|
|
|
Where can I download the show with artosis ?
|
"Roach hydra is the most effective way to deal with gateway unit comp - false. baneling drops, mass, mass muta. infestor + ultra or BL. "
1) First off if you open Ling/Bling, Protoss 4/6 gates you, you die. You cannot micro through forcefields. 4/6 gates comes before drop tech.
2) It is never safe to open mutas. Protoss have simply to many timing attacks that kill you outright. Or you open spire and Protoss opens stargate suddenlly his opening straight up beats your opening.
2) You've clearly never used Ultralisks in ZvP.
4) Infestor + broodlord, that is like arguing the best way to counter Marine/SCV is to get Templar/colossus. We aren't talking late game, becasue when you have broodlord Infestor, he isn't going to only have gateway units.
"Ling baneling terrible against protoss - false.
lings: sentry sniping, drops, counterattacking, map controlling, scouting
banes: good against deathballs by dropping/burrowing, mostly dropping. very commonly used even."
See above. I'm literally watching Haypros stream as he opens speedling/baneling. Guess if he is winning against that 6 gate?
"Infestor pointless when there are templar - false. by your logic infestor would be pointless when there's ghost, but guess what, they arent, and infestors arent either."
Except EMP is not instant cast. EMP does not striaght up kill the unit it casted on. Ghost are only used for EMP and doesn't have a massive AOE spell that it is effective to produce large quantities of Ghosts for your army composition.
When the Zerg opens infestors and the Protoss opens Templars, guess who has the ebtter end of that game?
"Implying zerg players are better than protoss players - seriously? false. the game develops, there is zero reason to make a claim saying zerg players are better than protoss players, nothing can ever back up your claim."
Only one I'll give you, becasue it's my opinion that the players who win with the least number of units, openings and strategies with the weakest units and the most suseptable to cheese are the players who have the most skill consistently.
"Always winning by never attacking before 200 food - false allows the zerg to tech to hive however fast he wants, and can get infestor bl/ultra, or 200 supply all muta. many indirect ways of not letting the protoss get anything done, drops, nydus, other harassment. there are enough games showing how zergs demolish turtling P's"
There's a reason why I can jump on protoss and win agaisnt Master league Zerg players. There is also a reason Master league protoss players don't jump to Zerg and win agaisnt Protoss.
The problem is YOU don't know what you are talking about.
|
On April 16 2011 01:05 Stiver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 01:03 Treehead wrote:On April 16 2011 00:56 Stiver wrote:On April 16 2011 00:52 zeru wrote:On April 16 2011 00:50 Stiver wrote:On April 16 2011 00:47 zeru wrote:On April 16 2011 00:34 Stiver wrote:
"I saw the same Roach/Hydra Style since the beta (!). Very few Zergs played Mutalisks. I saw nothing else for like ever."
There is nothing else. Roach Hydra is the strongest/most effective composition we have to deal with Zealot Stalekr Sentry. Sorry, this is true/fact. Mutalisks aren't used becasue 1) Toss timing attacks all hit before Mutas come out, and Mutas can't really defend anyways agaisnt teh stalkers.
"Now i see slowly new styles develop. And i have huge Problems with Ling/Infestor. Never saw this style. Never in any progame.
Especially Infestors. Even players who teched on BLs didn't use Infestors. And now i have it nearly impossible to stop BL/Infestor.
"
First off Infestors are new, so your point is mute. Zergs are in the process already of trying out infestors. That was not my point. My point is this idea that you non-Zergs have that we don't try things. We do, and the result is the infestors being used. I'm not sure what you are talking about here.
ALSO:
Well when Protoss stop blindly going robo, Infestors are going to look silly with Templars being used in compositions. I just fixed your ling infestor problem. That and Lings are terrible agaisnt protoss. Same with banelings. Apparently you've never heard of forcefields, and the fact you can't micro through them.
"So now answer me.
Why did i not see that? Why did i all Zergs get a big Roach/Hydra blob which died to every bigger Protoss blob? For 5 months?"
Because back when Protoss were still playing badly, and Zergs were palying well we could beat the Protoss because Zerg players are better than Protoss players. Now protoss realizes you don't really have to ever attack and get 200 and you win the game no matter what. Which is not a result of us not trying new thigns, it is a result of us trying everythign we could, and it all failing so we default to the only thing that has had any real success, despite how badly it actually does.
Your post is full with so many things that are wrong. Roach hydra is the most effective way to deal with gateway unit comp - false. Ling baneling terrible against protoss - false. Implying zerg players are better than protoss players - seriously? false. Infestor pointless when there are templar - false. Always winning by never attacking before 200 food - false Terrible post. Full of lies and clueless statements you say are "facts". Hey man, you know whats a great way of making yourself a credible person? to make claims without backing it up. Congrats you have no substance until you can put some backing to your outrageously wrong claims. You do realize you did the same thing, right. Uh, no. You go throguh a list and say I'm wrong with no explanation. Burden of proof is on you, not me. Except that you made the original statements. The burden of proof there is on you. It doesn't work logically that if I say "Zerg has all the advantages, including scouting advantages." And then you respond with: "I don't think so, how are overlords/overseers better than observers?" Gonna stop you there. There is a difference between saying "you're wrong because..." and saying "you're wrong." If you don't give me a reason, you challenging me doesn't mean anything to me. I post the conventional wisdom, you need to post the reasons that challenege that.
Is your argument, then, that the burden of proof is taken off of you because he said "I don't understand why you believe what you said is right" instead of "you're wrong". That's kind of a slight semantic distinction to alleviate the burden of proof, wouldn't you agree?
|
On April 16 2011 02:05 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 01:05 Stiver wrote:On April 16 2011 01:03 Treehead wrote:On April 16 2011 00:56 Stiver wrote:On April 16 2011 00:52 zeru wrote:On April 16 2011 00:50 Stiver wrote:On April 16 2011 00:47 zeru wrote:On April 16 2011 00:34 Stiver wrote:
"I saw the same Roach/Hydra Style since the beta (!). Very few Zergs played Mutalisks. I saw nothing else for like ever."
There is nothing else. Roach Hydra is the strongest/most effective composition we have to deal with Zealot Stalekr Sentry. Sorry, this is true/fact. Mutalisks aren't used becasue 1) Toss timing attacks all hit before Mutas come out, and Mutas can't really defend anyways agaisnt teh stalkers.
"Now i see slowly new styles develop. And i have huge Problems with Ling/Infestor. Never saw this style. Never in any progame.
Especially Infestors. Even players who teched on BLs didn't use Infestors. And now i have it nearly impossible to stop BL/Infestor.
"
First off Infestors are new, so your point is mute. Zergs are in the process already of trying out infestors. That was not my point. My point is this idea that you non-Zergs have that we don't try things. We do, and the result is the infestors being used. I'm not sure what you are talking about here.
ALSO:
Well when Protoss stop blindly going robo, Infestors are going to look silly with Templars being used in compositions. I just fixed your ling infestor problem. That and Lings are terrible agaisnt protoss. Same with banelings. Apparently you've never heard of forcefields, and the fact you can't micro through them.
"So now answer me.
Why did i not see that? Why did i all Zergs get a big Roach/Hydra blob which died to every bigger Protoss blob? For 5 months?"
Because back when Protoss were still playing badly, and Zergs were palying well we could beat the Protoss because Zerg players are better than Protoss players. Now protoss realizes you don't really have to ever attack and get 200 and you win the game no matter what. Which is not a result of us not trying new thigns, it is a result of us trying everythign we could, and it all failing so we default to the only thing that has had any real success, despite how badly it actually does.
Your post is full with so many things that are wrong. Roach hydra is the most effective way to deal with gateway unit comp - false. Ling baneling terrible against protoss - false. Implying zerg players are better than protoss players - seriously? false. Infestor pointless when there are templar - false. Always winning by never attacking before 200 food - false Terrible post. Full of lies and clueless statements you say are "facts". Hey man, you know whats a great way of making yourself a credible person? to make claims without backing it up. Congrats you have no substance until you can put some backing to your outrageously wrong claims. You do realize you did the same thing, right. Uh, no. You go throguh a list and say I'm wrong with no explanation. Burden of proof is on you, not me. Except that you made the original statements. The burden of proof there is on you. It doesn't work logically that if I say "Zerg has all the advantages, including scouting advantages." And then you respond with: "I don't think so, how are overlords/overseers better than observers?" Gonna stop you there. There is a difference between saying "you're wrong because..." and saying "you're wrong." If you don't give me a reason, you challenging me doesn't mean anything to me. I post the conventional wisdom, you need to post the reasons that challenege that. Is your argument, then, that the burden of proof is taken off of you because he said "I don't understand why you believe what you said is right" instead of "you're wrong". That's kind of a slight semantic distinction to alleviate the burden of proof, wouldn't you agree?
I don't know what you people are talking about. I specificlly said why Muta, ling/bane, Infestors weren't that good. Which were all arguements about why Roach/hydra was the strongest opening. In fact when I just replied to him, I SIMPLY reposted those argueemnts from my original post. I'm posting the conventional wisdom. saying "false, lies" and crap like that isn't a real arguement. I shouldn't have to go in dpeth to try and debunk some kid who cant take time to post real logical arguements.
|
On April 15 2011 22:04 Gunman_csz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 21:56 MrCon wrote:On April 15 2011 21:30 hugman wrote:On April 15 2011 20:42 loveeholicce wrote:On April 15 2011 19:43 zeru wrote:On April 15 2011 19:34 WhiteDog wrote:On April 15 2011 19:25 zeru wrote:I encourage every zerg to watch yestedays daily ( #286). The first time i heard about spanishiwa and his build i thought it was just some random sillyness which wouldn't work, but I was seriously impressed, seriously. It's extremely thought through. Dont tunnel vision anything out like I know some of you did for this sotg episode, keep the zerg rage out of your mind, stay open to it, listen and learn. And no, I'm not saying his opponents are godly omfg MC like players, but no doubt top 200, considering he's top 50 on US, we will of course have to see what happens when/if it reaches euro/korean zergs and they actually try it. This is getting old. One day we have everybody saying "zerg is not reactionnary enough, should tech switch more". The day after Day9 come saying "zerg play way too reactionnary" and everybody jump on the train. Then the day after, everybody is saying you are not playing agressiv enough, you must tear the death ball before it come into game, then Day come and say hey man just build a shitload of infestor with broodlord, then everybody jump on the train again. Most of the guy talking just don't watch IdrA: he is making broodlord infestor, he is almost always making infestors, he is switching tech, he is even using nydus a lot. He is one of the most, if not the most diverse zerg player I have ever seen. You don't know how the build works. All you do is cry about stuff you don't actually understand. Why are zerg players so emo and negative by default, its like the race attracts ragers. Feel free to stay tunnel visioned and angry, thats your problem. People like you are the ones who contribute nothing, don't actually think, and prevent this forum from being amazing. It's not about just building infestor, nydus, broodlord. It's WAY deeper and complex than that. If you don't try to learn, you won't learn. Constantly losing to bad players you shouldn't be losing make you emo and negative by default, so yea blame zerg for it. On topic: I really hate Spanishiwa's build in ZvZ. Have yet to do it in ZvP, but ZvT it also didnt see that great. I remember darkforce critiqued the build on the strat forum thread, and offered some pretty good review of its weaknesses. I'l post them here cause they offer pretty good insight from some1 who actually knows what he's talking about: (Not to bash the build or anything, but I think a pro's perspective is helpful.) + Show Spoiler +On March 31 2011 21:35 DarKFoRcE wrote:
Meh. I see this mainly working because people dont realize the big weaknesses of this build. I absolutely dont see you holding some kind of 2 rax pressure into expand into 5 rax stimpush, as you will not even have zergling speed done when the push is outside of your base. and slow lings against stimmed MM is no fun.
Against P i find it problematic not to be able to scout very well (like checking whether he takes gas at his nat, cancel his nexus and stuff like that.. al that is way harder with slow lings). furthermore, as kcdc said, you have no offensive potential, so P can just take a third very save.
And in ZvZ i absolutely hate this build. No scouting, You have to invest in static defense while your opponent can drone super heavily, while at the same time him having mapcontrol and being able to take a third before you do. Also "sneaking slow lings into his base" is somewhat... lol, this just doesnt work against competent opponents.
Overall i think this build CAN work, if your opponent does not exploit it properly, but i think it is rather easy to exploit, at least in ZvP and ZvZ because it is easy to scout there. In ZvT i guess it might work out well sometimes, but if your opponents goes for an early stimpush or smth. like that youre screwed :/ On March 31 2011 23:22 DarKFoRcE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 23:09 kcdc wrote:On March 31 2011 21:35 DarKFoRcE wrote:
Meh. I see this mainly working because people dont realize the big weaknesses of this build. I absolutely dont see you holding some kind of 2 rax pressure into expand into 5 rax stimpush, as you will not even have zergling speed done when the push is outside of your base. and slow lings against stimmed MM is no fun.
Against P i find it problematic not to be able to scout very well (like checking whether he takes gas at his nat, cancel his nexus and stuff like that.. al that is way harder with slow lings). furthermore, as kcdc said, you have no offensive potential, so P can just take a third very save.
And in ZvZ i absolutely hate this build. No scouting, You have to invest in static defense while your opponent can drone super heavily, while at the same time him having mapcontrol and being able to take a third before you do. Also "sneaking slow lings into his base" is somewhat... lol, this just doesnt work against competent opponents.
Overall i think this build CAN work, if your opponent does not exploit it properly, but i think it is rather easy to exploit, at least in ZvP and ZvZ because it is easy to scout there. In ZvT i guess it might work out well sometimes, but if your opponents goes for an early stimpush or smth. like that youre screwed :/ Against P, I can see it working as sort of a 2-base tech turtle where you're essentially saying, "Ok Protoss, you can have map control and 3 bases, but I'm going to have lots of drones and I'm going to tech straight infestors and blings with OL drops, and soon after, I'll have ultras, and I'll beat your macro with unit efficiency." Didn't Zergs tech turtle to defilers against Terran all the time in BW? I don't think know exactly how efficient infestors + bling drops is going to be at this point, but there's no doubt that it rocks the hell out of the standard stalker, sentry, colossus + optional void ray composition. We'll have to see what happens when Protoss players adjust. You definitely dont have the gas to support infestor + baneling drop on 2 bases. On April 01 2011 18:44 DarKFoRcE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 11:00 grungust wrote:
I'm interested in darkforces response to spanishiwa. He ignored most of the points i critized, which to me means, that the build is in fact not as great as most people here think. but lets see: Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 01:18 Spanishiwa wrote:
There is a huge 110 second window before he gets his speedling tech up where you'll have slowling vs slowling. Scouting during this time is very easy, and you'll be able to tell what he's doing. He'll need to start his expansion during this time for it to be anything other than a 1 base all in. So you'll see from there. And it's not that difficult to hide a zergling or two during this stage around the map so that you can use it for scouting purposes. Overlord sacs can work too to check drone saturation and # of geysers taken. If he opens 14g14p you wont have your Pool done for a good part of that "huge 110 second window". I just randomly clicked one of the ZvZ replays and checked the buildorder (it was 15h14p btw. and not 16h15p as stated in the OP). Your pool starts 2:40. Pool builds 65 seconds. Your first Lings start building at 3:45. They hatch 24 seconds later, at 4:09. Now it depends on the map how long they need to your opponents base. I'd say we can take an average of like 30s.so you arrive at 4:39, which is about 25 seconds before zergling speed finishes, so you MIGHT get one glimpse of the inside of his base. It doesnt really matter whether he starts an expansion, he can still continue to pump speedlings, or he switches to drones, you dont know. and the fact that you have no clue what your opponent is going to do makes this build bad in my eyes. Next problem: Usually against 14g14p your zerglings will arrive at your natural around the time your first zerglings spawn. Now im curious how you want to a) send scoutling to your opponents base and b) hide lings around the map for later scouting when your opponent is right at your natural pressuring to run in and kill drones or whatever. Remember your first Lings spawn 55 seconds before Lingspeed finishes, so there is not as much time as you think to do all that. I just dont see it working. Overlord sacs .. meh, i guess it can give you valuable information sometimes, but they are so slow and sometimes it will just put your further behind. If you message me on eu (atndarkforce.423) we can do some games and maybe i can prove my points in practise. On April 07 2011 00:00 DarKFoRcE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 23:56 blackkiwi wrote:
What to do if ur opponent for example terran is going some sort of early expansion too? Iam totally lost every time they do 15 nexus or 1 rax orbtialcommand expand openings. Cause if i had scouted it i would go 7rr or something like that but ur built scouting timing is way to late to switch to such things I think this is actually the big weakness of this build. Also against a terran who goes for something like 2 rax into expand. once the terrans sees youre investing in stationary defense and queens (who are pretty stationary aswell) he could just take his third before you. Because of this i still think that using this build is developing bad habits. The thing is, on ladder, so many people play early pushes, and against that, this build is great, but if your opponent simply plays super greedy, you cannot punish him for that. On April 07 2011 00:57 DarKFoRcE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 00:20 spacebarbarian wrote:On April 07 2011 00:00 DarKFoRcE wrote:On April 06 2011 23:56 blackkiwi wrote:
What to do if ur opponent for example terran is going some sort of early expansion too? Iam totally lost every time they do 15 nexus or 1 rax orbtialcommand expand openings. Cause if i had scouted it i would go 7rr or something like that but ur built scouting timing is way to late to switch to such things I think this is actually the big weakness of this build. Also against a terran who goes for something like 2 rax into expand. once the terrans sees youre investing in stationary defense and queens (who are pretty stationary aswell) he could just take his third before you. Because of this i still think that using this build is developing bad habits. The thing is, on ladder, so many people play early pushes, and against that, this build is great, but if your opponent simply plays super greedy, you cannot punish him for that. Hmm, I don't see how a terran could possibly expect to, and even if they tried, win a expand+saturate race against a zerg. Both droning and expanding is cheaper and faster for a Z, so if you see the T going for a third, then maybe just skip gas on the natural after the 40 food mark and expand again? I think the terran will eventually be playing catch up even if they have the head start from not getting those static defenses + the extra MULE. Well, this is your opinion. I think if you invest in static defense like this and if terran does not have to worry about early speedling attacks (super late gas) and he can very well compete and imo will even come out ahead against this build... On April 07 2011 17:47 DarKFoRcE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 06:02 darkscream wrote:On April 06 2011 19:27 Acritter wrote:
Seven Roach Rush.
@darkforce, this build gives you such a booming economy, that Terran cannot keep up. The build relies on constant scouting more than most. If you see a command center, you throw down a hatchery, and in two rounds of injects the zerg 3rd is fully saturated. However, the real strength of this build is that you hit 2 base saturation, and you can just max on tier 1 with upgrades and attack. You get ling speed and a lair, then you get whatever the hell you want. That said, I have lost to bunker rushes on stupid maps that the queen/crawler defense isnt very good on. Shattered Temple makes you feel very safe with these defenses, metalopolis on the other hand is full of nooks and crannies to hide cannons and bunkers. This takes us back to "this build relies on constant scouting more than most." Constant drone and overlord scouting early is a must, and ling scouting later also a must. You don't need ling speed to spend 1 supply on 2 zerglings looking at the 2 most obvious places for the Terran's 3rd. Again, this is just your opinion, yet you state it is a fact. You have no proof for this, just like i have no proof for my standpoint. The only difference is that i might have a bit more experience. You talk about constant scouting. But it is alot harder to scout with Slow lings compared to Speedlings. If terran goes for 2 rax into double expand, he will have a good bunch of marines, it wont be so easy to even get to his natural. The 2 rax player can also apply quite some pressure (run around in front of your spine crawlers, kill tumors..) and you might invest in more spine crawlers. yet, for him, this is not a risk, because you dont have a mobile army to kill off his marines in case he retreats too late (which is what normally happens). Anyway, if any decent player here feels like trying it, im willing to play terran against you using this build (my main race is zerg..). Surely your superior strategy should be able to compete against my lousy terran play ;p On April 07 2011 18:26 DarKFoRcE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 18:20 themell wrote:On April 07 2011 17:47 DarKFoRcE wrote:On April 07 2011 06:02 darkscream wrote:On April 06 2011 19:27 Acritter wrote:
Seven Roach Rush.
@darkforce, this build gives you such a booming economy, that Terran cannot keep up. The build relies on constant scouting more than most. If you see a command center, you throw down a hatchery, and in two rounds of injects the zerg 3rd is fully saturated. However, the real strength of this build is that you hit 2 base saturation, and you can just max on tier 1 with upgrades and attack. You get ling speed and a lair, then you get whatever the hell you want. That said, I have lost to bunker rushes on stupid maps that the queen/crawler defense isnt very good on. Shattered Temple makes you feel very safe with these defenses, metalopolis on the other hand is full of nooks and crannies to hide cannons and bunkers. This takes us back to "this build relies on constant scouting more than most." Constant drone and overlord scouting early is a must, and ling scouting later also a must. You don't need ling speed to spend 1 supply on 2 zerglings looking at the 2 most obvious places for the Terran's 3rd. Again, this is just your opinion, yet you state it is a fact. You have no proof for this, just like i have no proof for my standpoint. The only difference is that i might have a bit more experience. You talk about constant scouting. But it is alot harder to scout with Slow lings compared to Speedlings. If terran goes for 2 rax into double expand, he will have a good bunch of marines, it wont be so easy to even get to his natural. The 2 rax player can also apply quite some pressure (run around in front of your spine crawlers, kill tumors..) and you might invest in more spine crawlers. yet, for him, this is not a risk, because you dont have a mobile army to kill off his marines in case he retreats too late (which is what normally happens). Anyway, if any decent player here feels like trying it, im willing to play terran against you using this build (my main race is zerg..). Surely your superior strategy should be able to compete against my lousy terran play ;p It seems to me that you're just really biased against this build. I don't see how a 2 rax double expand could work. That's 800 minerals (and countless scvs) that aren't marines. You may have enough to contain the zerg, but once your "double expansion" happens, you have to pull back. Also, with a couple spine crawlers and queens, he can slowly move spine crawlers forward one at a time to crush any bunker contain. The only thing killing tumors will do is prevent mobility of ground units. As for vision and scouting, zerg still has overlords. At least one should be near the opponents base to scout, or at least by the expansion to see if the terran is expanding. Yes im really biased against this build because it is completely counterintuitive to abandon mapcontrol with zerg and invest in static defense. This is ok against a 1 basing opponent who goes for some kind of allin, but not against 2 or more bases. Also, not being able to spread creep means that terran will be able to push much faster later on, because he does not have to kill as much creep on the way. I dont know Spanishiwa at all, so its nothing personal, i just think that overvalueing this build will develop bad habits. On April 08 2011 07:38 DarKFoRcE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 06:45 VictorX wrote:On April 08 2011 04:30 IPA wrote:
Loving these guys calling out DarkForce, a proven Euro Zerg power, like he doesn't know what he is talking about. "B-but it worked in my gold league!!"
I don't think he is calling out the build itself as terrible or useless, just that it builds habits that are counter-intuitive to the race's strengths. If you have a solid grasp of fundamentals and several different builds in your repertoire, there's no reason why you can't add this one. I wasn't trying to call out DarkForce, I know he is a pro, the guy's on liquipedia ;p I also have doubts about it's power in ZvZ, because I find being unable to scout the opponent constantly to be unnerving (because of the speed of a zerg push compared to terran and toss) I think what DarkForce is arguing is that giving up map control between 20 food and 50 food is bad, but I have found through playing in masters (now 30 games of experience) that after the dark period of 20-50 food is over, you end up with full saturation quicker, more map control, and more options. He is very right that the biggest problem is that it puts 0 pressure, therefor allowing a reactive opponent to out-macro you once he scouts that you are not taking gas at all. My solution so far is double expanding to match a quick third, or dedicating to heavy harassment. Whether this will fail me in the future is too early to tell, Spanishwa definitely has more experience on the weaknesses of the build against greedy econ play than I do. (he's already admitted it dies to 2rax all in) In a way Spanishwa's build is an econ risk. Something must be given up to secure such a quick economy, and that thing is total map control exerted by early speedlings. By cutting speedlings (cutting gas), you get more drones, faster. As to some people concerned about being unable to spread creep without lings, this is absolutely true. I find it very easy to simply spread creep around their army, into "tasteless secret hallway" and other alternative routes. Also it's not hard to just postpone creep, having active tumors stockpiled on the edge of his army, ready to push out as soon as your first two rounds of speedlings are moving out to re-establish map control. But a camped army in the middle of map denies creep like no other, and is definitely a weakness when you don't have enough creep to immediately and safely throw down a third against air play (queens can't get there) When you take gas as late as 40 you dont suddenly have Zerglingspeed finished at 50 supply. And mapcontrol without Zerglingspeed is not something that happens very often. taking gas at 40 means that it takes a little less than 3 more minutes (ingame time) until you have zergling speed done (after taking gas). so, at 2 hatcheries and 9 larvae per hatch per minute you should be at like 90 food when you finally have zergling speed. assuming a little over 1 supply per larvae. Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 06:52 OutlaW- wrote:On April 07 2011 18:26 DarKFoRcE wrote:On April 07 2011 18:20 themell wrote:On April 07 2011 17:47 DarKFoRcE wrote:On April 07 2011 06:02 darkscream wrote:On April 06 2011 19:27 Acritter wrote:
Seven Roach Rush.
@darkforce, this build gives you such a booming economy, that Terran cannot keep up. The build relies on constant scouting more than most. If you see a command center, you throw down a hatchery, and in two rounds of injects the zerg 3rd is fully saturated. However, the real strength of this build is that you hit 2 base saturation, and you can just max on tier 1 with upgrades and attack. You get ling speed and a lair, then you get whatever the hell you want. That said, I have lost to bunker rushes on stupid maps that the queen/crawler defense isnt very good on. Shattered Temple makes you feel very safe with these defenses, metalopolis on the other hand is full of nooks and crannies to hide cannons and bunkers. This takes us back to "this build relies on constant scouting more than most." Constant drone and overlord scouting early is a must, and ling scouting later also a must. You don't need ling speed to spend 1 supply on 2 zerglings looking at the 2 most obvious places for the Terran's 3rd. Again, this is just your opinion, yet you state it is a fact. You have no proof for this, just like i have no proof for my standpoint. The only difference is that i might have a bit more experience. You talk about constant scouting. But it is alot harder to scout with Slow lings compared to Speedlings. If terran goes for 2 rax into double expand, he will have a good bunch of marines, it wont be so easy to even get to his natural. The 2 rax player can also apply quite some pressure (run around in front of your spine crawlers, kill tumors..) and you might invest in more spine crawlers. yet, for him, this is not a risk, because you dont have a mobile army to kill off his marines in case he retreats too late (which is what normally happens). Anyway, if any decent player here feels like trying it, im willing to play terran against you using this build (my main race is zerg..). Surely your superior strategy should be able to compete against my lousy terran play ;p It seems to me that you're just really biased against this build. I don't see how a 2 rax double expand could work. That's 800 minerals (and countless scvs) that aren't marines. You may have enough to contain the zerg, but once your "double expansion" happens, you have to pull back. Also, with a couple spine crawlers and queens, he can slowly move spine crawlers forward one at a time to crush any bunker contain. The only thing killing tumors will do is prevent mobility of ground units. As for vision and scouting, zerg still has overlords. At least one should be near the opponents base to scout, or at least by the expansion to see if the terran is expanding. Yes im really biased against this build because it is completely counterintuitive to abandon mapcontrol with zerg and invest in static defense. This is ok against a 1 basing opponent who goes for some kind of allin, but not against 2 or more bases. Also, not being able to spread creep means that terran will be able to push much faster later on, because he does not have to kill as much creep on the way. I dont know Spanishiwa at all, so its nothing personal, i just think that overvalueing this build will develop bad habits. Your arguments are solid and I won't argue against them, but perhaps this is the mindset of Zergs keeping them from exploring new things? The fact that they have to work so hard to refine everything and then it just doesn't work maybe warps their sense of reality a bit, denying to try new things and explore the unknown? It's really hard to explain with words, but I feel that Spanishiwa and everyone else who is trying this build is definitely pushing starcraft further, regardless if this build turns out to have too big flaws or not. Maybe this is the case, we will most likely never know. But i personally think its a good attitude to be very very critical of a new build order, otherwise you will implement alot of bad habits in your play. Im very open to trying things, but i put a lot of value into my intuition when it comes to whether a build might be viable or not. And as i pointed out in another post, the build seems just so completely counterintuitive that i do not see it worth putting in alot of time. The advantage we humans have over a computer is that we can detect patterns and thus dont have to do everything by trial and error. The thing is, as i said, this build is good against certain things (especially 1 base allins), but once a very good player has played against this 1-2 times he should be able to exploit it properly (faking aggression to force crawlers, expanding but denying the slowlings from scouting it early - on some maps you cant use ovis to scout his natural). Now you might say that it is a good build to play once in a series to surprise your opponent. But the problem with this is that your opponent will be able to keep his scouting worker alive until at least ~30 seconds after your pool finishes, that means, he will be able to see that even until then you have not taken your gas, thus he knows he will be very save. if you take gas after you have killed his worker in order to throw him off, it will take another 3:15 until you have zergling speed done, with which you could get aggressive. that is very late. On April 08 2011 18:12 DarKFoRcE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 12:08 JaqMs wrote:
I know hydras have gone out of style recently in ZvP, but could this build viably transition into a heavy queen/hydra army? Seems like it theoretically counters the deathball (queens vs colossi/void rays and hydras vs gateway units). Queens also seem to be better meatshields than roaches since they are, non-armored, bigger (less colossi AoE damage), and have transfuse. Movement speed shouldn't be a problem due to the build's immense creep spread. Perhaps queens could be loaded into overlords and create "flash" creep spread in the proximity of the opponent's base. No offense man, but what have you been smoking? How in gods name does Queen/Hydra counter colo+x :D? I mean, Queens do like no damage whatsoever, are super slow like hydras and both get melted by colossi. Also, good protoss players will deny alot of creepspread and due to your lack of mapcontrol with your build you cannot really prevent this. It really baffles me how people say that this build has good creep spread, sure, you have alot of extra queens, but only in lowlevel games this actually results in more creepspread. against competent opponents you need queens AND mapcontrol, otherwise your opponent will just walk up right outside your static defense and wait there and kill of any tumor that tries to spread out. Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 13:04 LaLuSh wrote:
I can see this working ZvZ vs 14gas 13/14pool, because it's basically how dimaga has been playing for months. But in the other matchups... no... only if you're playing on the US server, where people compete to invent the most stupid strategies.
Yes, dimaga uses this sometimes, i have actually practised some against him where he played something similar to this build, but i always came out a bit ahead after the early game (he also agreed on this). He still managed to win afterwards, but that was not due to his starting build, but one time due to me misspositioning my army and another time due to overdroning when i took the third and then dying to mass roach -_-. The thing in starcraft 2 is, even if you play an inferior build, you can still win, as people simply make many mistakes.. even at the top levels of play This is so silly, you yourself haven't used the build outside ZvZ (and you probably haven't used it enough to execute it properly, but that's speculation) and you're quoting someone criticising the build who has never played it either. If you want to show that it doesn't work then beat spanishiwa three times in a row or something. You seem convinced that it doesn't work even though you rationally have no reason to, it's like you want it to not work. Why else would you quote all that stuff to try to support your argument that you're not qualified to make anyway? I agree, and the big problem of zergs is ZvP these days, so dismissing the build because it's not good in ZvZ or ZvT is rather strange. Anyway with zergs, nothing never works. I'am kind of traumatized by the 2 rax dominance era, where everyone said to zerg to pool first, and idra, ret, and perhaps darkforce too, answered "What, you think we didn't tried ? If we pool first we are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo behind economically anyway, it's not possible." Then 1+ month later pool first became standard. And it was showed that pool first can be an eco build. So much for the "we tried". Are you stupid or just bluntly misquoting people to make your point? IdrA was one of the first persons to suggest pool(speedling) opening against 2rax, even though ret insisted that you need more larva(ie more lings) against 2rax, and zelniq and others suggest spinecrawler defenses. (SEARCH THE Freaking TL.NET) Stop being an ignorant fool. Its funny that you make it sound like Zergs are half wit retards who can not think for themselves and they need half wit retards like you to help them out.
If only being a blind IdrA-ling with a revisionist view of history and a knee-jerk instinct to call people "stupid" was a ban-able offense... I wonder if you realize that TL.net isn't the only platform that pros have to talk about their opinions on things. After the 3rd MLG last year, IdrA got face-stomped by SelecT who marine/bunker rushed him, prompting him to declare hatch-first as "no longer viable". Less than a week later Nestea beats FoxeR in the finals of GSL2 showing everyone how to defend agains 2-Rax by going 14-hatch with superior micro/static defenses. And that was basically the end the 2-Rax is OP discussion.
Basically, what the community needs is either for whiner zergs who are incapable/unwilling to just "figure it out" to go away or for a top zerg to step up to the plate and figure out a way to take down some top Protoss players and that'll be the end of it. The problem is that the top Zergs right now either in the off-season (all the Koreans) or they're giving up by needlessly all-ining (both Zergs at Dreamhack). Even cases where Zergs are taking games off Protoss in the big tourneys going on right now (MorroW vs MC @ DH, Moon/Grubby, Sheth/Artosis @ NASL) no one seems to care or pay any attention. There's no analysis of what those zergs did right. There's no analysis of what Protoss weaknesses/mistakes were exploited. There's just whine. I guess we'll just have to wait till GSL5 starts for the Korean Zergs to figure out how to deal with Protoss so the B-teamer can see how it's done perhaps shut up his legion of mindless followers.
|
On April 16 2011 01:59 Stiver wrote:
"Roach hydra is the most effective way to deal with gateway unit comp - false. baneling drops, mass, mass muta. infestor + ultra or BL. "
1) First off if you open Ling/Bling, Protoss 4/6 gates you, you die. You cannot micro through forcefields. 4/6 gates comes before drop tech.
2) It is never safe to open mutas. Protoss have simply to many timing attacks that kill you outright. Or you open spire and Protoss opens stargate suddenlly his opening straight up beats your opening.
2) You've clearly never used Ultralisks in ZvP.
4) Infestor + broodlord, that is like arguing the best way to counter Marine/SCV is to get Templar/colossus. We aren't talking late game, becasue when you have broodlord Infestor, he isn't going to only have gateway units.
"Ling baneling terrible against protoss - false.
lings: sentry sniping, drops, counterattacking, map controlling, scouting
banes: good against deathballs by dropping/burrowing, mostly dropping. very commonly used even."
See above. I'm literally watching Haypros stream as he opens speedling/baneling. Guess if he is winning against that 6 gate?
"Infestor pointless when there are templar - false. by your logic infestor would be pointless when there's ghost, but guess what, they arent, and infestors arent either."
Except EMP is not instant cast. EMP does not striaght up kill the unit it casted on. Ghost are only used for EMP and doesn't have a massive AOE spell that it is effective to produce large quantities of Ghosts for your army composition.
When the Zerg opens infestors and the Protoss opens Templars, guess who has the ebtter end of that game?
"Implying zerg players are better than protoss players - seriously? false. the game develops, there is zero reason to make a claim saying zerg players are better than protoss players, nothing can ever back up your claim."
Only one I'll give you, becasue it's my opinion that the players who win with the least number of units, openings and strategies with the weakest units and the most suseptable to cheese are the players who have the most skill consistently.
"Always winning by never attacking before 200 food - false allows the zerg to tech to hive however fast he wants, and can get infestor bl/ultra, or 200 supply all muta. many indirect ways of not letting the protoss get anything done, drops, nydus, other harassment. there are enough games showing how zergs demolish turtling P's"
There's a reason why I can jump on protoss and win agaisnt Master league Zerg players. There is also a reason Master league protoss players don't jump to Zerg and win agaisnt Protoss.
The problem is YOU don't know what you are talking about.
Here's the problem: you're showing him why you think the way you do and not showing him why he should believe you.
You say "I just watched Haypro die to a 6-gate while opening speedling/baneling", but I doubt Haypro would even bother experimenting with such a build if he thoguht the most common form of protoss rush just flat out left him with no chance. Doesn't the fact that he's trying to make it work show hope?
You quibble about the difference between ghosts and templar, saying that one is clearly better against zerg than the other, and then you restate your thesis as a question "who do you think wins ____?" I think the better player wins almost all of the time and sometimes strategy and composition has a limited involvement. Like Tyler said, if you played Jaedong, Jaedong would win. If you said Jaedong must use a terrible strat, he would win. If you said he's not allowed to build anything but workers, he would win. If you said he was only allowed to use the 6 workers he's given at the start of the game, he would drone rush you and win - that doesn't say anything about the game, it says something about you and Jaedong.
You state that you can jump on Protoss and beat Master-level zerg, and seem to feel that this is somehow relevant to game balance. Who did you beat? How did you beat them? Why do you think they couldn't beat you if they tried?
You further state that Protoss don't jump on zerg and beat Master-level protoss. Since there are people who play random in Masters, I would disagree. I'm sure SOMEONE who plays Protoss as their main can also beat Master's level protoss as zerg. Kcdc, you around here somewhere? I know you were doing this at some point.
This doesn't mean your mindset or your viewpoint are "wrong", it just means that your perceptions aren't absolutes, they're just perceptions.
|
On April 16 2011 01:59 Stiver wrote:
"Roach hydra is the most effective way to deal with gateway unit comp - false. baneling drops, mass, mass muta. infestor + ultra or BL. "
1) First off if you open Ling/Bling, Protoss 4/6 gates you, you die. You cannot micro through forcefields. 4/6 gates comes before drop tech.
2) It is never safe to open mutas. Protoss have simply to many timing attacks that kill you outright. Or you open spire and Protoss opens stargate suddenlly his opening straight up beats your opening.
2) You've clearly never used Ultralisks in ZvP.
4) Infestor + broodlord, that is like arguing the best way to counter Marine/SCV is to get Templar/colossus. We aren't talking late game, becasue when you have broodlord Infestor, he isn't going to only have gateway units.
"Ling baneling terrible against protoss - false.
lings: sentry sniping, drops, counterattacking, map controlling, scouting
banes: good against deathballs by dropping/burrowing, mostly dropping. very commonly used even."
See above. I'm literally watching Haypros stream as he opens speedling/baneling. Guess if he is winning against that 6 gate?
"Infestor pointless when there are templar - false. by your logic infestor would be pointless when there's ghost, but guess what, they arent, and infestors arent either."
Except EMP is not instant cast. EMP does not striaght up kill the unit it casted on. Ghost are only used for EMP and doesn't have a massive AOE spell that it is effective to produce large quantities of Ghosts for your army composition.
When the Zerg opens infestors and the Protoss opens Templars, guess who has the ebtter end of that game?
"Implying zerg players are better than protoss players - seriously? false. the game develops, there is zero reason to make a claim saying zerg players are better than protoss players, nothing can ever back up your claim."
Only one I'll give you, becasue it's my opinion that the players who win with the least number of units, openings and strategies with the weakest units and the most suseptable to cheese are the players who have the most skill consistently.
"Always winning by never attacking before 200 food - false allows the zerg to tech to hive however fast he wants, and can get infestor bl/ultra, or 200 supply all muta. many indirect ways of not letting the protoss get anything done, drops, nydus, other harassment. there are enough games showing how zergs demolish turtling P's"
There's a reason why I can jump on protoss and win agaisnt Master league Zerg players. There is also a reason Master league protoss players don't jump to Zerg and win agaisnt Protoss.
The problem is YOU don't know what you are talking about.
Holy shit will you leave this thread? You're ruining it with stupidity.
|
Just because i can win with Zerg in Masterleague against all races with like 60 % winrate with 6-pool and Baneling Bust even though i'm protoss doesn't mean i can play Zerg.
The same happens if a Zerg plays Protoss and 4 Gates or waits till 200 Supply and builds VR/Colossus and his enemies are too retarded to attack.
|
On April 16 2011 02:19 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 01:59 Stiver wrote:
"Roach hydra is the most effective way to deal with gateway unit comp - false. baneling drops, mass, mass muta. infestor + ultra or BL. "
1) First off if you open Ling/Bling, Protoss 4/6 gates you, you die. You cannot micro through forcefields. 4/6 gates comes before drop tech.
2) It is never safe to open mutas. Protoss have simply to many timing attacks that kill you outright. Or you open spire and Protoss opens stargate suddenlly his opening straight up beats your opening.
2) You've clearly never used Ultralisks in ZvP.
4) Infestor + broodlord, that is like arguing the best way to counter Marine/SCV is to get Templar/colossus. We aren't talking late game, becasue when you have broodlord Infestor, he isn't going to only have gateway units.
"Ling baneling terrible against protoss - false.
lings: sentry sniping, drops, counterattacking, map controlling, scouting
banes: good against deathballs by dropping/burrowing, mostly dropping. very commonly used even."
See above. I'm literally watching Haypros stream as he opens speedling/baneling. Guess if he is winning against that 6 gate?
"Infestor pointless when there are templar - false. by your logic infestor would be pointless when there's ghost, but guess what, they arent, and infestors arent either."
Except EMP is not instant cast. EMP does not striaght up kill the unit it casted on. Ghost are only used for EMP and doesn't have a massive AOE spell that it is effective to produce large quantities of Ghosts for your army composition.
When the Zerg opens infestors and the Protoss opens Templars, guess who has the ebtter end of that game?
"Implying zerg players are better than protoss players - seriously? false. the game develops, there is zero reason to make a claim saying zerg players are better than protoss players, nothing can ever back up your claim."
Only one I'll give you, becasue it's my opinion that the players who win with the least number of units, openings and strategies with the weakest units and the most suseptable to cheese are the players who have the most skill consistently.
"Always winning by never attacking before 200 food - false allows the zerg to tech to hive however fast he wants, and can get infestor bl/ultra, or 200 supply all muta. many indirect ways of not letting the protoss get anything done, drops, nydus, other harassment. there are enough games showing how zergs demolish turtling P's"
There's a reason why I can jump on protoss and win agaisnt Master league Zerg players. There is also a reason Master league protoss players don't jump to Zerg and win agaisnt Protoss.
The problem is YOU don't know what you are talking about.
Here's the problem: you're showing him why you think the way you do and not showing him why he should believe you. You say "I just watched Haypro die to a 6-gate while opening speedling/baneling", but I doubt Haypro would even bother experimenting with such a build if he thoguht the most common form of protoss rush just flat out left him with no chance. Doesn't the fact that he's trying to make it work show hope? You quibble about the difference between ghosts and templar, saying that one is clearly better against zerg than the other, and then you restate your thesis as a question "who do you think wins ____?" I think the better player wins almost all of the time and sometimes strategy and composition has a limited involvement. Like Tyler said, if you played Jaedong, Jaedong would win. If you said Jaedong must use a terrible strat, he would win. If you said he's not allowed to build anything but workers, he would win. If you said he was only allowed to use the 6 workers he's given at the start of the game, he would drone rush you and win - that doesn't say anything about the game, it says something about you and Jaedong. You state that you can jump on Protoss and beat Master-level zerg, and seem to feel that this is somehow relevant to game balance. Who did you beat? How did you beat them? Why do you think they couldn't beat you if they tried? You further state that Protoss don't jump on zerg and beat Master-level protoss. Since there are people who play random in Masters, I would disagree. I'm sure SOMEONE who plays Protoss as their main can also beat Master's level protoss as zerg. Kcdc, you around here somewhere? I know you were doing this at some point. This doesn't mean your mindset or your viewpoint are "wrong", it just means that your perceptions aren't absolutes, they're just perceptions.
My original point is we do try. WE have the builds we do becasue those are the most effective. Game after Game of getting rolled opening Speedlings we open roaches. Becasue that is what practice does. That game on teh stream highlights that. Yeah sure we practice different thigns (like I said) but in the end it comes down to we use the most effective in tournaments.
And at every level I'm makign the assumption of bother players of equal skill. I'm not the person who should be tested agasint someone like Jaedong. Why would I be, I'm not that good. But test me agaisnt another Master league Protoss? test Jaedong agaisnt another pro. Why are we comparing to wildly different skill sets. If we want a discussion it ahs to be two equal players.
What I was saying earlier was this: I'm a Master league Zerg player. I will off race once in a while againt my Zerg teammates and roll them. I don't have timings, and I only have a very limited understanding of the Protoss BOs. I basiclly defend everyhting until I hit 200 food and win the game. I was speaking on my earlier point, and trying to back it up that it happens. Whether or not this is balanced, I WASN'T COMMENTING ON.
Just as a side note, random players are different than Zerg players who off race once in a while. Random you play as both 33% of the time, where you'd play Zerg 99% of the time, then maybe play a few Toss games. LEvel of understanding and expereicne varies hugely different between the two.
|
On April 16 2011 01:26 desrow wrote:
Where can I download the show with artosis ?
JP updates OP
|
On April 16 2011 02:31 Stiver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 02:19 Treehead wrote:On April 16 2011 01:59 Stiver wrote:
"Roach hydra is the most effective way to deal with gateway unit comp - false. baneling drops, mass, mass muta. infestor + ultra or BL. "
1) First off if you open Ling/Bling, Protoss 4/6 gates you, you die. You cannot micro through forcefields. 4/6 gates comes before drop tech.
2) It is never safe to open mutas. Protoss have simply to many timing attacks that kill you outright. Or you open spire and Protoss opens stargate suddenlly his opening straight up beats your opening.
2) You've clearly never used Ultralisks in ZvP.
4) Infestor + broodlord, that is like arguing the best way to counter Marine/SCV is to get Templar/colossus. We aren't talking late game, becasue when you have broodlord Infestor, he isn't going to only have gateway units.
"Ling baneling terrible against protoss - false.
lings: sentry sniping, drops, counterattacking, map controlling, scouting
banes: good against deathballs by dropping/burrowing, mostly dropping. very commonly used even."
See above. I'm literally watching Haypros stream as he opens speedling/baneling. Guess if he is winning against that 6 gate?
"Infestor pointless when there are templar - false. by your logic infestor would be pointless when there's ghost, but guess what, they arent, and infestors arent either."
Except EMP is not instant cast. EMP does not striaght up kill the unit it casted on. Ghost are only used for EMP and doesn't have a massive AOE spell that it is effective to produce large quantities of Ghosts for your army composition.
When the Zerg opens infestors and the Protoss opens Templars, guess who has the ebtter end of that game?
"Implying zerg players are better than protoss players - seriously? false. the game develops, there is zero reason to make a claim saying zerg players are better than protoss players, nothing can ever back up your claim."
Only one I'll give you, becasue it's my opinion that the players who win with the least number of units, openings and strategies with the weakest units and the most suseptable to cheese are the players who have the most skill consistently.
"Always winning by never attacking before 200 food - false allows the zerg to tech to hive however fast he wants, and can get infestor bl/ultra, or 200 supply all muta. many indirect ways of not letting the protoss get anything done, drops, nydus, other harassment. there are enough games showing how zergs demolish turtling P's"
There's a reason why I can jump on protoss and win agaisnt Master league Zerg players. There is also a reason Master league protoss players don't jump to Zerg and win agaisnt Protoss.
The problem is YOU don't know what you are talking about.
Here's the problem: you're showing him why you think the way you do and not showing him why he should believe you. You say "I just watched Haypro die to a 6-gate while opening speedling/baneling", but I doubt Haypro would even bother experimenting with such a build if he thoguht the most common form of protoss rush just flat out left him with no chance. Doesn't the fact that he's trying to make it work show hope? You quibble about the difference between ghosts and templar, saying that one is clearly better against zerg than the other, and then you restate your thesis as a question "who do you think wins ____?" I think the better player wins almost all of the time and sometimes strategy and composition has a limited involvement. Like Tyler said, if you played Jaedong, Jaedong would win. If you said Jaedong must use a terrible strat, he would win. If you said he's not allowed to build anything but workers, he would win. If you said he was only allowed to use the 6 workers he's given at the start of the game, he would drone rush you and win - that doesn't say anything about the game, it says something about you and Jaedong. You state that you can jump on Protoss and beat Master-level zerg, and seem to feel that this is somehow relevant to game balance. Who did you beat? How did you beat them? Why do you think they couldn't beat you if they tried? You further state that Protoss don't jump on zerg and beat Master-level protoss. Since there are people who play random in Masters, I would disagree. I'm sure SOMEONE who plays Protoss as their main can also beat Master's level protoss as zerg. Kcdc, you around here somewhere? I know you were doing this at some point. This doesn't mean your mindset or your viewpoint are "wrong", it just means that your perceptions aren't absolutes, they're just perceptions. My original point is we do try. WE have the builds we do becasue those are the most effective. Game after Game of getting rolled opening Speedlings we open roaches. Becasue that is what practice does. That game on teh stream highlights that. Yeah sure we practice different thigns (like I said) but in the end it comes down to we use the most effective in tournaments. And at every level I'm makign the assumption of bother players of equal skill. I'm not the person who should be tested agasint someone like Jaedong. Why would I be, I'm not that good. But test me agaisnt another Master league Protoss? test Jaedong agaisnt another pro. Why are we comparing to wildly different skill sets. If we want a discussion it ahs to be two equal players. What I was saying earlier was this: I'm a Master league Zerg player. I will off race once in a while againt my Zerg teammates and roll them. I don't have timings, and I only have a very limited understanding of the Protoss BOs. I basiclly defend everyhting until I hit 200 food and win the game. I was speaking on my earlier point, and trying to back it up that it happens. Whether or not this is balanced, I WASN'T COMMENTING ON. Just as a side note, random players are different than Zerg players who off race once in a while. Random you play as both 33% of the time, where you'd play Zerg 99% of the time, then maybe play a few Toss games. Level of understanding and expereicne varies hugely different between the two.
Sounds like your teammates have incredibly bad ZvP then. My main race is P and somehow, unbelievably, I don't win 100% of my games versus zerg. Sometimes I get absolutely rolled. Often it's by ling/baneling, because every build that protoss uses versus P---our expansion timings, our composition, our blind robo---is based on the fact that you always go roach and we have learned how to defend versus most forms of roach attacks. You think you, playing 5 games as protoss, play protoss better than me after I've played it for 600+ games when I know the timings, proper unit compositions against various builds, and timings of your race? Yet you beat all of your zerg buddies while I don't beat every single zerg I play? Damn, I guess you're just that gosu at the game and protoss is as simple as "herp derp throw down random buildings then win." Since I don't win I must be just be braindead and massing 150 zealots and a-moving, since my race is so simple anyone can play it and beat zerg without practice.
I'm also wondering what your clan is, because I've never heard of you so I'm wondering why I should care that you are able to beat your zerg teammates unless you happen to be an E.G. zerg smurf account or something. If they're letting you macro up a 200/200 deathball uncontested, which will cost much more than your roach/hydra ball and be higher tech, THERE MUST BE SOME FLAW IN THE GAME since their 6000/3000 min/gas army lower tech is somehow not beating your higher tech 9000/5000 protoss army.
If a terran opens 4 command centers before barracks versus me sitting on two bases doing absolutely nothing, and he maxes out on marine/marauder 10 minutes into the game with 20 barracks, then sits there and lets me get a 200/200 upgraded deathball of chargelots, stalkers, and 7 colossi, pretty sure he's going to lose that one despite an enormous initial advantage. So why would your 75/25 roach and 100/50 hydra ball EVER beat my 125/25 stalker, 50/100 sentry, 300/200 colossi, and 250/150 voidray ball?
|
On April 16 2011 02:31 Stiver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 02:19 Treehead wrote:On April 16 2011 01:59 Stiver wrote:
"Roach hydra is the most effective way to deal with gateway unit comp - false. baneling drops, mass, mass muta. infestor + ultra or BL. "
1) First off if you open Ling/Bling, Protoss 4/6 gates you, you die. You cannot micro through forcefields. 4/6 gates comes before drop tech.
2) It is never safe to open mutas. Protoss have simply to many timing attacks that kill you outright. Or you open spire and Protoss opens stargate suddenlly his opening straight up beats your opening.
2) You've clearly never used Ultralisks in ZvP.
4) Infestor + broodlord, that is like arguing the best way to counter Marine/SCV is to get Templar/colossus. We aren't talking late game, becasue when you have broodlord Infestor, he isn't going to only have gateway units.
"Ling baneling terrible against protoss - false.
lings: sentry sniping, drops, counterattacking, map controlling, scouting
banes: good against deathballs by dropping/burrowing, mostly dropping. very commonly used even."
See above. I'm literally watching Haypros stream as he opens speedling/baneling. Guess if he is winning against that 6 gate?
"Infestor pointless when there are templar - false. by your logic infestor would be pointless when there's ghost, but guess what, they arent, and infestors arent either."
Except EMP is not instant cast. EMP does not striaght up kill the unit it casted on. Ghost are only used for EMP and doesn't have a massive AOE spell that it is effective to produce large quantities of Ghosts for your army composition.
When the Zerg opens infestors and the Protoss opens Templars, guess who has the ebtter end of that game?
"Implying zerg players are better than protoss players - seriously? false. the game develops, there is zero reason to make a claim saying zerg players are better than protoss players, nothing can ever back up your claim."
Only one I'll give you, becasue it's my opinion that the players who win with the least number of units, openings and strategies with the weakest units and the most suseptable to cheese are the players who have the most skill consistently.
"Always winning by never attacking before 200 food - false allows the zerg to tech to hive however fast he wants, and can get infestor bl/ultra, or 200 supply all muta. many indirect ways of not letting the protoss get anything done, drops, nydus, other harassment. there are enough games showing how zergs demolish turtling P's"
There's a reason why I can jump on protoss and win agaisnt Master league Zerg players. There is also a reason Master league protoss players don't jump to Zerg and win agaisnt Protoss.
The problem is YOU don't know what you are talking about.
Here's the problem: you're showing him why you think the way you do and not showing him why he should believe you. You say "I just watched Haypro die to a 6-gate while opening speedling/baneling", but I doubt Haypro would even bother experimenting with such a build if he thoguht the most common form of protoss rush just flat out left him with no chance. Doesn't the fact that he's trying to make it work show hope? You quibble about the difference between ghosts and templar, saying that one is clearly better against zerg than the other, and then you restate your thesis as a question "who do you think wins ____?" I think the better player wins almost all of the time and sometimes strategy and composition has a limited involvement. Like Tyler said, if you played Jaedong, Jaedong would win. If you said Jaedong must use a terrible strat, he would win. If you said he's not allowed to build anything but workers, he would win. If you said he was only allowed to use the 6 workers he's given at the start of the game, he would drone rush you and win - that doesn't say anything about the game, it says something about you and Jaedong. You state that you can jump on Protoss and beat Master-level zerg, and seem to feel that this is somehow relevant to game balance. Who did you beat? How did you beat them? Why do you think they couldn't beat you if they tried? You further state that Protoss don't jump on zerg and beat Master-level protoss. Since there are people who play random in Masters, I would disagree. I'm sure SOMEONE who plays Protoss as their main can also beat Master's level protoss as zerg. Kcdc, you around here somewhere? I know you were doing this at some point. This doesn't mean your mindset or your viewpoint are "wrong", it just means that your perceptions aren't absolutes, they're just perceptions. My original point is we do try. WE have the builds we do becasue those are the most effective. Game after Game of getting rolled opening Speedlings we open roaches. Becasue that is what practice does. That game on teh stream highlights that. Yeah sure we practice different thigns (like I said) but in the end it comes down to we use the most effective in tournaments. And at every level I'm makign the assumption of bother players of equal skill. I'm not the person who should be tested agasint someone like Jaedong. Why would I be, I'm not that good. But test me agaisnt another Master league Protoss? test Jaedong agaisnt another pro. Why are we comparing to wildly different skill sets. If we want a discussion it ahs to be two equal players. What I was saying earlier was this: I'm a Master league Zerg player. I will off race once in a while againt my Zerg teammates and roll them. I don't have timings, and I only have a very limited understanding of the Protoss BOs. I basiclly defend everyhting until I hit 200 food and win the game. I was speaking on my earlier point, and trying to back it up that it happens. Whether or not this is balanced, I WASN'T COMMENTING ON. Just as a side note, random players are different than Zerg players who off race once in a while. Random you play as both 33% of the time, where you'd play Zerg 99% of the time, then maybe play a few Toss games. LEvel of understanding and expereicne varies hugely different between the two.
You can't measure a strategy's effectiveness, so why do you believe your standard opening is the most effective? If you feel like you can, which strategy is most effective, a 6-pool into mass drones, or a 30-pool into 6 late zerglings with a drone all-in? I'm going to guess you can't, because you can't measure the effectiveness of things you haven't tried. Notice here that I didn't say - have you tried a drone build vs. a zergling build - I gave you specifics. The reason? I doubt you've tried all the specific ways of opening.
You're missing my point about Jaedong. It was subtle, so it's not really your fault. People become more and more skilled as the game grows older. 9 months into SC2, you're saying it seems like Protoss is too easy against zerg. How do you know that in 6 years the same game wouldn't be skewed towards zerg, and the only reason protoss were winning now is because zergs aren't very good compared to their counterparts in 6 years?
Random wasn't a good example, that's why I asked for Kcdc - he's a master's toss I've seen post about his dabblings playing as zerg (which were not unsuccessful, much to your dismay).
|
On April 16 2011 02:45 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 02:31 Stiver wrote:On April 16 2011 02:19 Treehead wrote:On April 16 2011 01:59 Stiver wrote:
"Roach hydra is the most effective way to deal with gateway unit comp - false. baneling drops, mass, mass muta. infestor + ultra or BL. "
1) First off if you open Ling/Bling, Protoss 4/6 gates you, you die. You cannot micro through forcefields. 4/6 gates comes before drop tech.
2) It is never safe to open mutas. Protoss have simply to many timing attacks that kill you outright. Or you open spire and Protoss opens stargate suddenlly his opening straight up beats your opening.
2) You've clearly never used Ultralisks in ZvP.
4) Infestor + broodlord, that is like arguing the best way to counter Marine/SCV is to get Templar/colossus. We aren't talking late game, becasue when you have broodlord Infestor, he isn't going to only have gateway units.
"Ling baneling terrible against protoss - false.
lings: sentry sniping, drops, counterattacking, map controlling, scouting
banes: good against deathballs by dropping/burrowing, mostly dropping. very commonly used even."
See above. I'm literally watching Haypros stream as he opens speedling/baneling. Guess if he is winning against that 6 gate?
"Infestor pointless when there are templar - false. by your logic infestor would be pointless when there's ghost, but guess what, they arent, and infestors arent either."
Except EMP is not instant cast. EMP does not striaght up kill the unit it casted on. Ghost are only used for EMP and doesn't have a massive AOE spell that it is effective to produce large quantities of Ghosts for your army composition.
When the Zerg opens infestors and the Protoss opens Templars, guess who has the ebtter end of that game?
"Implying zerg players are better than protoss players - seriously? false. the game develops, there is zero reason to make a claim saying zerg players are better than protoss players, nothing can ever back up your claim."
Only one I'll give you, becasue it's my opinion that the players who win with the least number of units, openings and strategies with the weakest units and the most suseptable to cheese are the players who have the most skill consistently.
"Always winning by never attacking before 200 food - false allows the zerg to tech to hive however fast he wants, and can get infestor bl/ultra, or 200 supply all muta. many indirect ways of not letting the protoss get anything done, drops, nydus, other harassment. there are enough games showing how zergs demolish turtling P's"
There's a reason why I can jump on protoss and win agaisnt Master league Zerg players. There is also a reason Master league protoss players don't jump to Zerg and win agaisnt Protoss.
The problem is YOU don't know what you are talking about.
Here's the problem: you're showing him why you think the way you do and not showing him why he should believe you. You say "I just watched Haypro die to a 6-gate while opening speedling/baneling", but I doubt Haypro would even bother experimenting with such a build if he thoguht the most common form of protoss rush just flat out left him with no chance. Doesn't the fact that he's trying to make it work show hope? You quibble about the difference between ghosts and templar, saying that one is clearly better against zerg than the other, and then you restate your thesis as a question "who do you think wins ____?" I think the better player wins almost all of the time and sometimes strategy and composition has a limited involvement. Like Tyler said, if you played Jaedong, Jaedong would win. If you said Jaedong must use a terrible strat, he would win. If you said he's not allowed to build anything but workers, he would win. If you said he was only allowed to use the 6 workers he's given at the start of the game, he would drone rush you and win - that doesn't say anything about the game, it says something about you and Jaedong. You state that you can jump on Protoss and beat Master-level zerg, and seem to feel that this is somehow relevant to game balance. Who did you beat? How did you beat them? Why do you think they couldn't beat you if they tried? You further state that Protoss don't jump on zerg and beat Master-level protoss. Since there are people who play random in Masters, I would disagree. I'm sure SOMEONE who plays Protoss as their main can also beat Master's level protoss as zerg. Kcdc, you around here somewhere? I know you were doing this at some point. This doesn't mean your mindset or your viewpoint are "wrong", it just means that your perceptions aren't absolutes, they're just perceptions. My original point is we do try. WE have the builds we do becasue those are the most effective. Game after Game of getting rolled opening Speedlings we open roaches. Becasue that is what practice does. That game on teh stream highlights that. Yeah sure we practice different thigns (like I said) but in the end it comes down to we use the most effective in tournaments. And at every level I'm makign the assumption of bother players of equal skill. I'm not the person who should be tested agasint someone like Jaedong. Why would I be, I'm not that good. But test me agaisnt another Master league Protoss? test Jaedong agaisnt another pro. Why are we comparing to wildly different skill sets. If we want a discussion it ahs to be two equal players. What I was saying earlier was this: I'm a Master league Zerg player. I will off race once in a while againt my Zerg teammates and roll them. I don't have timings, and I only have a very limited understanding of the Protoss BOs. I basiclly defend everyhting until I hit 200 food and win the game. I was speaking on my earlier point, and trying to back it up that it happens. Whether or not this is balanced, I WASN'T COMMENTING ON. Just as a side note, random players are different than Zerg players who off race once in a while. Random you play as both 33% of the time, where you'd play Zerg 99% of the time, then maybe play a few Toss games. Level of understanding and expereicne varies hugely different between the two. Sounds like your teammates have incredibly bad ZvP then. My main race is P and somehow, unbelievably, I don't win 100% of my games versus zerg. Sometimes I get absolutely rolled. Often it's by ling/baneling, because every build that protoss uses versus P---our expansion timings, our composition, our blind robo---is based on the fact that you always go roach and we have learned how to defend versus most forms of roach attacks. You think you, playing 5 games as protoss, play protoss better than me after I've played it for 600+ games when I know the timings, proper unit compositions against various builds, and timings of your race? Yet you beat all of your zerg buddies while I don't beat every single zerg I play? Damn, I guess you're just that gosu at the game and protoss is as simple as "herp derp throw down random buildings then win." Since I don't win I must be just be braindead and massing 150 zealots and a-moving, since my race is so simple anyone can play it and beat zerg without practice. I'm also wondering what your clan is, because I've never heard of you so I'm wondering why I should care that you are able to beat your zerg teammates unless you happen to be an E.G. zerg smurf account or something. If they're letting you macro up a 200/200 deathball uncontested, which will cost much more than your roach/hydra ball and be higher tech, THERE MUST BE SOME FLAW IN THE GAME since their 6000/3000 min/gas army lower tech is somehow not beating your higher tech 9000/5000 protoss army. If a terran opens 4 command centers before barracks versus me sitting on two bases doing absolutely nothing, and he maxes out on marine/marauder 10 minutes into the game with 20 barracks, then sits there and lets me get a 200/200 upgraded deathball of chargelots, stalkers, and 7 colossi, pretty sure he's going to lose that one despite an enormous initial advantage. So why would your 75/25 roach and 100/50 hydra ball EVER beat my 125/25 stalker, 50/100 sentry, 300/200 colossi, and 250/150 voidray ball?
You forgot corruptors btw.
|
On April 16 2011 03:06 Stiver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 02:45 Heavenly wrote:On April 16 2011 02:31 Stiver wrote:On April 16 2011 02:19 Treehead wrote:On April 16 2011 01:59 Stiver wrote:
"Roach hydra is the most effective way to deal with gateway unit comp - false. baneling drops, mass, mass muta. infestor + ultra or BL. "
1) First off if you open Ling/Bling, Protoss 4/6 gates you, you die. You cannot micro through forcefields. 4/6 gates comes before drop tech.
2) It is never safe to open mutas. Protoss have simply to many timing attacks that kill you outright. Or you open spire and Protoss opens stargate suddenlly his opening straight up beats your opening.
2) You've clearly never used Ultralisks in ZvP.
4) Infestor + broodlord, that is like arguing the best way to counter Marine/SCV is to get Templar/colossus. We aren't talking late game, becasue when you have broodlord Infestor, he isn't going to only have gateway units.
"Ling baneling terrible against protoss - false.
lings: sentry sniping, drops, counterattacking, map controlling, scouting
banes: good against deathballs by dropping/burrowing, mostly dropping. very commonly used even."
See above. I'm literally watching Haypros stream as he opens speedling/baneling. Guess if he is winning against that 6 gate?
"Infestor pointless when there are templar - false. by your logic infestor would be pointless when there's ghost, but guess what, they arent, and infestors arent either."
Except EMP is not instant cast. EMP does not striaght up kill the unit it casted on. Ghost are only used for EMP and doesn't have a massive AOE spell that it is effective to produce large quantities of Ghosts for your army composition.
When the Zerg opens infestors and the Protoss opens Templars, guess who has the ebtter end of that game?
"Implying zerg players are better than protoss players - seriously? false. the game develops, there is zero reason to make a claim saying zerg players are better than protoss players, nothing can ever back up your claim."
Only one I'll give you, becasue it's my opinion that the players who win with the least number of units, openings and strategies with the weakest units and the most suseptable to cheese are the players who have the most skill consistently.
"Always winning by never attacking before 200 food - false allows the zerg to tech to hive however fast he wants, and can get infestor bl/ultra, or 200 supply all muta. many indirect ways of not letting the protoss get anything done, drops, nydus, other harassment. there are enough games showing how zergs demolish turtling P's"
There's a reason why I can jump on protoss and win agaisnt Master league Zerg players. There is also a reason Master league protoss players don't jump to Zerg and win agaisnt Protoss.
The problem is YOU don't know what you are talking about.
Here's the problem: you're showing him why you think the way you do and not showing him why he should believe you. You say "I just watched Haypro die to a 6-gate while opening speedling/baneling", but I doubt Haypro would even bother experimenting with such a build if he thoguht the most common form of protoss rush just flat out left him with no chance. Doesn't the fact that he's trying to make it work show hope? You quibble about the difference between ghosts and templar, saying that one is clearly better against zerg than the other, and then you restate your thesis as a question "who do you think wins ____?" I think the better player wins almost all of the time and sometimes strategy and composition has a limited involvement. Like Tyler said, if you played Jaedong, Jaedong would win. If you said Jaedong must use a terrible strat, he would win. If you said he's not allowed to build anything but workers, he would win. If you said he was only allowed to use the 6 workers he's given at the start of the game, he would drone rush you and win - that doesn't say anything about the game, it says something about you and Jaedong. You state that you can jump on Protoss and beat Master-level zerg, and seem to feel that this is somehow relevant to game balance. Who did you beat? How did you beat them? Why do you think they couldn't beat you if they tried? You further state that Protoss don't jump on zerg and beat Master-level protoss. Since there are people who play random in Masters, I would disagree. I'm sure SOMEONE who plays Protoss as their main can also beat Master's level protoss as zerg. Kcdc, you around here somewhere? I know you were doing this at some point. This doesn't mean your mindset or your viewpoint are "wrong", it just means that your perceptions aren't absolutes, they're just perceptions. My original point is we do try. WE have the builds we do becasue those are the most effective. Game after Game of getting rolled opening Speedlings we open roaches. Becasue that is what practice does. That game on teh stream highlights that. Yeah sure we practice different thigns (like I said) but in the end it comes down to we use the most effective in tournaments. And at every level I'm makign the assumption of bother players of equal skill. I'm not the person who should be tested agasint someone like Jaedong. Why would I be, I'm not that good. But test me agaisnt another Master league Protoss? test Jaedong agaisnt another pro. Why are we comparing to wildly different skill sets. If we want a discussion it ahs to be two equal players. What I was saying earlier was this: I'm a Master league Zerg player. I will off race once in a while againt my Zerg teammates and roll them. I don't have timings, and I only have a very limited understanding of the Protoss BOs. I basiclly defend everyhting until I hit 200 food and win the game. I was speaking on my earlier point, and trying to back it up that it happens. Whether or not this is balanced, I WASN'T COMMENTING ON. Just as a side note, random players are different than Zerg players who off race once in a while. Random you play as both 33% of the time, where you'd play Zerg 99% of the time, then maybe play a few Toss games. Level of understanding and expereicne varies hugely different between the two. Sounds like your teammates have incredibly bad ZvP then. My main race is P and somehow, unbelievably, I don't win 100% of my games versus zerg. Sometimes I get absolutely rolled. Often it's by ling/baneling, because every build that protoss uses versus P---our expansion timings, our composition, our blind robo---is based on the fact that you always go roach and we have learned how to defend versus most forms of roach attacks. You think you, playing 5 games as protoss, play protoss better than me after I've played it for 600+ games when I know the timings, proper unit compositions against various builds, and timings of your race? Yet you beat all of your zerg buddies while I don't beat every single zerg I play? Damn, I guess you're just that gosu at the game and protoss is as simple as "herp derp throw down random buildings then win." Since I don't win I must be just be braindead and massing 150 zealots and a-moving, since my race is so simple anyone can play it and beat zerg without practice. I'm also wondering what your clan is, because I've never heard of you so I'm wondering why I should care that you are able to beat your zerg teammates unless you happen to be an E.G. zerg smurf account or something. If they're letting you macro up a 200/200 deathball uncontested, which will cost much more than your roach/hydra ball and be higher tech, THERE MUST BE SOME FLAW IN THE GAME since their 6000/3000 min/gas army lower tech is somehow not beating your higher tech 9000/5000 protoss army. If a terran opens 4 command centers before barracks versus me sitting on two bases doing absolutely nothing, and he maxes out on marine/marauder 10 minutes into the game with 20 barracks, then sits there and lets me get a 200/200 upgraded deathball of chargelots, stalkers, and 7 colossi, pretty sure he's going to lose that one despite an enormous initial advantage. So why would your 75/25 roach and 100/50 hydra ball EVER beat my 125/25 stalker, 50/100 sentry, 300/200 colossi, and 250/150 voidray ball? You forgot corruptors btw.
150/100 units versus 250/150 void rays with 125/50 stalker support.
|
Unless you are top 5 masters or GM dont worry about balance, worry about improving. Stalkers 125/50 too btw.
|
Can you guys go to PM and stop turning this thread into shit please? We get it, you all think that each other is terribly wrong and knows nothing about the game.
|
On April 16 2011 03:19 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
Can you guys go to PM and stop turning this thread into shit please? We get it, you all think that each other is terribly wrong and knows nothing about the game.
Dude I just said Zergs do try a bunch of different things contrary to what the SOTG people think. I think people are trolling me becasue responses have gotten fairly silly and aparently I'm talking about balance now which is weird.
|
On April 16 2011 02:45 Heavenly wrote:
I'm also wondering what your clan is, because I've never heard of you so I'm wondering why I should care that you are able to beat your zerg teammates unless you happen to be an E.G. zerg smurf account or something. If they're letting you macro up a 200/200 deathball uncontested, which will cost much more than your roach/hydra ball and be higher tech, THERE MUST BE SOME FLAW IN THE GAME since their 6000/3000 min/gas army lower tech is somehow not beating your higher tech 9000/5000 protoss army.
This part stuck out to me the most and has yet to be answered. Especially since, this team is being used as a major part of the credentials.
|
On April 16 2011 03:21 Stiver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 03:19 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
Can you guys go to PM and stop turning this thread into shit please? We get it, you all think that each other is terribly wrong and knows nothing about the game. Dude I just said Zergs do try a bunch of different things contrary to what the SOTG people think. I think people are trolling me becasue responses have gotten fairly silly and aparently I'm talking about balance now which is weird.
I get that, but progress isn't being made, you're both just making really long posts to explain how bad the other person is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
