mobility of protoss, pylon warpins inbase or a warp prism elevator would still be hard to defend
add to that the fact that storm is garbage vs collos =/, o well i guess we have to stick with dt openers as being an allin build in sc2 pvp ^_^, weeeeeeeeeeeee 1base robo vs 3g/4g ftw
I do agree that going straight into DT tech in PvP is somewhat of an all-in move. I will only go straight to DT if my opponent has gone 4 gate and is very aggressive. What I like to do is transition into dark templar by first getting blink stalkers, and attacking, then getting DT's eventually, and only using them when the time is right. Using DTs to attack units is just going to give them an opportunity to get observers. I usually try to get into the enemy base with two dts, search for a robotics, then focus fire it down with blink stalkers and dts. At that point, they will either have no observers, and you win, or they have 1 and are contained until they can get a robotics up.
I'm going to attempt to clarify the points being addressed in this thread (or at least trying to be addressed).
1. The PvP openings are largely one-dimensional. It seems that if you don't open with some combination of Gateways and Robos, then you are crippling yourself.
2. It's suggested that Templar tech should be made a more viable option like it was in BW.
Once again, the issue is the OPENING, not necessarily the units or army compositions themselves. This thread is not about DTs or HTs being too weak or any such nonsense. It is addressing the issue that if you open with DTs in mind, you are basically committed to going all-in.
The points that should be discussed/debated in this thread are
A) Whether the match-up really IS one-dimensional (though I don't think I've really seen anyone argue this)
B) Whether the Templar branch could/should be adjusted to serve as a solution to this match-up diversity issue.
C) Perhaps some other suggestions for diversifying the PvP match-up.
That being said, I myself am probably not qualified to give my own opinions on what could/should be done as I'm not all that good at SC2, and I didn't play SC1 competitively and didn't follow the competitive scene either.
I do, however, always like to caution people about making assumptions about something that may not have been completely explored yet. Basically, are you sure that their isn't some build order or unit compilation that DOES make DTs and Templar Tech in general viable against standard openings?
the reason why I dont like his solution (namely merging HT&DT tech) is because it would dumb down the tech to a BW variant. It would be much more interesting if the DT tech had more usability/versatility in itself. this is why I gave random examples of how it could be done.
either way: Iam not even sure if PvP is one dimensional. I actually had quite some success with stargate openings against robo openings. this is why I stated earlyer that not every opening must be automatically viable. the blink stalker opening is another viable example on backdoor maps.
that said: I would still like to see more usability/versatility according to the shrine tech. the DT is in my opinion too much of a niche product (as it also was in bw).
Yeah I'm not really sure I understand this. Your only problem is DT RUSH, they're still viable if you go macro 1st and open with something else.
I don't really see what the big deal about not being able to open with DT in PvP is, that seems like a pretty niche little area, and not something which needs to be fixed. So DTs are not useful for rushing in PvP, but only in later game and/or other MUs. Isn't this similar to the way Reapers are being used (almost exclusively in early-game) in only 1 area/purpose?
I don't see a problem here.
Edit: So they work differently than they did in BW. I think people need to stop playing SC2 like its BW. It's a different game. Blizzard don't want things to work the same way, they don't want people to be using units in the same way. They want people to find new ways to work with units, new builds, new strategies and openings.
If your quick-DT into FE doesn't work in SC2 like it did in BW, then do something else. Stop trying to play SC2 like its BW. A lot of units carried over from SC1 work differently now, people need to adapt and try new things.
The problem with posting shit on the sc2 forums. 80% will argue against points you actually didn't make.
You're all right. There's no problem with every single PvP game revolving around 4+ gateways with the occasional robo mixed in. The next two years will hold lots of fun times...
Feel free to ignore, just another random (but good) idea that is way too late to possibly be considered as a change:
Remove high templar and dark templar from gateway production
Remove Dark Shrine building
Add new unit - TEMPLAR to gateway construction, prereq: templar archives Templar is pretty useless unmorphed (give it an attack or no? balance thing i suppose), but has the ability to morph to high templar or dark templar individually Morphings take 30 sec and extra resources (more gas for high temps, more minerals for dark temps, overall cost of templar+morph should equal the cost of the unit right now) (times subject to balance).
Add upgrade to templar archives that reduces morph time to instantaneous, but the upgrade takes like 60-80 sec (aka a long time).
This solutions would solve a lot of the issues raised in this thread no?
Yea, the biggest problem with DTs is that any 3/4 Warpgate rush is going to total you and all your stuff while he gets some detection to win the game. And there isn't really a good transition from it either: I mean yea, you got your Council up and can get Charge/Blink, but it's still another building (Templar Archives) to have more useful tech, unless you full on switch to Stargate or Robo.
It makes the match-up very stagnant, and we're only a few months into Beta. Not specific to PvP but definitely showcased here the strongest, Templar tech feels clunky and inefficient. Something needs to be done to streamline the possibilities.
I think giving an upgrade at the Templar Archives that costs 150/200 and takes (Dark Shrine build time minus Templar Archives build time) to research that allows you to warp in DTs. If that feels too easy, then make a pre-req on it such as 'Requires Warp Gate technology" or something to slow it down.
The Starcraft 2 forum is filled with so much garbage replies and threads.
"I don't understand the problem."
If you don't understand the problem, don't post at all. It just makes YOU look like an idiot, and you need badass ballers like Nony to give you a detailed description of the problem because you failed to understand the issues at hand.
The problem is that PvP is extremely boring because the process of getting Dark Templar is highly time consuming and expensive, and leaves you with NO followup strategy (i.e. Expand while getting Storm).
Well why is this a problem? We all want SC2 to be a successful awesome spectator esport. We want it to require skill but also more importantly we want the option to do what we want. We want the game to be interesting. In Brood War, PvP was perhaps the most dynamic of the mirror matchups. You could use different tech routes, just like in a PvT or PvZ. If you were weak at Reaver control, but a beast at key cloning Storms, you could do a fast expand/storm build.
Please nurture the mirror matchups so that we don't dread watching PvP OS2L finals like when we had to go through the agonizing experience of watching back to back ZvZ finals in both SC1 Starleagues.
i think dt's although cost a shit load of gas (and also the dark shrine) the dt's dont have a problem as a unit themselves, i think having them WARP IN from a pylon anywhere around the map makes them powerful but the dark shrine takes sooooo long to build i would be happy with just a faster build time or just less gas for the dark shrine, meaning u can get it earlier (even if it takes 2 mins, we can get it a min earlier or whatever) u get the drift but definitely something needs to be changed, atm, going dt's is too gas heavy and time consuming - it will only hurt ur army count earlier in the game and ull have to do off gateway units
On June 14 2010 09:13 LaLuSh wrote: The problem with posting shit on the sc2 forums. 80% will argue against points you actually didn't make.
You're all right. There's no problem with every single PvP game revolving around 4+ gateways with the occasional robo mixed in. The next two years will hold lots of fun times...
Just because that's the only style currently dominating doesn't mean it's the only viable option. PvZ in BW changed completely from 1 base to FE without any additional patches. 95% of the posts complaining about SC2 are from people who are bad or think that the top SC2 players now would even be able to compete against the top players 2 years from now.
DTs are fine as a unit, its just that as everyone is saying- its a deadend tech path with no other support options whatsoever. I think what they REALLY need to do is merge the two buildings. Everyone is complaining about the council tech-path. I really so no issues arising from merging the buildings.
I know blizzard will never merge them, but its still wishful thinking I suppose. For now I just make DT as a cheese or in really late game when I'm like "Eh, what the hell lets throw in some DTs to scout/hold expos.
As an early or even mid game strategy they are a complete and utter waste of time if you plan on taking yourself seriously in trying to win.
Players have to keep in mind that Sc2 is a completely different game from Sc:BW. Just because a unit's properties remain unchanged does not mean the unit's purpose also remains unchanged. Since the tech pathing is different in Sc2, the unit's role would also change to reflect such changes. The idea that DTs are a "dead end tech" could suggest that its role is not to be used as an opening, as it is no longer viable. Forcing a unit to fit a specific role is not what any strategy game is about.
On June 14 2010 10:35 dignity wrote: Players have to keep in mind that Sc2 is a completely different game from Sc:BW. Just because a unit's properties remain unchanged does not mean the unit's purpose also remains unchanged. Since the tech pathing is different in Sc2, the unit's role would also change to reflect such changes. The idea that DTs are a "dead end tech" could suggest that its role is not to be used as an opening, as it is no longer viable. Forcing a unit to fit a specific role is not what any strategy game is about.
If not an early harass/contain unit, what roll does the DT then fill? Beefy Zealot? If your opponent went Robo first, then they will certainly have Observers available or be able to Chrono one out in no time.
Or is it supposed to serve an idle position of standing by at empty expansions? Seems pretty pricey for something a Zealot, Probe, or patrolling Observer could do as well.
I'm not saying you can't punish someone's lack of detection with DTs to the mineral line, or harassing the edge of someone's base. It's just that by the time you could (safely) get DTs out, their purpose has long since expired.
On June 14 2010 09:45 Tump wrote: The Starcraft 2 forum is filled with so much garbage replies and threads.
"I don't understand the problem."
If you don't understand the problem, don't post at all. It just makes YOU look like an idiot, and you need badass ballers like Nony to give you a detailed description of the problem because you failed to understand the issues at hand.
The problem is that PvP is extremely boring because the process of getting Dark Templar is highly time consuming and expensive, and leaves you with NO followup strategy (i.e. Expand while getting Storm).
Well why is this a problem? We all want SC2 to be a successful awesome spectator esport. We want it to require skill but also more importantly we want the option to do what we want. We want the game to be interesting. In Brood War, PvP was perhaps the most dynamic of the mirror matchups. You could use different tech routes, just like in a PvT or PvZ. If you were weak at Reaver control, but a beast at key cloning Storms, you could do a fast expand/storm build.
Please nurture the mirror matchups so that we don't dread watching PvP OS2L finals like when we had to go through the agonizing experience of watching back to back ZvZ finals in both SC1 Starleagues.
well i wouldnt say that sc2 pvp is boring, its just too predictable.. it makes the mu less competitive
Players have to keep in mind that Sc2 is a completely different game from Sc:BW. Just because a unit's properties remain unchanged does not mean the unit's purpose also remains unchanged. Since the tech pathing is different in Sc2, the unit's role would also change to reflect such changes. The idea that DTs are a "dead end tech" could suggest that its role is not to be used as an opening, as it is no longer viable. Forcing a unit to fit a specific role is not what any strategy game is about.
If not an early harass/contain unit, what roll does the DT then fill? Beefy Zealot? If your opponent went Robo first, then they will certainly have Observers available or be able to Chrono one out in no time.
Or is it supposed to serve an idle position of standing by at empty expansions? Seems pretty pricey for something a Zealot, Probe, or patrolling Observer could do as well.
I'm not saying you can't punish someone's lack of detection with DTs to the mineral line, or harassing the edge of someone's base. It's just that by the time you could (safely) get DTs out, their purpose has long since expired.
One way to use DTs, as stated in my previous post, is to get map control. You only need 2 or 3 DTs to get your opponent to react to you, and depending on how many points they want to defend against your DTs they would use much more resources for that defense than you would for going DTs in the first place.
DTs are also quite good if you weave them into a late game army, as once you snipe their observers they can do an enormous amount of damage to the other player's army.
Another way to use DTs is to make use of the fact that they can be warped in. You can get a warp prism and warp in DTs anywhere you want and get them to snipe key buildings because they are so strong. Even if such a tactic is suicide for your DTs it can be justified if you take out an essential building.
There are many ways to use DTs and their usefulness is not only limited to containing an opponent. Sc2 is no longer the same game and you should not keep the mindset that units should be used in the same way.
On June 14 2010 10:44 iamtt1 wrote: added a poll, pls answer accordingly!
Your poll is silly. Whether or not you played Brood War is irrelevant. Not having BW experience shouldn't invalidate your opinion if it is reasonably backed up.
Starcraft 2 is NOT Brood War. If you want everything to remain the same as it did in Brood War then play that instead.
Like several people (and myself) have said, Dark Templars are high tier units in Starcraft 2 (one might even say top tier), and high tier units cannot be rushed effectively in the early game (providing your opposition is capable). This was the same in Brood War too.
To me, this is your argument in a nutshell: Dark Templars don't work early game, I want them to work early game, Therefore, they should work early game
My problem isn't with the proposition that Dark Templars should be more viable, but with your badly constructed "argument". If you actually presented a constructive argument which made points outside of "I want this" and "Brood War had this", then maybe people would be more inclined to listen.
Players have to keep in mind that Sc2 is a completely different game from Sc:BW. Just because a unit's properties remain unchanged does not mean the unit's purpose also remains unchanged. Since the tech pathing is different in Sc2, the unit's role would also change to reflect such changes. The idea that DTs are a "dead end tech" could suggest that its role is not to be used as an opening, as it is no longer viable. Forcing a unit to fit a specific role is not what any strategy game is about.
If not an early harass/contain unit, what roll does the DT then fill? Beefy Zealot? If your opponent went Robo first, then they will certainly have Observers available or be able to Chrono one out in no time.
Or is it supposed to serve an idle position of standing by at empty expansions? Seems pretty pricey for something a Zealot, Probe, or patrolling Observer could do as well.
I'm not saying you can't punish someone's lack of detection with DTs to the mineral line, or harassing the edge of someone's base. It's just that by the time you could (safely) get DTs out, their purpose has long since expired.
One way to use DTs, as stated in my previous post, is to get map control. You only need 2 or 3 DTs to get your opponent to react to you, and depending on how many points they want to defend against your DTs they would use much more resources for that defense than you would for going DTs in the first place.
DTs are also quite good if you weave them into a late game army, as once you snipe their observers they can do an enormous amount of damage to the other player's army.
Another way to use DTs is to make use of the fact that they can be warped in. You can get a warp prism and warp in DTs anywhere you want and get them to snipe key buildings because they are so strong. Even if such a tactic is suicide for your DTs it can be justified if you take out an essential building.
There are many ways to use DTs and their usefulness is not only limited to containing an opponent. Sc2 is no longer the same game and you should not keep the mindset that units should be used in the same way.
OK, so you basically repeated my post in an argumentative way.
So our tier 3, expensive and extended build time, is supposed to achieve map control. And by forcing my opponent to react, you mean build Observers (as he would anyways with a Robo build).
And how do you snipe Observers in PvP when you open with DTs? And if you aren't going to open with DTs, why would you add them to a late-game army when their tech is so distant from any other opening you can imagine? If you started Robo, you aren't going to suddenly drop a TC and switch to DT; you would more than likely add a Support Bay and get Colossus in most cases. Teh DT tech is so long to acquire, and easy to scout/react in it's build time. The only time you can really exploit their main advantage (cloak) is before detection becomes rampant.
If the game has gotten to a point where you have both Robotics and DT tech, and enough units to snipe Observers, then they are really just beefy Zealots with a gimmick (cloak).
DT>FE in Brood War made it a more diverse match-up. If you couldn't use DTs, every single player would just 1/2 gate Robotics and every single PvP would end up the same way. It's boring. Having DT openings be viable is a staple of PvP.
I agree that I rarely get dts in PVP, but thats because of the historical prevalence of robo builds. I'd say to give the game more time to mature and we'll see some more builds, which can make DTs more (or less) effective. If they merged the dt shrine and the templar archives then it'd reduce the opportunity cost entailed in teching to dts, which would help a bit
Players have to keep in mind that Sc2 is a completely different game from Sc:BW. Just because a unit's properties remain unchanged does not mean the unit's purpose also remains unchanged. Since the tech pathing is different in Sc2, the unit's role would also change to reflect such changes. The idea that DTs are a "dead end tech" could suggest that its role is not to be used as an opening, as it is no longer viable. Forcing a unit to fit a specific role is not what any strategy game is about.
If not an early harass/contain unit, what roll does the DT then fill? Beefy Zealot? If your opponent went Robo first, then they will certainly have Observers available or be able to Chrono one out in no time.
Or is it supposed to serve an idle position of standing by at empty expansions? Seems pretty pricey for something a Zealot, Probe, or patrolling Observer could do as well.
I'm not saying you can't punish someone's lack of detection with DTs to the mineral line, or harassing the edge of someone's base. It's just that by the time you could (safely) get DTs out, their purpose has long since expired.
One way to use DTs, as stated in my previous post, is to get map control. You only need 2 or 3 DTs to get your opponent to react to you, and depending on how many points they want to defend against your DTs they would use much more resources for that defense than you would for going DTs in the first place.
DTs are also quite good if you weave them into a late game army, as once you snipe their observers they can do an enormous amount of damage to the other player's army.
Another way to use DTs is to make use of the fact that they can be warped in. You can get a warp prism and warp in DTs anywhere you want and get them to snipe key buildings because they are so strong. Even if such a tactic is suicide for your DTs it can be justified if you take out an essential building.
There are many ways to use DTs and their usefulness is not only limited to containing an opponent. Sc2 is no longer the same game and you should not keep the mindset that units should be used in the same way.
OK, so you basically repeated my post in an argumentative way.
So our tier 3, expensive and extended build time, is supposed to achieve map control. And by forcing my opponent to react, you mean build Observers (as he would anyways with a Robo build).
And how do you snipe Observers in PvP when you open with DTs? And if you aren't going to open with DTs, why would you add them to a late-game army when their tech is so distant from any other opening you can imagine? If you started Robo, you aren't going to suddenly drop a TC and switch to DT; you would more than likely add a Support Bay and get Colossus in most cases. Teh DT tech is so long to acquire, and easy to scout/react in it's build time. The only time you can really exploit their main advantage (cloak) is before detection becomes rampant.
If the game has gotten to a point where you have both Robotics and DT tech, and enough units to snipe Observers, then they are really just beefy Zealots with a gimmick (cloak).
DT>FE in Brood War made it a more diverse match-up. If you couldn't use DTs, every single player would just 1/2 gate Robotics and every single PvP would end up the same way. It's boring. Having DT openings be viable is a staple of PvP.
I think you missed my argument completely. My point is that DTs are not viable in a PvP match up, and so should not be used in an opening for this match up. However, the OP along with a lot of this thread talked about changing the tech pathing to DTs just because they do not work as an opening, and that is what I disagree with. How a unit does not function in one part of the game does not warrant a change.
I proposed different ways to use DTs to back up my point that they are not useless in this match up simply because they cannot be used like they were in Sc: BW.
As for the argument that PvP is a boring match up, you have to keep in mind that Sc2 is still very young. It is still only in the beta. If you look back I am fairly certain the same was said for Sc: BW. I would go so far to even say that the idea of fast observers are based off of the idea that DTs were used in this match up back in Sc: BW, and that this current build is used because of that.
I believe that the lack of viability for early DTs would actually evolve the metagame if nothing else. If most Protoss players go for this early robotics tech, players will start getting early phoenixes. Eventually people might start going for another strategy to counter the phoenix play, and one day there might be a time when DTs become viable because nobody worries about them anymore, since they will be viewed as the "instant lose" opening.
The idea of a game like Starcraft is not always to force a unit to fit a build, but to build your strategy around the capabilities of the units that you want to use. If a DT opening does not work right now, there is nothing wrong with that. Simply use DTs for something else if you want to utilize that in the matchup in question.
PS: If I used the term "metagame" incorrectly, I apologies ahead of time. I am still fairly new to the term and its meaning.
DT's aren't bad at all. They're pretty commonly used. They make a nice transition for a fast blink build. You don't tech DT's hoping your opponent won't have observers yet leading to an automatic win. You make DT's for map control and for harass. Observers are also gas-expensive and easily sniped with blink.
On June 14 2010 12:42 kcdc wrote: DT's aren't bad at all. They're pretty commonly used. They make a nice transition for a fast blink build. You don't tech DT's hoping your opponent won't have observers yet leading to an automatic win. You make DT's for map control and for harass. Observers are also gas-expensive and easily sniped with blink.
The current argument against that is that you will need your own observer to snipe theirs, which means you have to get a robotics facility yourself.
I have an idea. How about when you open for DTs, you get some Cannons up at home as well. If your DT push fails, then fall back with whatever you can and pump out some more DTs, some Stalkers, and maybe research Blink. When he comes knocking on your door, poke at his army with a DT to see if he remembered to bring his Observer along, and if he did, try to draw it back until you can see it with your cannons and pick it off with your Stalkers. If you succeed, then his entire army is vulnerable to your DTs.
The followup to defending that attack would be to expand and get up a Robo for some observers of your own. I'm sure anyone could figure something out from there.
The key point to this strategy is to take out his observer without having one of your own so you can hold off his counter-attack long enough to tech switch and/or expand.
Of course, getting Blink and DTs at the same time might not be practical or even possible. I'm not sure. Perhaps before you do your initial push with your DTs, you could set up a forward Pylon and a couple cannons to draw his first Observer back to and not have to wait for his counter-attack. Once again, the key is to take out his observer without your own since getting both techs is not an option.
On June 14 2010 12:42 kcdc wrote: DT's aren't bad at all. They're pretty commonly used. They make a nice transition for a fast blink build. You don't tech DT's hoping your opponent won't have observers yet leading to an automatic win. You make DT's for map control and for harass. Observers are also gas-expensive and easily sniped with blink.
A fast Blink build in PvP isn't very good. If he went 1 gate Robotics and built an Immortal, your build is shut down. And your DT follow-up isn't very good because he already has the Robo and is probably expecting DTs when he sees Blink. Blink stalkers are good for 1 thing in PvP, and that's to counter Void Ray builds. Their late-game use is cool, but as an opening I don't really favor it. I'd rather go Chargelots or something instead of Blink.
If you don't tech to DTs to exploit lack of detection, what's the point of them even being cloaked? I don't mean that in a condescending way, but DTs sans-cloak are just beefed up Zealots.
DTs should be an instant win if you skipped detection, in the same way that cloak Banshees will end your game if you didn't get Observers (or a retarded amount of cannons).
This is about PvP though.
I want to clarify that I do use DTs, and often, but not in any way that plays to their real strength. They are great to dump money into if your macro slips (as mine often does), and make a good support/high damage unit in your army. They just don't seem to excel at any particular thing, and for a tier 3 unit that takes so long to build, it's a bit out of sorts.
DTs are like the Ultralisks of Protoss in that regard.
right now i think the pvp mu is too 2D. with just gates and robo bo's used, a change to dts would be a good way too spice up the mu but i dont think its gonna happen since changing one thing affects all of the other mu's.
I still don't see why they don't just fuse the templar archives and dark shrine. As you mentioned just put DT upgrade on templar archives and adjust cost/build time accordingly.
So these are the current stats for the 2 buildings + Show Spoiler +
dark shrine min 100 gas 250 build time 100
templar archives min 150 gas 200 build 60
Take dark shrine out and put it as an upgrade on templar archives. Takes 60 seconds to upgrade and costs 100/100. So overall a DT rush would cost more resources and chronos, but it would cheapen the transition and time it takes to do so.
I feel that PvP in BW is more open to other variable strategies than in SC2. It's just so stupid. I don't know what Blizzard was thinking when they decided to separate the two.
When I was playing SC2 Beta, I was playing to discover and explore different tactics and strategies. Needless to say, any kind of DT strategy I pulled in PvP utterly failed except for 1 or 2 games. I really want the tech to be fused into one building, or just as an upgrade like you're saying.
Blizzard should seriously consider doing some tweaking with the DT tech. I mean, they're trying hard to diversify ZvZ and change it from what it used to be like in BW, so they should do the same for PvP T_T.
On June 14 2010 09:13 LaLuSh wrote: The problem with posting shit on the sc2 forums. 80% will argue against points you actually didn't make.
You're all right. There's no problem with every single PvP game revolving around 4+ gateways with the occasional robo mixed in. The next two years will hold lots of fun times...
Just because that's the only style currently dominating doesn't mean it's the only viable option. PvZ in BW changed completely from 1 base to FE without any additional patches. 95% of the posts complaining about SC2 are from people who are bad or think that the top SC2 players now would even be able to compete against the top players 2 years from now.
i don't see how the play will be able to divert much when there are fundamental issues within other styles
PvP isn't one dimensional. In BW noone could ever use stargates. Now stargates are actually viable so the main argument to make DTs more viable is a false assertion.
for me, PvP always rolling around scouting it is 3 gates tech/4gates/robo play most of the time (depend on map), i will go 3 gates->proxy pylon to contain the other guy's nature while im expanding. this will put him on pressure to put more money to army which make his DT tech delay as well as his 3rd and 4th gas. by the time being, my nature should be up and running when his first wave of DTs come out. Assuming i have no robo atm, my army should be big enough to block the entrance while my canon + robo is getting up for most of the map.
i suggest DT as a mid game play after both side has secured the 2nd base and aiming for a macro game. DTs will screw your enemy over aa mid game tech, not as "rushing"
On June 14 2010 10:44 iamtt1 wrote: added a poll, pls answer accordingly!
Your poll is silly. Whether or not you played Brood War is irrelevant. Not having BW experience shouldn't invalidate your opinion if it is reasonably backed up.
Starcraft 2 is NOT Brood War. If you want everything to remain the same as it did in Brood War then play that instead.
Like several people (and myself) have said, Dark Templars are high tier units in Starcraft 2 (one might even say top tier), and high tier units cannot be rushed effectively in the early game (providing your opposition is capable). This was the same in Brood War too.
To me, this is your argument in a nutshell: Dark Templars don't work early game, I want them to work early game, Therefore, they should work early game
My problem isn't with the proposition that Dark Templars should be more viable, but with your badly constructed "argument". If you actually presented a constructive argument which made points outside of "I want this" and "Brood War had this", then maybe people would be more inclined to listen.
uhhh you still have no idea what my argument is, the dt itself is irrelevant to this discussion, you have no knowledge of the subject so when you see the word DT in a sentence you immediately just make bullshit assumptions.. even after 7 pages your still clueless and this is why the poll was made the way it was
also the poll was not made to justify if im right or wrong, i know im right because i play the game and i know what im talking about.. u still dont even understand what the topic is, the poll is asking gamers if they would be for or against this type of a b.o in sc2 PvP because as it is this style of PvP DOES NOT EXIST IN THE GAME
Err call me crazy, but isn't the DT rush of SC2 basically identical to SCBW?
Assuming you get your GW and CC out at similar times in both games
SCBW: Citadel of Adun (60) + Templar Archives (60) + Dark Templar (50) = 170 seconds
SC2: Twilight Council (50) + Dark Shrine (100) + Dark Templar (5) = 155 seconds
Assuming you've got Warp-Gate tech.
Isn't it kind of obvious why the Dark Shrine is a separate building, with a long build time, now? Warp Gate tech is a huge, huge difference in Protoss GW unit construction timings.
What, if anything, does build time have to do with the fundamental problem pointed out in the OP?
It's been suggested many (many) times throughout the thread that if merging the buildings makes DTs come out too fast, then to add an upgrade to the Templar Archives that allows you to build DTs to cover that gap.
The problem isn't how fast they come out, it's that there is no follow-up that doesn't leave you quite far behind.
On June 15 2010 06:21 kajeus wrote: LOL, so much elitism in this community now.
there is no elitism, when your answering basic fundemental questions rather than getting to the meat of the topic it kinda starts pissing you off after a while
What, if anything, does build time have to do with the fundamental problem pointed out in the OP?
It's been suggested many (many) times throughout the thread that if merging the buildings makes DTs come out too fast, then to add an upgrade to the Templar Archives that allows you to build DTs to cover that gap.
The problem isn't how fast they come out, it's that there is no follow-up that doesn't leave you quite far behind.
He wants teching DTs to be safe. Speed is an important factor in how safe something is. If it took a full minute longer than the SCBW version, then I'd call it unsafe. But, since its basically identical, why is it not safe? Because a Protoss who opens Robo in T2 is going to counter you? Why would you then complain about lack of strategic variety when someone going Robo beats someone going DT, someone going DT beats someone going 4-Gate push, someone going 4-Gate push beats someone going Void Rays and so on.
And an upgrade to allow a unit isn't really a Protoss construction mechanic. The Spire->Greater Spire upgrade is more of a Zerg thing. It would be just as good to make the Dark Shrine require the Templar Archives to be built and just build faster as a result (50, instead of 100), but that's neither here nor there. Just a way to slow things down, although admittedly, I'd prefer either of those over the current system.
I really wouldn't go around calling it a 'fundamental problem', either. Its more a preference of style. He just wants to feel cool being the guy who figured out that DT-rushing is the only safe way to fast expand. Worked great in SCBW, because Observers come out slow, forcing someone to make Cannons (thereby allowing you to expand), but doesn't work in SC2 anymore. Why does that mean it needs fixing? That's kinda boring, isn't it?
"I brought this point up in another thread because i feel like this is a topic that needs more attention. As of now, the thing that worrys me the most about protoss is how inefficient dt techs are in pvp because its impossible to transition into a safe macro build(i.e fast expansion) due to the build time and cost of both the dark shrine and templar archive(impossible to get storm before dying), imo this makes the mu very 1 dimentional, essentially its handicapping it by removing a whole tech branch."
1st paragraph
"The difference is unlike individual unit imbalances the problem lies within the building mechanics, which is much more worrisome because it can easily effect the balance of other mu's if u try tweaking it around."
On June 15 2010 06:21 kajeus wrote: LOL, so much elitism in this community now.
there is no elitism, when your answering basic fundemental questions rather than getting to the meat of the topic it kinda starts pissing you off after a while
just ignore and go on!
I think its time to ask the counterquestion (nobody did so far):
Why did blizzard split the templar tech?
If we find a good answer to this then we maybe come to better conclusions about the problem itself.
Worked great in SCBW, because Observers come out slow, forcing someone to make Cannons
I don't see what you're saying. In BW, Observers came out JUST in time if your opponent went for fastest DTs possible. They bought the person who made DTs time to set up an expansion/cannons time to tech to Storm and get some units.
This isn't possible in SC2 because after you get DTs, you still have to spend 200 more gas to get the building to continue with Templar tech, or invest 200 gas to get a Robotics, or 150 for a Stargate. So now you have building time + building unit time, and in the case of Templar Archives research time before that unit is even really usable.
The biggest issue, if people are feeling the same way I am about it, is that opening with DTs has no flair. It's a dead-end path, and past surprising your opponent with cloaked ninjas, DTs don't have a very defined roll.
And an upgrade to allow a unit isn't really a Protoss construction mechanic. The Spire->Greater Spire upgrade is more of a Zerg thing. It would be just as good to make the Dark Shrine require the Templar Archives to be built and just build faster as a result (50, instead of 100), but that's neither here nor there. Just a way to slow things down, although admittedly, I'd prefer either of those over the current system.
Actually, this is a viable idea. Just borrow a Zerg building system and make the Dark Shrine an upgrade from Templar Archives. (Similar to Gateway -> Warp Gate)
Proposition: DTs should not be required to an all-in. (In SC1 you could proxy them, or god forbid proxy drop them, but used straight-up they were not an all-in.) Problem: Early DTs are a straight-up all-in. Late DTs are glorified, overpriced zealots. Proposed solution: <purpose of this thread>
It's not game-ruining or anything; SC1 has mass gates, robo, and templar openings (stargate is trash); SC2 has mass gates, robo, and stargate openings (templar is trash); many people just think that DTs should not be scout-type trash units.
Worked great in SCBW, because Observers come out slow, forcing someone to make Cannons
I don't see what you're saying. In BW, Observers came out JUST in time if your opponent went for fastest DTs possible. They bought the person who made DTs time to set up an expansion/cannons time to tech to Storm and get some units.
This isn't possible in SC2 because after you get DTs, you still have to spend 200 more gas to get the building to continue with Templar tech, or invest 200 gas to get a Robotics, or 150 for a Stargate. So now you have building time + building unit time, and in the case of Templar Archives research time before that unit is even really usable.
The biggest issue, if people are feeling the same way I am about it, is that opening with DTs has no flair. It's a dead-end path, and past surprising your opponent with cloaked ninjas, DTs don't have a very defined roll.
this is what the OP is saying in the first place. I also do agree more with it along this thread.
but I doubt that blizzard splitted the templar tech for no reason. this is why I rather suggest an upgrade for the shrine than just merging it. either way: players from all kinds of backround have been discussing this matter for a long time and find it to be a problem. I wonder what different kind of solutions people come up with.
edit: I also think that the DT tech lacks in the other matchups. so a change would not break other matchups balance if its well adjusted IMO. in pvt you will face either ghosts or raves which both counter DTs and in pvz you face fastbuilt overseers.
I think they made the DT's too expensive. If you are going for the DT tech and it gets countered by a robo bay, you cannot really commit to anything else with gas. Zealots are great when they can actually charge (Speed from BW, but it also costs a lot of gas). Robo bay units will eat any units you have since you commited to much to the DT's in the first place. It is hard to figure out how to commit to them, while having enough to stay alive with if they do not get you the correct results to make up for your lost macro.
There is no solution for this yet, they are too expensive and are meant for the mid game when you are running 4-6 gas sadly.
Who knows what will change from now until release(They do a few changes just before release internally testing them).
Edit: Deleted idea because others already said it and I must have saw it and didn't register it.
Worked great in SCBW, because Observers come out slow, forcing someone to make Cannons
I don't see what you're saying. In BW, Observers came out JUST in time if your opponent went for fastest DTs possible. They bought the person who made DTs time to set up an expansion/cannons time to tech to Storm and get some units.
This isn't possible in SC2 because after you get DTs, you still have to spend 200 more gas to get the building to continue with Templar tech, or invest 200 gas to get a Robotics, or 150 for a Stargate. So now you have building time + building unit time, and in the case of Templar Archives research time before that unit is even really usable.
The biggest issue, if people are feeling the same way I am about it, is that opening with DTs has no flair. It's a dead-end path, and past surprising your opponent with cloaked ninjas, DTs don't have a very defined roll.
I meant if it becomes so popular and strong that it becomes the only viable opener. If you're going DTs yourself, what are you gonna do? You need a cannon yourself! So, then everyone opens every match with DTs and a Cannon with a FE. That'd get kinda boring.
Heck, you wouldn't even want storm in SC2's PvP. Its awful. Any option under the sun is better than getting HTs in PvP. Is the secret to 'fixing' this just making Storm better against Protoss? I dunno. The 200 gas for the TA isn't that big of a deal if you FE'd and your opponent couldn't.
And an upgrade to allow a unit isn't really a Protoss construction mechanic. The Spire->Greater Spire upgrade is more of a Zerg thing. It would be just as good to make the Dark Shrine require the Templar Archives to be built and just build faster as a result (50, instead of 100), but that's neither here nor there. Just a way to slow things down, although admittedly, I'd prefer either of those over the current system.
Actually, this is a viable idea. Just borrow a Zerg building system and make the Dark Shrine an upgrade from Templar Archives. (Similar to Gateway -> Warp Gate)
yea well thats basically what tester said in his interview with artosis, you would need to have the templar archive upgrade on the dark shrine(but the upgrade has to be short and cheap) so youd have enought time to set ur exp up
but who knows if even an increase in HT tech speed would make the b.o work(its obviously just a theory for now), there are still sooo many variables that nobody has tested out yet
Worked great in SCBW, because Observers come out slow, forcing someone to make Cannons
I don't see what you're saying. In BW, Observers came out JUST in time if your opponent went for fastest DTs possible. They bought the person who made DTs time to set up an expansion/cannons time to tech to Storm and get some units.
This isn't possible in SC2 because after you get DTs, you still have to spend 200 more gas to get the building to continue with Templar tech, or invest 200 gas to get a Robotics, or 150 for a Stargate. So now you have building time + building unit time, and in the case of Templar Archives research time before that unit is even really usable.
The biggest issue, if people are feeling the same way I am about it, is that opening with DTs has no flair. It's a dead-end path, and past surprising your opponent with cloaked ninjas, DTs don't have a very defined roll.
I meant if it becomes so popular and strong that it becomes the only viable opener. If you're going DTs yourself, what are you gonna do? You need a cannon yourself! So, then everyone opens every match with DTs and a Cannon with a FE. That'd get kinda boring.
I'd imagine you would see a lot of PvP like you did in BW, where sometimes a player will open with Robo and go Obs/Reaver expand while others would go DT/Cannons (in case other player went DTs) and expand. Other all-in variants exist (3/4 gate Goon builds that don't expand) but as general standard openings go... Well those were it.
On June 15 2010 06:19 iamtt1 wrote: uhhh you still have no idea what my argument is, the dt itself is irrelevant to this discussion, you have no knowledge of the subject so when you see the word DT in a sentence you immediately just make bullshit assumptions.. even after 7 pages your still clueless and this is why the poll was made the way it was
also the poll was not made to justify if im right or wrong, i know im right because i play the game and i know what im talking about.. u still dont even understand what the topic is, the poll is asking gamers if they would be for or against this type of a b.o in sc2 PvP because as it is this style of PvP DOES NOT EXIST IN THE GAME
I am not trying to start an argument. If my assumptions are wrong, tell me why they're wrong.
Funnily enough, plenty of other people play the game and plenty of other people know what they're talking about, and a lot of those people disagree with you (myself included).
If you think my posts are too stupid to reply to, then fine, ignore them. But, for your own good, don't make anymore posts in the same vane as above. No one is giving you respect for it.
And an upgrade to allow a unit isn't really a Protoss construction mechanic. The Spire->Greater Spire upgrade is more of a Zerg thing. It would be just as good to make the Dark Shrine require the Templar Archives to be built and just build faster as a result (50, instead of 100), but that's neither here nor there. Just a way to slow things down, although admittedly, I'd prefer either of those over the current system.
Actually, this is a viable idea. Just borrow a Zerg building system and make the Dark Shrine an upgrade from Templar Archives. (Similar to Gateway -> Warp Gate)
yea well thats what tester basically said in his interview with artosis, you would need to have the templar archive upgrade on the dark shrine(but the upgrade has to be short and cheap) so youd have enought time to set ur exp up
but who knows if even an increase in HT tech speed would make the b.o work(its just a theory for now), there are still sooo many variables that nobody has tested out yet
the problem with this is that DTs come out later if the upgrade takes a significant time. if it doesnt, then why have an upgrade in the first place?
No offense Swede, but TT1 is a pretty well-known player in the community and you have about 10 posts. While not to say that your opinions/views are wrong based on this alone, his word does have substantially more pull because he plays at top levels and has for quite a while.
I think more people are 'giving him respect for it' than you are giving credit for.
What, if anything, does build time have to do with the fundamental problem pointed out in the OP?
It's been suggested many (many) times throughout the thread that if merging the buildings makes DTs come out too fast, then to add an upgrade to the Templar Archives that allows you to build DTs to cover that gap.
The problem isn't how fast they come out, it's that there is no follow-up that doesn't leave you quite far behind.
He wants teching DTs to be safe. Speed is an important factor in how safe something is. If it took a full minute longer than the SCBW version, then I'd call it unsafe. But, since its basically identical, why is it not safe? Because a Protoss who opens Robo in T2 is going to counter you? Why would you then complain about lack of strategic variety when someone going Robo beats someone going DT, someone going DT beats someone going 4-Gate push, someone going 4-Gate push beats someone going Void Rays and so on.
And an upgrade to allow a unit isn't really a Protoss construction mechanic. The Spire->Greater Spire upgrade is more of a Zerg thing. It would be just as good to make the Dark Shrine require the Templar Archives to be built and just build faster as a result (50, instead of 100), but that's neither here nor there. Just a way to slow things down, although admittedly, I'd prefer either of those over the current system.
I really wouldn't go around calling it a 'fundamental problem', either. Its more a preference of style. He just wants to feel cool being the guy who figured out that DT-rushing is the only safe way to fast expand. Worked great in SCBW, because Observers come out slow, forcing someone to make Cannons (thereby allowing you to expand), but doesn't work in SC2 anymore. Why does that mean it needs fixing? That's kinda boring, isn't it?
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
The DT rusher makes cannons in BW, not the one getting rushed. This is because he has no Robotics/Observer tech to stop DTs if his or her opponent goes DTs themselves.
The reason the DT rusher in BW can expand fast is map control due to DTs being in play. Even with Robotics up, it wasn't just as easy as walking over your opponent. He needs an Observer at home to prevent any DT harass. That took a little bit of time. He also needed an Observer and Reaver to break your natural, which consisted of cannons (2-3), small handful of gateway units, templars with storm, perhaps a left over DT or two to flank with from behind/the side, and even a shield battery if you thought it was warranted.
So, while the Robotics user prepares his push, the DTProtoss built two High Templar immediately, researched Dragoon Range and also more importantly Storm from the same Templar Archives that allowed them to produce Dark Templar. When the Reaver bust finally got to your front door you had an effective followup to DTs and with some good Storms you could survive the bust attempt.
In Starcraft 2, since you spend 250 gas to only build a couple DTs that most likely get stopped, you don't have enough time or resources to be able to get any other high tech units to stop the Gateway and Robo flood heading for your expansion. There is no followup to DTs in PvP that allows you to live into the mid game.
WHY does that need fixing? Because PVP has a limited number of builds that completely make all the other cool stuff Protoss have worthless. BW PVP, a 12 year old game not even designed with ESPORTS in mind, has more depth than a brand new sequel that is supposed to be interesting enough to push ESPORTS to the next level.
And an upgrade to allow a unit isn't really a Protoss construction mechanic. The Spire->Greater Spire upgrade is more of a Zerg thing. It would be just as good to make the Dark Shrine require the Templar Archives to be built and just build faster as a result (50, instead of 100), but that's neither here nor there. Just a way to slow things down, although admittedly, I'd prefer either of those over the current system.
Actually, this is a viable idea. Just borrow a Zerg building system and make the Dark Shrine an upgrade from Templar Archives. (Similar to Gateway -> Warp Gate)
yea well thats what tester basically said in his interview with artosis, you would need to have the templar archive upgrade on the dark shrine(but the upgrade has to be short and cheap) so youd have enought time to set ur exp up
but who knows if even an increase in HT tech speed would make the b.o work(its just a theory for now), there are still sooo many variables that nobody has tested out yet
the problem with this is that DTs come out later if the upgrade takes a significant time. if it doesnt, then why have an upgrade in the first place?
Because you will have the HT tech already available. It is nice to have a transition to go into after the DT's are out and this helps with that getting storm and an expansion going at the same time.
On June 15 2010 06:19 iamtt1 wrote: uhhh you still have no idea what my argument is, the dt itself is irrelevant to this discussion, you have no knowledge of the subject so when you see the word DT in a sentence you immediately just make bullshit assumptions.. even after 7 pages your still clueless and this is why the poll was made the way it was
also the poll was not made to justify if im right or wrong, i know im right because i play the game and i know what im talking about.. u still dont even understand what the topic is, the poll is asking gamers if they would be for or against this type of a b.o in sc2 PvP because as it is this style of PvP DOES NOT EXIST IN THE GAME
I am not trying to start an argument. If my assumptions are wrong, tell me why they're wrong.
Funnily enough, plenty of other people play the game and plenty of other people know what they're talking about, and a lot of those people disagree with you (myself included).
If you think my posts are too stupid to reply to, then fine, ignore them. But, for your own good, don't make anymore posts in the same vane as above. No one is giving you respect for it.
might have been a little harsh but if i didnt care about your post i wouldnt have even replied to it, sorry i wasnt trying to be an ass
<3 pls understand that im not here to put anyone down or to pick a fight, but you have to put yourself in my shoes aswell
also theres nothing to disagree with per-se, you either think sc2 PvP is fine the way it is or you think it the mu still needs an extra element, the dt into expansion build in this case
What, if anything, does build time have to do with the fundamental problem pointed out in the OP?
It's been suggested many (many) times throughout the thread that if merging the buildings makes DTs come out too fast, then to add an upgrade to the Templar Archives that allows you to build DTs to cover that gap.
The problem isn't how fast they come out, it's that there is no follow-up that doesn't leave you quite far behind.
He wants teching DTs to be safe. Speed is an important factor in how safe something is. If it took a full minute longer than the SCBW version, then I'd call it unsafe. But, since its basically identical, why is it not safe? Because a Protoss who opens Robo in T2 is going to counter you? Why would you then complain about lack of strategic variety when someone going Robo beats someone going DT, someone going DT beats someone going 4-Gate push, someone going 4-Gate push beats someone going Void Rays and so on.
And an upgrade to allow a unit isn't really a Protoss construction mechanic. The Spire->Greater Spire upgrade is more of a Zerg thing. It would be just as good to make the Dark Shrine require the Templar Archives to be built and just build faster as a result (50, instead of 100), but that's neither here nor there. Just a way to slow things down, although admittedly, I'd prefer either of those over the current system.
I really wouldn't go around calling it a 'fundamental problem', either. Its more a preference of style. He just wants to feel cool being the guy who figured out that DT-rushing is the only safe way to fast expand. Worked great in SCBW, because Observers come out slow, forcing someone to make Cannons (thereby allowing you to expand), but doesn't work in SC2 anymore. Why does that mean it needs fixing? That's kinda boring, isn't it?
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
The DT rusher makes cannons in BW, not the one getting rushed. This is because he has no Robotics/Observer tech to stop DTs if his or her opponent goes DTs themselves.
The reason the DT rusher in BW can expand fast is map control due to DTs being in play. Even with Robotics up, it wasn't just as easy as walking over your opponent. He needs an Observer at home to prevent any DT harass. That took a little bit of time. He also needed an Observer and Reaver to break your natural, which consisted of cannons (2-3), small handful of gateway units, templars with storm, perhaps a left over DT or two to flank with from behind/the side, and even a shield battery if you thought it was warranted.
So, while the Robotics user prepares his push, the DTProtoss built two High Templar immediately, researched Dragoon Range and also more importantly Storm from the same Templar Archives that allowed them to produce Dark Templar. When the Reaver bust finally got to your front door you had an effective followup to DTs and with some good Storms you could survive the bust attempt.
In Starcraft 2, since you spend 250 gas to only build a couple DTs that most likely get stopped, you don't have enough time or resources to be able to get any other high tech units to stop the Gateway and Robo flood heading for your expansion. There is no followup to DTs in PvP that allows you to live into the mid game.
WHY does that need fixing? Because PVP has a limited number of builds that completely make all the other cool stuff Protoss have worthless. BW PVP, a 12 year old game not even designed with ESPORTS in mind, has more depth than a brand new sequel that is supposed to be interesting enough to push ESPORTS to the next level.
You're talking about a LOT of changes to make that kind of thing viable. You aren't thinking far enough ahead. Let's say that that HTs and DTs both come from the TA. Now what? You want HTs to be a 'somewhat viable' counter to Collossi, Immortals and even Void Rays and Phoenixes (Stargates are a somewhat viable T2 opener now, too) all in one?
These aren't the same units you were facing in that first SCBW push. They're totally different. Psi Storm pretty much blows in PvP and Feedback is good against what...Phoenixes and Sentries? They're not going to help you kill really anything else a Protoss can throw at you. The easiest things to reach after DTs, that don't suck, are Void Rays, Phoenixes or Immortals.
Phoenixes seem to be a popular choice these days, since spamming the things with all of that excess gas from your expansion is a good way to trump a wad of Stalkers and Sentries.
Hell, getting a quick Warp Prism and harassing with DT warp-ins while he tries to expand is going to net more gain than HTs. Better yet, hold the fort while you get an Observers AND Phoenixes, spot his Observer, nuke it and wipe the floor with DTs.
And an upgrade to allow a unit isn't really a Protoss construction mechanic. The Spire->Greater Spire upgrade is more of a Zerg thing. It would be just as good to make the Dark Shrine require the Templar Archives to be built and just build faster as a result (50, instead of 100), but that's neither here nor there. Just a way to slow things down, although admittedly, I'd prefer either of those over the current system.
Actually, this is a viable idea. Just borrow a Zerg building system and make the Dark Shrine an upgrade from Templar Archives. (Similar to Gateway -> Warp Gate)
yea well thats what tester basically said in his interview with artosis, you would need to have the templar archive upgrade on the dark shrine(but the upgrade has to be short and cheap) so youd have enought time to set ur exp up
but who knows if even an increase in HT tech speed would make the b.o work(its just a theory for now), there are still sooo many variables that nobody has tested out yet
the problem with this is that DTs come out later if the upgrade takes a significant time. if it doesnt, then why have an upgrade in the first place?
Because you will have the HT tech already available. It is nice to have a transition to go into after the DT's are out and this helps with that getting storm and an expansion going at the same time.
well ok, but then it should be the exact other way around: build shrine->upgrade for HT.
I find it flawed both ways. somehow many agree that a simple tech merge shouldnt be done.
then why not give the shrine an upgrade that widens the DT tech? so you actually have time to transition into robo/gate/ht?
On June 15 2010 06:19 iamtt1 wrote: uhhh you still have no idea what my argument is, the dt itself is irrelevant to this discussion, you have no knowledge of the subject so when you see the word DT in a sentence you immediately just make bullshit assumptions.. even after 7 pages your still clueless and this is why the poll was made the way it was
also the poll was not made to justify if im right or wrong, i know im right because i play the game and i know what im talking about.. u still dont even understand what the topic is, the poll is asking gamers if they would be for or against this type of a b.o in sc2 PvP because as it is this style of PvP DOES NOT EXIST IN THE GAME
I am not trying to start an argument. If my assumptions are wrong, tell me why they're wrong.
Funnily enough, plenty of other people play the game and plenty of other people know what they're talking about, and a lot of those people disagree with you (myself included).
If you think my posts are too stupid to reply to, then fine, ignore them. But, for your own good, don't make anymore posts in the same vane as above. No one is giving you respect for it.
might have been a little harsh but if i didnt care about your post i wouldnt have even replied to it, sorry i wasnt trying to be an ass
<3 pls understand that im not here to put anyone down or to pick a fight, but you have to put yourself in my shoes aswell
also theres nothing to disagree with per-se, you either think sc2 PvP is fine the way it is or you think it the mu still needs an extra element, the dt into expansion build in this case
And I apologise if I come across as an ass too. When I'm debating things I often do because of the way I write things.
I would like to reiterate that I don't necessarily disagree with you. I mean, it would certainly be cool to see DTs used more extensively than they are now (though I have no real problem with them now either), BUT on the other hand I don't feel like SC2 strategy has had enough time to develop to be going round changing things as much as removing the Dark Shrine or something.
What I disagreed with was your way of arguing that the issue was an issue. In hindsight I may have been a little hasty, but often I just get caught up in trying to prove myself right (regardless of whether I am, or even whether I think I am).
On June 15 2010 07:02 yarkO wrote: No offense Swede, but TT1 is a pretty well-known player in the community and you have about 10 posts. While not to say that your opinions/views are wrong based on this alone, his word does have substantially more pull because he plays at top levels and has for quite a while.
I think more people are 'giving him respect for it' than you are giving credit for.
So TT1 stop hacking and actually got good enough at the game for people to take him seriously? or People new to TL just doesn't know about him being a disgraceful hacker? No one gives him respect here at LT, if all you new people knew about what he did.
On April 26 2008 09:41 Chill wrote: TT1 made no effort to reform, he's hacked for years, he's hacked in the last year, and he's hacker in tournaments with prizes. Fuck 'im.
there are so many evidence in TL about this guy, Why is he unbanned in the first place?? Or am I mistaken this imTT1 withthe hacker known as TT1, if that's the case i apologize.
On June 15 2010 07:02 yarkO wrote: No offense Swede, but TT1 is a pretty well-known player in the community and you have about 10 posts. While not to say that your opinions/views are wrong based on this alone, his word does have substantially more pull because he plays at top levels and has for quite a while.
I think more people are 'giving him respect for it' than you are giving credit for.
So TT1 stop hacking and actually got good enough at the game for people to take him seriously? or People new to TL just doesn't know about him being a disgraceful hacker? No one gives him respect here at LT, if all you new people knew about what he did.
On April 26 2008 09:41 Chill wrote: TT1 made no effort to reform, he's hacked for years, he's hacked in the last year, and he's hacker in tournaments with prizes. Fuck 'im.
there are so many evidence in TL about this guy, Why is he unbanned in the first place?? Or am I mistaken this imTT1 withthe hacker known as TT1, if that's the case i apologize.
either way: noone cares about this in this thread. this discussion is about the DT opening in pvp.
oh yes you should care, because Yarko is putting TT1's reputation on the table as the reason why everybody should respect his opinion instead of TT1's logic in his discussion.
On June 15 2010 07:49 rei wrote: oh yes you should care, because Yarko is putting TT1's reputation on the table as the reason why everybody should respect his opinion instead of TT1's logic in his discussion.
Ok I put it simple for you:
Discuss "DT tech opening in PvP" here? ->Yes
Discuss "opinions about players" here? ->No
I actually find this discussion very interesting. What is your opinion about it?
My opinion is that I am no where good enough at the game to suggest a balance changes, so instead of saying
On June 13 2010 09:53 iamtt1 wrote: Its impossible to be in a decent position after dt rushing.
I will say how can i put myself in a decent position after DT rushing? To say the word "Impossible" signifying he's the best player out there who knows everything inside and out about the game, and if he can't make it work no one else can make it work, hence the phase "impossible to be" I bet That's why he resulted in hacking back then, he thought it was impossible to get do something and has the need to get better, but he wasn't getting anywhere, so he satisfy his ego with map hack and win games with it.
Ok, that's about it for TT1 bashing, you can't defend that hacker, he deserts every disrespect for what he did. I for one would like to rebut this
On June 13 2010 09:53 iamtt1 wrote: Its impossible to be in a decent position after dt rushing.
Where you say it is impossible, i will attempt to give you some possibilities 1) DT Rush--->force field ramp-----> expo 2) DT rush ----> robo-----> snipe his observer with your stalker+observer----> expo 3)DT rush----->expo----> hallucination colosousi to by you time till expo kicks in. 4) DT rush -----> DT drop ----------> island expo with force field on your own ramp to prevent yourself from getting pwn.
PS. i'm the only one managed to pwned both Chill and Kennegit 2v1, in a drag out macro game, no cheeses and both of them had a huge army, and i got replays to prove it!
I like how DTs aren't as all around effective in SC2 as they were in BW. They tend to rely too much on luck, too often they end up causing gamewinning effect if opponent has, say, no overseer up, and sometimes they're just useless if there's two well placed turrets waiting. Sure, suppose all unexpected works the same, VRs even more so, but it's not really the enjoyable part of the game to be guessing which tech is proxy'd in time before you can have stuff like patrolling vikings or speedovies searching all the parts of the map.
If currently it is slow allin that has no solid comeback, I'm happy Totally a unit that doesn't deserve to become part of every game in SC2.
If you DT rush, you don't have gas for Sentries. By this logic, you could just go Sentry > Force Field Ramp > Expo. If anything, going DT > FF > Expo, you are just setting yourself further behind.
2) DT rush ----> robo-----> snipe his observer with your stalker+observer----> expo
Or fall over and die while you try to get a Robotics + Obs + Stalkers in a gas starved build vs someone who masses Warpgate + Robo units.
3)DT rush----->expo----> hallucination colosousi to by you time till expo kicks in.
DT rush > Expo dies to anything that makes Observers and units. It's not a safe transition. And if he knows you have DTs, do you really think he will be fooled by a Hallucinated Colossus? lol...
4) DT rush -----> DT drop ----------> island expo with force field on your own ramp to prevent yourself from getting pwn.
I think I tried to go Warp Prism + DTs once and unless you win the game with the drop, any kind of counter attack just slaughters your lack of units at home.
Are you starting to see why there is an issue with DT openings? You can't move past them.
Stop using the word "you" you are not me, you can't be me, stop assuming what I can not do. Try to think of a way on how I can do what I say I can do. Just because you think I can't do something does not mean I can't do it, your assumption is only as good as your knowledge of my games.
Are you starting to get the point i'm trying to make here now? Just because you can't do something don't say others can't.
Just because TT1 thinks it is impossible for soemthing to be done, does not make it true, and even if it is true, it does not justify a balance change. pvp is as perfectly balanced as possible.
On June 15 2010 08:42 yarkO wrote: Meh, I'm done replying to you. You seem to lack basic understanding of the game.
Hint: You can't type 'show me the money'.
I beat both Chill and Kennigit 2v1, Neither of them can deny it, you think you can beat me? bring it, i show you my lack of basic understanding of the game.
Oh Thank you for turning this discussion from DT transition into my lack of basic understanding of the game, because you create more opportunity for me to brag about my 2v1 glorious victory over Chill and Kennigit
On June 15 2010 08:35 rei wrote: Stop using the word "you" you are not me, you can't be me, stop assuming what I can not do. Try to think of a way on how I can do what I say I can do. Just because you think I can't do something does not mean I can't do it, your assumption is only as good as your knowledge of my games.
Are you starting to get the point i'm trying to make here now? Just because you can't do something don't say others can't.
Just because TT1 thinks it is impossible for soemthing to be done, does not make it true, and even if it is true, it does not justify a balance change. pvp is as perfectly balanced as possible.
pvp is very well balanced as a matchup because both sides have both options. this would also be true if protoss had only probes.
and since "you" dont have a magic vespene gas farting donkey, "you" will not have spare gas with a DT opening. I think the observer+stalker switch is a bit slow because of this.
On June 15 2010 08:30 yarkO wrote: Are you starting to see why there is an issue with DT openings? You can't move past them.
I agree with that completely, but even if HTs were more easily accessible after a DT opener, what could you do with them? They pretty much suck in PvP and not because they're hard to get. Because they just don't inflict damage, forced micro and area denial on the same level as SCBW's HT. There are only two other units in the Protoss force that use energy, so unless your plan is to Feedback all of his Sentries and storm his force with ungodly amounts of Chargelots and Archons, there isn't a whole lot you can do with the things. Sadly, either Blinkers or Collossi are just going to rape that combo.
The extent of the changes you're looking for to make the line viable is a little extreme, I think. Even if they came from the same building, it would still be a horribly weak followup.
On June 15 2010 08:35 rei wrote: Stop using the word "you" you are not me, you can't be me, stop assuming what I can not do. Try to think of a way on how I can do what I say I can do. Just because you think I can't do something does not mean I can't do it, your assumption is only as good as your knowledge of my games.
Are you starting to get the point i'm trying to make here now? Just because you can't do something don't say others can't.
Just because TT1 thinks it is impossible for soemthing to be done, does not make it true, and even if it is true, it does not justify a balance change. pvp is as perfectly balanced as possible.
its hard for a mirror mu to be imbalanced and your dt transitions are awesome, iccup/sc2 beta max rank?
Stop using the word "you" you are not me, you can't be me, stop assuming what I can not do. Try to think of a way on how I can do what I say I can do. Just because you think I can't do something does not mean I can't do it, your assumption is only as good as your knowledge of my games.
Are you starting to get the point i'm trying to make here now? Just because you can't do something don't say others can't.
Just because TT1 thinks it is impossible for soemthing to be done, does not make it true, and even if it is true, it does not justify a balance change. pvp is as perfectly balanced as possible.
I think you're taking the word impossible to literally.
I agree that once you do your DT, you are left with very little flexibility, and my opinion is based around the very known facts that DT tech is a very expensive, time consuming process which leads you to the end of a tech tree with only DTs unlocked.
Whether or not he maphacked is completely and utterly irrelevant here, and the very mention of this immediately puts you in a bad argumentative position since you are resorting to a textbook ad hominem.
Naturally, after you did your fair round of namecalling, you resort to listing strategies that are beyond the realm of viability. DT > Expo? Seriously? Like anything with an observer is not going to crap all over your expo and non-existing army.
On June 15 2010 08:35 rei wrote: Stop using the word "you" you are not me, you can't be me, stop assuming what I can not do. Try to think of a way on how I can do what I say I can do. Just because you think I can't do something does not mean I can't do it, your assumption is only as good as your knowledge of my games.
Are you starting to get the point i'm trying to make here now? Just because you can't do something don't say others can't.
Just because TT1 thinks it is impossible for soemthing to be done, does not make it true, and even if it is true, it does not justify a balance change. pvp is as perfectly balanced as possible.
reps? that's a good way to give us knowledge of your games, friend
just a thought: maybe there are some maps (LT/steppes of war?) where some well placed cannons could allow for a expo after DT opening. cannons have the same sightrange as observers. could be tricky...
On June 15 2010 08:35 rei wrote: Stop using the word "you" you are not me, you can't be me, stop assuming what I can not do. Try to think of a way on how I can do what I say I can do. Just because you think I can't do something does not mean I can't do it, your assumption is only as good as your knowledge of my games.
Are you starting to get the point i'm trying to make here now? Just because you can't do something don't say others can't.
Just because TT1 thinks it is impossible for soemthing to be done, does not make it true, and even if it is true, it does not justify a balance change. pvp is as perfectly balanced as possible.
reps? that's a good way to give us knowledge of your games, friend
Whether or not he maphacked is completely and utterly irrelevant here, and the very mention of this immediately puts you in a bad argumentative position since you are resorting to a textbook ad hominem.
To be fair, the argument started with "argumentum ad verecundiam" (argument from authority). Tit for tat, and all that jazz.
On June 15 2010 08:35 rei wrote: Stop using the word "you" you are not me, you can't be me, stop assuming what I can not do. Try to think of a way on how I can do what I say I can do. Just because you think I can't do something does not mean I can't do it, your assumption is only as good as your knowledge of my games.
Are you starting to get the point i'm trying to make here now? Just because you can't do something don't say others can't.
Just because TT1 thinks it is impossible for soemthing to be done, does not make it true, and even if it is true, it does not justify a balance change. pvp is as perfectly balanced as possible.
reps? that's a good way to give us knowledge of your games, friend
On June 15 2010 08:35 rei wrote: Stop using the word "you" you are not me, you can't be me, stop assuming what I can not do. Try to think of a way on how I can do what I say I can do. Just because you think I can't do something does not mean I can't do it, your assumption is only as good as your knowledge of my games.
Are you starting to get the point i'm trying to make here now? Just because you can't do something don't say others can't.
Just because TT1 thinks it is impossible for soemthing to be done, does not make it true, and even if it is true, it does not justify a balance change. pvp is as perfectly balanced as possible.
reps? that's a good way to give us knowledge of your games, friend
People claiming that PvP is so boring and one-dimensional because you can't fast-tech to one unit in the game effectively.
Seems to me like its one-dimensional because you're thinking one-dimensionally.
Stop bitching about a BW strat that doesn't work anymore and come up with something new. The reason there are so many different strats in BW is BECAUSE it is 12 years old. This game hasn't even been released yet.
How many times did the "standard" strategies change in Brood War without any patch changes? The game evolves all the time, and people change the way they play. We've seen this in beta even without patches making a difference.
Just give it some time, find something else to do, a different way to play. Stop moaning because your years-old BW strat isn't working for you anymore.
On June 15 2010 09:19 awu25 wrote: why cant people wait and see if some new transition will be discovered? all i hear are cries for things to be similar to SC1
On June 15 2010 08:35 rei wrote: Stop using the word "you" you are not me, you can't be me, stop assuming what I can not do. Try to think of a way on how I can do what I say I can do. Just because you think I can't do something does not mean I can't do it, your assumption is only as good as your knowledge of my games.
Are you starting to get the point i'm trying to make here now? Just because you can't do something don't say others can't.
Just because TT1 thinks it is impossible for soemthing to be done, does not make it true, and even if it is true, it does not justify a balance change. pvp is as perfectly balanced as possible.
reps? that's a good way to give us knowledge of your games, friend
On June 15 2010 09:19 awu25 wrote: why cant people wait and see if some new transition will be discovered? all i hear are cries for things to be similar to SC1
I doubt its from lack of trying. The DT opener is weaker than SCBW, because
A) Observers are more accesible B) HTs require an additional structure before they're accessible C) HTs pretty much suck in PvP even if they WERE accessible D) Archons aren't all that great either
I don't see any way to fix all of that. If you make Observers less accessible, you really screw up Protoss newfound dependence on scouting and reacting to their opponent's composition (rather than relying entirely on timing pushes and simple brute force). You could merge the HT and DT lines, for what? HTs are still gonna suck against Blinkers, Collossi, Immortals, Void Rays and/or Phoenix combinations. All they can do is instagib Sentries before they cast Force Fields. Whoopadeedoo.
The list of changes needed to bring this line into an opener that isn't All-In, and not just a late-game harassment tool, is extensive and I think, unrealistic.
I have more concerns in PvP about the VERY delicate nature of 2-Gate pushes vs building an Assimilator/Cyber Core in the first 4 minutes of the game. Lost a lot of PvP games because you spot the 'lack' of Gateways in your opponent's base too late, and didn't start 2 Gateways of your own in time to match his Zealot count.
On June 15 2010 08:35 rei wrote: Stop using the word "you" you are not me, you can't be me, stop assuming what I can not do. Try to think of a way on how I can do what I say I can do. Just because you think I can't do something does not mean I can't do it, your assumption is only as good as your knowledge of my games.
Are you starting to get the point i'm trying to make here now? Just because you can't do something don't say others can't.
Just because TT1 thinks it is impossible for soemthing to be done, does not make it true, and even if it is true, it does not justify a balance change. pvp is as perfectly balanced as possible.
reps? that's a good way to give us knowledge of your games, friend
On June 15 2010 09:19 awu25 wrote: why cant people wait and see if some new transition will be discovered? all i hear are cries for things to be similar to SC1
I doubt its from lack of trying. The DT opener is weaker than SCBW, because
A) Observers are more accesible B) HTs require an additional structure before they're accessible C) HTs pretty much suck in PvP even if they WERE accessible D) Archons aren't all that great either
I don't see any way to fix all of that. If you make Observers less accessible, you really screw up Protoss newfound dependence on scouting and reacting to their opponent's composition (rather than relying entirely on timing pushes and simple brute force). You could merge the HT and DT lines, for what? HTs are still gonna suck against Blinkers, Collossi, Immortals, Void Rays and/or Phoenix combinations. All they can do is instagib Sentries before they cast Force Fields. Whoopadeedoo.
The list of changes needed to bring this line into an opener that isn't All-In, and not just a late-game harassment tool, is extensive and I think, unrealistic.
I have more concerns in PvP about the VERY delicate nature of 2-Gate pushes vs building an Assimilator/Cyber Core in the first 4 minutes of the game. Lost a lot of PvP games because you spot the 'lack' of Gateways in your opponent's base too late, and didn't start 2 Gateways of your own in time to match his Zealot count.
I disagree on C)!
HTs are pretty solid against robo tech. I think you exaggerate. they are not great but good against immortals/colossi.
I have more concerns in PvP about the VERY delicate nature of 2-Gate pushes vs building an Assimilator/Cyber Core in the first 4 minutes of the game. Lost a lot of PvP games because you spot the 'lack' of Gateways in your opponent's base too late, and didn't start 2 Gateways of your own in time to match his Zealot count.
This I full-on agree with, especially on a 4-player map where they happen to scout the right way and you don't.
To be honest, in the last days of Beta I was almost exclusively 2-gate opening in PvP because it's so risky if you don't.
I have more concerns in PvP about the VERY delicate nature of 2-Gate pushes vs building an Assimilator/Cyber Core in the first 4 minutes of the game. Lost a lot of PvP games because you spot the 'lack' of Gateways in your opponent's base too late, and didn't start 2 Gateways of your own in time to match his Zealot count.
This I full-on agree with, especially on a 4-player map where they happen to scout the right way and you don't.
You could just drop a second gateway to be safe... two gateways with your core isn't going to ruin you.
I have more concerns in PvP about the VERY delicate nature of 2-Gate pushes vs building an Assimilator/Cyber Core in the first 4 minutes of the game. Lost a lot of PvP games because you spot the 'lack' of Gateways in your opponent's base too late, and didn't start 2 Gateways of your own in time to match his Zealot count.
This I full-on agree with, especially on a 4-player map where they happen to scout the right way and you don't.
You could just drop a second gateway to be safe... two gateways with your core isn't going to ruin you.
actually this confuses me because I build a second gateway after core anyways in a DT opening.
On June 15 2010 10:03 yarkO wrote: Was going to post the same thing, since I rarely 1-gate tech to anything. Lots of extra minerals with a DT opening to spend on Zealots.
yeah. at least that is what we do normaly. maybe this is exactly the problem? I definitely try something out with cannons, since the DTs do their job on their own anyway.
On June 15 2010 09:18 Subversion wrote: This thread is so frustrating.
People claiming that PvP is so boring and one-dimensional because you can't fast-tech to one unit in the game effectively.
Seems to me like its one-dimensional because you're thinking one-dimensionally.
Stop bitching about a BW strat that doesn't work anymore and come up with something new. The reason there are so many different strats in BW is BECAUSE it is 12 years old. This game hasn't even been released yet.
How many times did the "standard" strategies change in Brood War without any patch changes? The game evolves all the time, and people change the way they play. We've seen this in beta even without patches making a difference.
Just give it some time, find something else to do, a different way to play. Stop moaning because your years-old BW strat isn't working for you anymore.
You just taken the words out of my mouth.
I would have said it with a bit more dignity of course.
I have more concerns in PvP about the VERY delicate nature of 2-Gate pushes vs building an Assimilator/Cyber Core in the first 4 minutes of the game. Lost a lot of PvP games because you spot the 'lack' of Gateways in your opponent's base too late, and didn't start 2 Gateways of your own in time to match his Zealot count.
This I full-on agree with, especially on a 4-player map where they happen to scout the right way and you don't.
You could just drop a second gateway to be safe... two gateways with your core isn't going to ruin you.
You can't drop the second gateway in time to match the Zealot count if you do it reactively. Of course you want to drop a second gateway. That's a no-brainer, so I don't know why you would even bother saying it. Its suicide to sit around waiting for Stalkers or Sentries when he's just going to bust through a weak Zealot-wall. The problem is it takes 65 seconds for that Gateway to finish. If you went GW->CC, and he went double-GW very early, there's a very large window where he can push with about 3-4 Zealots (he Chrono Boosted them, when you probably Chrono'd Probes up until you noticed what he's doing) when you've still only got the one, maybe two, soon to be three, sitting at your artificial choke. You have to sit there, watching him batter down Pylons or Gateways while you try and build up a similar number of Zealots to compete. But, he just keeps pumping the fuckers and overwhelms you. It doesn't really matter if you make the perfect choke with buildings and there's a magic spot where two of your Zealots can hit his one. He'll just batter down a Gateway or Pylon and beat you in production.
I haven't tried GW->Forge openings. I've seen a few people do it, but I've utterly demolished those with Warp Gate pushes, warping in units to a pylon in the back of his base. Without a Stalker or Sentry, you can't kill the scouting Probe in time before he can drop Pylons back there and start Warping shit in when his Warp Gate tech is ready.
Its definitely the aggressor's game in PvP. Whoever wants to play more defensive/reactively is going to get his butt whooped, which is ironic since playing Zerg or Terran is the complete opposite of that. You have to play reactive to their composition or you're going to end up doing something stupid like throwing Immortals at Hydras or Banshees
On June 13 2010 20:09 nEAnS wrote: I don't understand what your issue is with DTs are. You're basically saying that DTs should be more viable in pvp with 1base vs 1base and you're complaining about it? DTs are a harassing unit and are not necessarily a game ender just because you want it to be. That's like saying nukes should be more viable in TvT "JUST BECAUSE."
There's a right time to use every unit. DTs are fine even with the tech tree. Aside from having templar and dt's using two different buildings if you think about it, it takes the same amount of buildings to get DTs as it did in Starcraft 1.
People need to stop thinking about how they can win games using cheap gimmicky tricks because it won't work on a good player.
On June 15 2010 08:54 iamtt1 wrote: its hard for a mirror mu to be imbalanced and your dt transitions are awesome, iccup/sc2 beta max rank?
you want a piece of me?
when the beta comes back up sure, bo7?
I really want to see that. Rei sorry you have no chances of having the upper hand over TT1 in a bo7, but I dare you to try. (I want to see you transition out of a DT opening)
In SC1 you could use the DT themself to buy time to get your xpo up and transition into a lategame macro game.
In SC2 you can (im pretty sure) use blink stalker to harrass (depending on map) and buy time to set up your expo so would it be possible to add DT tech to blink stalker OR open DT and follow with blink stalker to get that time to expo and get either storm or robo tech.
Does it worth it ? all those question ill try to play with when beta come back up
On June 18 2010 06:27 XDsCrazy wrote: In SC1 you could use the DT themself to buy time to get your xpo up and transition into a lategame macro game.
In SC2 you can (im pretty sure) use blink stalker to harrass (depending on map) and buy time to set up your expo so would it be possible to add DT tech to blink stalker OR open DT and follow with blink stalker to get that time to expo and get either storm or robo tech.
Does it worth it ? all those question ill try to play with when beta come back up
On June 18 2010 06:27 XDsCrazy wrote: In SC1 you could use the DT themself to buy time to get your xpo up and transition into a lategame macro game.
In SC2 you can (im pretty sure) use blink stalker to harrass (depending on map) and buy time to set up your expo so would it be possible to add DT tech to blink stalker OR open DT and follow with blink stalker to get that time to expo and get either storm or robo tech.
Does it worth it ? all those question ill try to play with when beta come back up
would rarely work at a high level, first of all you would need at least 2g's in order to have a relatively decent army to buy you some time so you could expand(anything above 2g would slow you down too much) but even then your opponent would be so ahead of you that he could just run you over while defeding your stalker blink attacks by pumping immortals and reinforcing them with his 3g's
also your playing blindely so your opponent could just switch to dts when he sees your going for a late robo b.o and dt drop your main
he can also just mirror your b.o by expaning, hed still be able to easily block your harass while having the tech(easy transition to collos), eco and unit advantage
On June 18 2010 06:44 iamtt1 wrote: also your playing blindely so your opponent could just switch to dts when he sees your going for a late robo b.o and dt drop your main
On June 18 2010 06:44 iamtt1 wrote: also your playing blindely so your opponent could just switch to dts when he sees your going for a late robo b.o and dt drop your main
Sounds like effective use of dt tech in PvP.
Maybe if you read the OP or thread at all, you'd see were talking about how ineffective it is to DT fast expand.
Yea TT1 I agress, having the DT and Templar tech on different building is the problem with DT opener. Plus you kinda need a robo rather quickly because like you said, opponent can see your late robo/no detect and DT drop ur main.
So basicly you need a robo in PvP most of the time unless you want to invest in Canon.
that mean that if you want to open with DT and still be "safe" youll invest into a forge for some canon to not get caught yourself with DTs.
Question then is, is the use of a forge for fast upgrade worth it in pvp ? does +1 attack or +1 armor make a big enough difference that this upgrade + defensive canon will worth it in the end ?
Big issue is that a player that get fast ob and see you invest into a forge and morph some canon will simply expand himself.
the only benefit that is left is probably the faster upgrades. Question then is, are those upgrade a big enough factor (can get +2 quick since you have the concil already) that it will make a big difference in the middle game push you will plan when your +2 (armor or attack) will finish ?
So the middle game push would look like .... charge zlot / stalker / sentry (orb) / templar (storm) vs stalker / zlot / collosi
2nd army seem stronger but does that upgrade bonus worth it in pvp ?
On June 18 2010 07:12 Tump wrote: Maybe if you read the OP or thread at all, you'd see were talking about how ineffective it is to DT fast expand.
I've read every post on every page.
The gist of it is that some people believe that 4gate and 3gate robo will be the only builds to ever exist in PvP until the end of time and it is imperative that a build that worked in BW should work the same way in SC2.
Regardless of the whole DT thing, the underlying issue was that PvP is currently pretty stale in terms of opening builds, and I agree, just not that a DT rush NEEEEEDS to be viable against 3gate robo.
BW is a great game, no one is arguing against that, but SC2 is not BW with better graphics. Things are different, please accept it. Some things aren't going to work the same and they shouldn't.
Who's to blame for the bland PvP games? All of us who are only practicing with those same builds. Three cheers for people like NonY who get the rest of us to try new things.
In BW , it was DT that gave you time to expo early and get that economic advantage to transition into that mid game macro oriented style.
In SC2 it could be Stargate unit instead of templar tech unit.
I think it could be viable to go phoenix and be able to harass worker line and use them defensivly to hold the push a 3 gate/robo or 4 gate player will do.
Can transition into VR for mid/late game to compete against colossi and stuff.
Maybe we are looking in the wrong direction for the "alternative" opening and just miss on the Stargate tree which can be viable.
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.
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 ?
I'll say this once more since my original comment seems to have been misunderstood:
DT's are a good option in PvP if you're opening blink-stalkers. Blink-stalkers is not the most common opening (robo is probably most common, followed by stalker/sentry openings, and then phoenix openings and blink-stalker openings are probably next most common), but it's certainly not a bad opening. It easily beats stargate openings and it holds it own against any pure warpgate openings. The problem is it's not great against robo openings, which at present, are very common. On maps like Kulas that have a lot of terrain to abuse, however, blink-stalkers will actually perfectly well against a robo opening. It's a choice of play-style.
Anyway, if you do open blink-stalkers, DT's are a perfectly good transition. They have the potential to end the game if your opponent has really delayed his robo tech, but against competent players, no-detection wins will be few and far between. That doesn't mean DT's are useless. In mid-to-late game, protoss players like to use their robo facilities to constantly produce chronoboosted immortals and collosi. Gas is also extremely tight in Protoss mid-to-late game, so Protoss players typically make only 1 or 2 observers. Even after your opponent has 2 observers, a small number of DT's offers a substantial amount of map control and can make it very difficult for your opponent to take his third base. The DT's also force your opponent to build extra observers which will damage his immortal/collosi count. You'll really have him on the ropes if you can use your own observer and blink to snipe a few observers here and there. DT's also make for a cheap drop if your opponent's detection is caught out of position.
DT's don't automatically win the game for you. They are just one good option among many. If you do choose to go blink-stalker into DT tho, my advice would be to make sure your opponent isn't able to build up a significan collosi count or you'll be far behind.
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 !
theres no need to reply, you should have just asked me what the gpod is
get rid of this damn dark shrine, to me it just seems like they wanted something obvious in the game to signal dt's so weaker players wouldnt get rolled over... just make an upgrade or something at the templar archives.
My winrate going DTs in PvP is like over 75%. If the initial DT push fails you have 4 gates to back it up with mass zealot sentries, which will overwhelm the player if he went for a robo. Or you could choose to expand. You're just doing it wrong.
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.
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.
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
I wish people would put a little more though into new topics, this topic in general doesn't have much stand point at all. Not to mention lots of people are going to read it, you could bother to spell out 'you' instead of shortening a 3 letter word, how hard can it be? I'm not even sure if 'oppo' was ever short for opponent.
