|
I think an essential problem is that 3 bases is just too efficient. There should be rewards for having 4-5+ bases mining. The problems stem from there.
One is that a good toss on top of his game/scouting can play VERY greedy. Using just sentries and cannons, protoss can cheaply hold expansions, expand quickly (especially on maps like Shakuras) and get big expensive tech units.
Zerg doesn't have any viable way to apply strong pressure because of how strong protoss defense can be with forcefield against roaches/lings. Because zerg can't apply real pressure, toss can be very greedy. Meanwhile, the zerg can't be very greedy because if the toss decides to not go greed game and go aggro, zerg will die.
A strong solution IMO, would be to give hydras a speed upgrade to allow for a strong timing push that isn't so all in. The threat of a hydra timing push would definitely make toss stay on their toes more. Obviously there needs to be some careful balance in this, as hydras are very strong very gateway. However, protoss is still very strong on defense so it should work out fairly well.
Another issue is the corurptor. It's kind of a joke, an AtA that is absolutely atrocious vs. vikings/void rays.
Another one elegant solution that solves ZvP and PvP issues is giving normal gateways an advantage over warpgates ie producing units faster
|
On April 19 2011 14:08 Elefanto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 14:01 Tachion wrote:On April 19 2011 13:42 Greentellon wrote:
I would love to win by harrass or throwing units at zerg with constant rate, but the thing is...protoss can't do that. Our units are very expensive. We can't afford re-building our army constantly. Kill a protoss army and it'll take several minutes to re-build it. Unless it's end-game and protoss has like 20 gateways and a 5k trust fund, but still.
Take away "deathballing" from protoss and I don't know what I would do (vs Zerg). On other hand, I'm a low diamond and I have nowhere near the imagination of a pro or masters leaguer. TvP had a pretty similar dynamic in BW didn't it? What made it fun to watch? Just seeing if the P can break the T before it's too late? How is it different than what we have now? TvP has had a game in the game if you want. There were 2 battles occuring nearly at the same time. Once protoss has to get high economy to deal with the super efficient terran units. They had to delay / slow / wear down the terran ball from getting to big. Yet terran also couldn't just sit on their fat ass and trying to get to their ball. They had to prevent protoss from becoming to big and get too much ahead in macro, by harassing or timing attacks. Both players had to prevent the other from reaching their goal.
That sounds much more similar to ZvT in SC2, Where Zerg is in the P's shoes and mutas/map control are the method to slowing down the Terran rather than straight up engagements.
|
On April 19 2011 14:02 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 13:20 Malpractice.248 wrote:
imo the biggest issue is P can set the tone.
They can defend ANYTHING if they scout, and can choose to macro on par w/the Z.
They dont even need to come out of their lovely defensive posture, and can come out of t here w/ANYTHING.
Also, i think someone stated it perfectly.
Z has very few abilities/techs to use to improve, they just "play more fundamentally sound", which doesnt further their metagame much comparatively... Everything you said is wrong. Watch almost any PvZ and you see that all protoss does is sit back on 2-3 bases until they get a deathball going. Until that point, zerg has total map control, vision, and freedom is expand. Zerg can set tone they choose to. And "few abilities/techs" is ridiculous. Compared to what? The choice for protoss is whether they get stalker/sentry/colossi or stalker/sentry/colossi/void ray. Zerg has the most diverse options as far as unit composition.
I think what he meant was that the protoss decides the build order the zerg must choose in the game.
Before even the game happens, the protoss can decide 'hmm, i'll go FFE this game or i'll go 3gate expand or i'll go 2gate pressure etc.' The zerg can't blindly decide to choose to go 1 base against 3gate expand or early expo against 2gate pressure, etc. The zerg is entirely reactionary to how the protoss decides the 'pace' or 'flow' of the game is played out.
Again, I think what he meant was that the tech choices are limited in a zerg's play because they have to play reactionary to how protoss decides to 'tech' path or 'tech opener'.
The protoss can FFE in 1void 3 phoenix opener, then can branch to gateway + robo or double robo + voidray play. A protoss can open 3gate expand into phoenix play into robo, etc. A protoss can open 1gate DT in expo, or 1gate stargate into expo into.. etc. Or FFE into 6gate allin, or 5 gate pressure or etc.. You get the idea.
The zerg only has limited response to all those varied openers/tech choices. Essentially the protoss is forcing the zergs hand and therefore, is dictating the 'pace' or 'flow' of the game.
|
Dunno if this has been posted:
Watched Sen this morning, the guy is 6k/2k (common situation for zvp on taldarim). He makes 30 spine crawlers, cranks out extra corruptors, cancels spines and fights with 230/200 army.
On large maps, this is one solution for late game zerg vs turtling protoss.
|
On April 19 2011 14:15 Inflexion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 14:02 AndAgain wrote:On April 19 2011 13:20 Malpractice.248 wrote:
imo the biggest issue is P can set the tone.
They can defend ANYTHING if they scout, and can choose to macro on par w/the Z.
They dont even need to come out of their lovely defensive posture, and can come out of t here w/ANYTHING.
Also, i think someone stated it perfectly.
Z has very few abilities/techs to use to improve, they just "play more fundamentally sound", which doesnt further their metagame much comparatively... Everything you said is wrong. Watch almost any PvZ and you see that all protoss does is sit back on 2-3 bases until they get a deathball going. Until that point, zerg has total map control, vision, and freedom is expand. Zerg can set tone they choose to. And "few abilities/techs" is ridiculous. Compared to what? The choice for protoss is whether they get stalker/sentry/colossi or stalker/sentry/colossi/void ray. Zerg has the most diverse options as far as unit composition. I think what he meant was that the protoss decides the build order the zerg must choose in the game. Before even the game happens, the protoss can decide 'hmm, i'll go FFE this game or i'll go 3gate expand or i'll go 2gate pressure etc.' The zerg can't blindly decide to choose to go 1 base against 3gate expand or early expo against 2gate pressure, etc. The zerg is entirely reactionary to how the protoss decides the 'pace' or 'flow' of the game is played out. Again, I think what he meant was that the tech choices are limited in a zerg's play because they have to play reactionary to how protoss decides to 'tech' path or 'tech opener'. The protoss can FFE in 1void 3 phoenix opener, then can branch to gateway + robo or double robo + voidray play. A protoss can open 3gate expand into phoenix play into robo, etc. A protoss can open 1gate DT in expo, or 1gate stargate into expo into.. etc. Or FFE into 6gate allin, or 5 gate pressure or etc.. You get the idea. The zerg only has limited response to all those varied openers/tech choices. Essentially the protoss is forcing the zergs hand and therefore, is dictating the 'pace' or 'flow' of the game.
If we're talking about pressure openers, zerg also have some powerful options. Protoss can't easily expand against roach rushes or banelings, especially sensee we need a forge for cannons while zerg can build spine crawlers whenever. If you watch Spanishiwa's strategies, he manages to defend any early pressure with queens and spines while transitioning to just about whatever he wants.
|
On April 19 2011 14:14 dave333 wrote:
I think an essential problem is that 3 bases is just too efficient. There should be rewards for having 4-5+ bases mining. The problems stem from there.
I agree with this. Less mineral patches per base will help here. Bigger maps gave zerg the ability to react to early game pressure better, but also made it easier to avoid the midgame by turtling on the magic 3 bases and taking your 4th after you have the money matrix (deathball). Make the 4th base that sweet spot instead of 3 and things will work themselves out.
|
On April 19 2011 05:40 Polatrite wrote:
The following is an analysis of the modern Protoss deathball currently sweeping tournaments as compared to the Zerg swarm last fall that was having good results for Zerg players.
Let's take an objective glance at part of the metagame. Ever since SC2 launched, Zerg has been all about taking an economic advantage and then killing their opponent in the late game. During a period of time after the Zealot and Reaper build time nerfs, Zergs were finally able to fend off substantial early harassment and build up these economic leads with far more ease than was possible before. After a short period of time, Zergs were enjoying strategies that basically involved "macro hard to win!" and many Zergs learned a lot of the intricacies of when to drone and when not to drone. Zerg enjoyed a brief trip to the top - Korean and foreign polls were all declaring that Zerg was far and away the top race (77% voted that Zerg was the strongest race on a leading Korean forum, the "TL" of the Korean scene). IdrA was considered a much bigger favorite than he is currently (comparatively - he's still a great favorite), and players like Fruitdealer and Nestea were (and in the case of Nestea, are) considered the players to watch.
The shift was ironic, because the exact same polls had shown Terran in a commanding lead for "strongest race" just two months earlier with 81% voting in favor. This was the time when MorroW won IEM away from IdrA with Reaper play, and Terran were placing 3-out-of-4 slots in the top 4 of many tournaments, if not winning outright. Protoss was widely considered the weakest race with the most flimsy and gimmicky mechanics (force field, Void Ray, Mothership, or just builds involving a Stargate at all).
Unfortunately for Zerg, the "reign" was relatively short-lived. One particular player, MarineKing, showed that an ultra-aggressive high pressure style could perform very well against many Zergs. Theorycrafting on Teamliquid produced results, and Terran and Protoss learned ways to pressure the Zerg and keep the drone count lower, leading to less economic dominance going into the midgame. The Zerg style was, in a sense, "found out" and a reasonable - but not always effective - counter was discovered that put the races on even footing.
Fast forward many months to season 2, jumping many major tournaments down the line. Zerg has had less than spectacular results recently as Terran and Protoss styles have grown to accommodate pressuring on Zerg to force army production and reduce the exponential growth possibilities of Spawn Larva. Except we notice that a peculiar shift of events has occurred.
Not only is Zerg under-represented in the top 16 of many tournaments, but now Protoss is over-represented. And what is causing that? In many cases it is a series of Protoss timing attacks combined with an eventual deathball off of an economic turtle style play. Isn't that exactly what Zerg were using only a few months before - a style that tried to command an economic advantage and "survive" until their advantage eventually peaked and they could win the game? Except now Protoss is doing a similar strategy - instead of requiring bases and resources to ascertain victory, Protoss simply requires that their army stay relatively unharmed in order to build up the critical mass of units necessary to sweep army after opponent army. This is a different strategy than Zerg, who welcomed the opportunity to exchange armies with an opponent due to the vastly increased economy and production capability with which to quickly reproduce an army, compared to the other two races slow acquisition of key units (Tanks, Colossus).
If you look at the post history of the strategy boards back in late 2010, you'll find an overwhelming amount of threads asking the question "How do I punish Zerg?" Eventually, with time, this was figured out. Balance changes were NOT made to cause Zerg to "fall from power" so to speak (in fact, the only balance changes during this time were pro-Zerg and con-Terran). With dedication (and whining) the players eventually figured out how to take care of the Zerg threat.
Now if we look at the strategy forums recently, it's a complete shift - the Protoss deathball is getting a lot of attention. And for good reason - it's very powerful! However it's not substantially more powerful than it has ever been (Zealot charge and Void Ray massive damage are the big changes), but only recently has it become the "most powerful strategy in the game" that allows "noobs" to beat "pros" by abusing the strategy.
TL;DR and conclusion:
So what happens now? The point of this post is to give you a little brief example of how the metagame can shift entirely. Zerg used to want to command the 200/200 army (or even the "300 food push") to destroy their opponents. After that style was figured out, ironically, Protoss adopted a similar line of thought. Instead of bases and resources being the decided factor, building army size without losses became the primary objective for these Protoss players. How do we, as a community, learn to deal with this new shift and take out the Protoss deathball?
The answer could be in light balance tweaks - but maybe it isn't. We didn't need Terran and Protoss buffs to take care of Zerg. Are we sure that we need balance tweaks to take care of Protoss?
To me the fundamental shift in paradigm isn't that a new strategy for protoss was figured out. What happened was Zergs were macroing, and macroing really hard. We didn't ahve an early game strategy, only a mid game one. IT was about survival until then. Becasue Protoss didn't have this problem, the quickest and easiest way to win was figured out. That is why Zergs macro'd and Protoss didn't.
What happened was Zergs were getting too good at defending and the Protoss would lose to the "too strong" Zerg. So you started to see a shift where Protoss also began to macro as the game went on. When the Zerg and Protoss are both macroing it is clear protoss is the favor. Zergs have always been ahead of the curve in terms of mid-late game understanding, execution and strategy because that was where all our wins came from. Now that everyone is comfortable with the macro late game Protoss players have discovered their insanely strong army.
Is it imbalanced, I don't know. I find that I'm opening Mutalisks only because all the protoss I face blindly go colossus Robo. IT is sad that I only win because of what I'm expected to do. I simply cannot win anymore going Roach/hydra/corruptor. Whe Mutas stop working I'll probably have to spam Infestors. Will this work? I can't tell. It is difficult to say at the moment.
|
On April 19 2011 13:48 Elefanto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 13:10 hitman133 wrote:
I think Protoss has the best, or the core unit, Stalker.
Stalkers is just too good for any situation in PvZ, attack air and ground, armor, good range, mobile with fast speed and blinking. High damage. Stalkers can counter roaches, lings, hydras, mutal, ultras, broodlords, corruptors, even infestor if they could blink and snipe infestor before the FG. No, the stalker is has one of the worst stats / cost ratio in the game. They are terrible by themselves, the only 2 points speaking for them is their mobility and range. Their dmg is bad and scales bad. The problem doesn't lie in the stalker, it's the colossus / sentry combination or either one of them right now, but certainly NOT the stalker.
lol, you haven't seen late games PvZ, where all the colossus and sentries were destroyed. All units Zerg have left are useless corruptors, then they started to bump out roaches, hydras, that's when stalkers work in late game.
|
On April 19 2011 14:27 jhsu98 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 14:14 dave333 wrote:
I think an essential problem is that 3 bases is just too efficient. There should be rewards for having 4-5+ bases mining. The problems stem from there.
I agree with this. Less mineral patches per base will help here. Bigger maps gave zerg the ability to react to early game pressure better, but also made it easier to avoid the midgame by turtling on the magic 3 bases and taking your 4th after you have the money matrix (deathball). Make the 4th base that sweet spot instead of 3 and things will work themselves out.
more bases don't mean a shit. Zerg need more base so they can produce more, when both have the same amount of workers. Just like protoss have to build tons of gates and robot to produce. Please take your bases and maps control reward away. No one care.
|
On April 19 2011 14:30 hitman133 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 13:48 Elefanto wrote:On April 19 2011 13:10 hitman133 wrote:
I think Protoss has the best, or the core unit, Stalker.
Stalkers is just too good for any situation in PvZ, attack air and ground, armor, good range, mobile with fast speed and blinking. High damage. Stalkers can counter roaches, lings, hydras, mutal, ultras, broodlords, corruptors, even infestor if they could blink and snipe infestor before the FG. No, the stalker is has one of the worst stats / cost ratio in the game. They are terrible by themselves, the only 2 points speaking for them is their mobility and range. Their dmg is bad and scales bad. The problem doesn't lie in the stalker, it's the colossus / sentry combination or either one of them right now, but certainly NOT the stalker. lol, you haven't seen late games PvZ, where all the colossus and sentries were destroyed. All units Zerg have left are useless corruptors, then they started to bump out roaches, hydras, that's when stalkers work in late game.
You have a protoss icon, but I can't believe you play protoss. Stalkers are the last to stand only because they're targeted last. Their purpose is to stand in front of the colossi while it deals damage. If the zerg is just left with useless corrupters, it's because he over made them
|
I think when it comes to sentries they need forcefields, defensively. But sentries in numbers are so good offensively i think the way FF has to change.
I would think it wouldnt be hard for blizzard to implement a way that when a sentry FF anywhere near pylon power it lasts the length it does now, but away from any pylons and it will last much less.
There could be timing attacks with them and it could still be useful offensively, but not to the point of being abusive where you get 10 sentries asap and then at the 18 minute mark with your stalkers just roll the zerg.
Hydra speed is something i agree with though. They are so expensive that i have to be certain that toss isnt going colossi and even then, FF mess them up lol.
|
On April 19 2011 14:33 hitman133 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 14:27 jhsu98 wrote:On April 19 2011 14:14 dave333 wrote:
I think an essential problem is that 3 bases is just too efficient. There should be rewards for having 4-5+ bases mining. The problems stem from there.
I agree with this. Less mineral patches per base will help here. Bigger maps gave zerg the ability to react to early game pressure better, but also made it easier to avoid the midgame by turtling on the magic 3 bases and taking your 4th after you have the money matrix (deathball). Make the 4th base that sweet spot instead of 3 and things will work themselves out. more bases don't mean a shit. Zerg need more base so they can produce more, when both have the same amount of workers. Just like protoss have to build tons of gates and robot to produce. Please take your bases and maps control reward away. No one care.
Once game really gets rolling and minerals bank, make spines to free up supply, then cancel the building spines. 70 workers mine more efficiently off 4 bases and zerg units cost less per supply. Fight protoss 220/200 to 200 and zerg has much better chance.
|
I think the metagame will change soon when he see Zerg pros abusing the crap out of fungal growth. The cool thing about FG + upgraded lings is that it can actually take the protoss ball straight up. Not talking about 3 or 4 infestors to "delay the push". More like 10-12 infestors with all the other gas stoked up for tier 3 ultras.
Somebody recently posted a hydra vs infestor DPS comparison and the infestor DPS over area is so much more than hydras. Roach/Hydra has no place in ZvP late game imo. Just not cost efficient.
Also, 220 supply vs 200 supply, 10 extra hydras/roaches won't make much of a difference against a P deathball.
|
On April 19 2011 14:38 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 14:30 hitman133 wrote:On April 19 2011 13:48 Elefanto wrote:On April 19 2011 13:10 hitman133 wrote:
I think Protoss has the best, or the core unit, Stalker.
Stalkers is just too good for any situation in PvZ, attack air and ground, armor, good range, mobile with fast speed and blinking. High damage. Stalkers can counter roaches, lings, hydras, mutal, ultras, broodlords, corruptors, even infestor if they could blink and snipe infestor before the FG. No, the stalker is has one of the worst stats / cost ratio in the game. They are terrible by themselves, the only 2 points speaking for them is their mobility and range. Their dmg is bad and scales bad. The problem doesn't lie in the stalker, it's the colossus / sentry combination or either one of them right now, but certainly NOT the stalker. lol, you haven't seen late games PvZ, where all the colossus and sentries were destroyed. All units Zerg have left are useless corruptors, then they started to bump out roaches, hydras, that's when stalkers work in late game. You have a protoss icon, but I can't believe you play protoss. Stalkers are the last to stand only because they're targeted last. Their purpose is to stand in front of the colossi while it deals damage. If the zerg is just left with useless corrupters, it's because he over made them
Watch MC vs IdrA game 1 at Dream Hack yet ? Please, stalkers save MC's ass. I play protoss and now I have a idea how to play against Zerg, it's stalkers and a few colossus, and I never QQ about PvZ back in the day when PvZ was the hardest MU for Protoss. Zerg players just haven't figure out yet doesn't mean they are UP or Toss OP.
|
Zergs complaining that they can't beat the (full sentry energy) deathball with pure roach corruptor just sound a lot like the terrans who used to complain that they can't beat the deathball with pure marauder medivac.
Things seem balanced to me, and i say that as PvZ is my hardest matchup--just not when zerg goes mass roach vs my 2-3 base gate/robo. I will hate to see what happens when zergs learn the "best way" to do upgraded ling/bling/(infestor)/(ultra), about which I'm already having nightmares... So far I've seen a few general ways to do it (I don't play zerg).
+ Show Spoiler +-make a bunch of early 1/0 speedlings to delay the 3gate sentry expand, then take a fast 3rd yourself.
-speedlings and spines to look like muta/ling, but drop bane/infestation instead.
-spanishiwa opener.
But basically, I agree with OP--just give it time.
+ Show Spoiler +Also, all three races need to stop anointing themselves the race that innovates while calling the others complacent, as if playing one race over another reflects your creative potential when, for the most part, you're just assimilating the strategies you see in tournament play.
|
doesn't look to hard to beat that deathball, if i watch recent games, it works well for alot of players. Even though double forges are popular again and once at blink/charge 3/3 the toss gateway units become really strong.
Its really easy to punish a toss for trying to keep up in macro with a zerg, though like a zerg knows a terran will come, the toss knows zergs will attack soon and be really careful.
Another problem is that the toss army may not be to mobile, but lategame when only colossi stalker are left, the complete army can pass cliffs. I have seen zergs that are totally fine, but at some point the toss simply moves into the back expos and kills the last base with minerals for the zerg and then let them bleed out. (bases mine out really fast if you have 80 workers on only your first 3 bases and the toss mostly abuses this)
I don't think this cliff walk mechanic is removable and zergs are also build for losing bases. But a toss can attack 3 posis at the same time, which is a bit hard to deal with if your army is weaker and you need a positional advantage (possible attacks: over a cliff, or the near choke point, or with a ms recall on the other side of the map). Mobility of the zerg doesn't helps there if they need 20 spines to hold up the enemy at every base ^.^.
before infestors could simple fungal the toss army and they wouldn't dare to move up because 8 seconds. Now its 4 and they don't care (though the 4 seconds were badly needed in other matchups)
And the biggest problem is its not even the colossi, its the stalker they can simply jump up snipe the base and run away before the zerg army is present. (meta is probably the best map for sniping expos from the zerg xD)
I mean the deathball is not on its end ^.^ . got your 200/200 ? stack up some res, kill some probes, make a mothership. Enables -> easier defense -> instant retreat and not even fungal can stop this (maybe it should so, but then again the warp delay makes it problematic) -> another attack position after you gained partly map control.
Well i don't think zergs are done and have tryed out everything against the toss. But the issue i noticed is that an upgraded gateway army can pretty much work on their own. And the weakspot of the colossi anti air gives the gateway units a really serious supply lead and you are kind of forced to waste the anti colossi units again to get that supply free. (and then one the colossi comes back).
So i guess they would have to add a weakspot to the colossi, that forces the toss to micro more (if there is anything they can change on this without destroying the options a toss can go for). I mean a toss army can be afk and they still wreak havoc if you engage them. have an mech army afk and you are pretty much screwed. (just an example x3)
So maybe it would be good to make thermal lances a skill (overheat da thing ! more dakka !). Adds range for dunno 30 seconds and has a cooldown of 1 minute. So you can bait forcefields and thermal lances, also adds one micro move to the toss army. (they are already have alot of micro possibilitys ... they just don't use it alot). that way colossi will be easier to snipe for air units or won't be able to participate in the fight full time.
on the other hand air units aren't really effectiv because the only cliffs or movement blockers are at main bases (mostly because the poor zergs hate cliffs), so you can't really attack the colossi with your air units from another angle other then backed up by your army.
So the colossi stalker combi really benefits from the map pool.
And they still care about the zerg bases, they just wait till the right moment (zerg mined out on their first bases). So i guess there is alot of room for improvement (though voidrays kill fast far off expands and the zerg anti air is a bit slow off creep and fast nydus makes you a bit weak against expo cancel 4 gate things)
PS: i kinda like the thermal lance idea xD makes me thing of the 250mm of the thor. (but a passiv buff over a few seconds is really difficult to handle timing wise.)
oh and because everyone says their races here (I'm zerratoss btw)
|
On April 19 2011 14:44 frucisky wrote:
The cool thing about FG + upgraded lings is that it can actually take the protoss ball straight up.
lol, if only
|
On April 19 2011 06:53 Bobo_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 06:46 R3N wrote:On April 19 2011 06:18 Bobo_ wrote:
Instead of Zergs trying to counter the deathball directly, they need to counter it indirectly. Don't let the Protoss achieve that critical mass. As a Zerg player, I have been shifting away from the "normal" roach/hydra composition and into a baneling/muta play(I will give credit to VTgIx because he was the first person I personally saw use it on Bitters stream) and it seems to work great. The muta ball can provide pretty good harass damage once you achieve that critical mass, being able to snipe 5-7 probes in one volley if mutas have +1 attack. Also given that fact that banelings/zerglings are very cheap both in food cost and in resources, it allows Zerg to expand around the map and so forth.
Because of the harass supplied by mutalisks, it weakens the economy of the Protoss in getting their deathball and when they decide to move out with their weakened deathball, you completely run over it with banelings/zerglings/corruptors(if you need them)/mutalisks.
Also doing attacks from two different sides, for example, mutalisks in the base, then suiciding banelings to take out their third, further delays their deathball push and allows you quickly get your broodlords out.
All-in-all: Zergs shouldn't counter the deathball directly, counter it indirectly. If you face a turtling protoss, do everything in your power to not let him get the deathball. I have found the VTgIx style does that perfectly. I haven't tried this yet, but I can only see it work because most protoss doesn't get stargate units (because they don't need to  ). Even a small number of phoenixes can counter mutas cost efficiency wise and if the protoss isn't dumb you'll never have the critical number of mutas (20+) to do anything. That said, I've always been interested in mutalisks against toss and since people doesn't expect it it can indeed be rewarding although still easily countered. Agreed with everything you said. Mutalisks can easily be countered by pheonix's. However just because a Turret counters a banshee doesn't make banshees completely useless. In the perfect scenario, pheonix's will be where your mutas are and therefore making your mutalisks useless. However, Starcraft isn't perfect and your other half of your army can get his army out of position. But then again, thats if you want to KEEP going mutalisks. If I saw mass pheonix from a Protoss, I would be stupid to keep going Mutalisks  . I would transition into Corruptors and get my hive tech, however, this is just theorycraft and I can only say so much. As a Starcraft player you need to adapt to the game and in my opinion that's what separates the pro's from the semi-pro's. Nonetheless, I believe banelings still have a place in ZvP just because of their cost efficiency and the damage they are capable of doing to a Protoss army, especially a deathball, since it is nice and bunched up aka baneling heaven .
Actually, if a protoss switches tech to make phoenixes to counter mutalisks the zerg player will be ahead quite substantially. It's not possible to crank out the phoenix numbers to deal with mutalisks fast enough to stop the harasss effectively. Sure the zerg will take some potshots while he has to retreat but when the mutalisk group doubles back it almost instantly destroys the phoenixes. When P runs away, you do the same. When P chases you, meet him head on!
If phoenixes are used as a reaction to mass muta it sucks all the toss's resources and they won't help much. The proper counter to mutas is high templar. Cruncher smartly used HTs when he played against Mondragon in the TSL to counter mutalisks instead of trying to get phoenixes.
|
On April 19 2011 14:28 Stiver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 05:40 Polatrite wrote:
The following is an analysis of the modern Protoss deathball currently sweeping tournaments as compared to the Zerg swarm last fall that was having good results for Zerg players.
Let's take an objective glance at part of the metagame. Ever since SC2 launched, Zerg has been all about taking an economic advantage and then killing their opponent in the late game. During a period of time after the Zealot and Reaper build time nerfs, Zergs were finally able to fend off substantial early harassment and build up these economic leads with far more ease than was possible before. After a short period of time, Zergs were enjoying strategies that basically involved "macro hard to win!" and many Zergs learned a lot of the intricacies of when to drone and when not to drone. Zerg enjoyed a brief trip to the top - Korean and foreign polls were all declaring that Zerg was far and away the top race (77% voted that Zerg was the strongest race on a leading Korean forum, the "TL" of the Korean scene). IdrA was considered a much bigger favorite than he is currently (comparatively - he's still a great favorite), and players like Fruitdealer and Nestea were (and in the case of Nestea, are) considered the players to watch.
The shift was ironic, because the exact same polls had shown Terran in a commanding lead for "strongest race" just two months earlier with 81% voting in favor. This was the time when MorroW won IEM away from IdrA with Reaper play, and Terran were placing 3-out-of-4 slots in the top 4 of many tournaments, if not winning outright. Protoss was widely considered the weakest race with the most flimsy and gimmicky mechanics (force field, Void Ray, Mothership, or just builds involving a Stargate at all).
Unfortunately for Zerg, the "reign" was relatively short-lived. One particular player, MarineKing, showed that an ultra-aggressive high pressure style could perform very well against many Zergs. Theorycrafting on Teamliquid produced results, and Terran and Protoss learned ways to pressure the Zerg and keep the drone count lower, leading to less economic dominance going into the midgame. The Zerg style was, in a sense, "found out" and a reasonable - but not always effective - counter was discovered that put the races on even footing.
Fast forward many months to season 2, jumping many major tournaments down the line. Zerg has had less than spectacular results recently as Terran and Protoss styles have grown to accommodate pressuring on Zerg to force army production and reduce the exponential growth possibilities of Spawn Larva. Except we notice that a peculiar shift of events has occurred.
Not only is Zerg under-represented in the top 16 of many tournaments, but now Protoss is over-represented. And what is causing that? In many cases it is a series of Protoss timing attacks combined with an eventual deathball off of an economic turtle style play. Isn't that exactly what Zerg were using only a few months before - a style that tried to command an economic advantage and "survive" until their advantage eventually peaked and they could win the game? Except now Protoss is doing a similar strategy - instead of requiring bases and resources to ascertain victory, Protoss simply requires that their army stay relatively unharmed in order to build up the critical mass of units necessary to sweep army after opponent army. This is a different strategy than Zerg, who welcomed the opportunity to exchange armies with an opponent due to the vastly increased economy and production capability with which to quickly reproduce an army, compared to the other two races slow acquisition of key units (Tanks, Colossus).
If you look at the post history of the strategy boards back in late 2010, you'll find an overwhelming amount of threads asking the question "How do I punish Zerg?" Eventually, with time, this was figured out. Balance changes were NOT made to cause Zerg to "fall from power" so to speak (in fact, the only balance changes during this time were pro-Zerg and con-Terran). With dedication (and whining) the players eventually figured out how to take care of the Zerg threat.
Now if we look at the strategy forums recently, it's a complete shift - the Protoss deathball is getting a lot of attention. And for good reason - it's very powerful! However it's not substantially more powerful than it has ever been (Zealot charge and Void Ray massive damage are the big changes), but only recently has it become the "most powerful strategy in the game" that allows "noobs" to beat "pros" by abusing the strategy.
TL;DR and conclusion:
So what happens now? The point of this post is to give you a little brief example of how the metagame can shift entirely. Zerg used to want to command the 200/200 army (or even the "300 food push") to destroy their opponents. After that style was figured out, ironically, Protoss adopted a similar line of thought. Instead of bases and resources being the decided factor, building army size without losses became the primary objective for these Protoss players. How do we, as a community, learn to deal with this new shift and take out the Protoss deathball?
The answer could be in light balance tweaks - but maybe it isn't. We didn't need Terran and Protoss buffs to take care of Zerg. Are we sure that we need balance tweaks to take care of Protoss? To me the fundamental shift in paradigm isn't that a new strategy for protoss was figured out. What happened was Zergs were macroing, and macroing really hard. We didn't ahve an early game strategy, only a mid game one. IT was about survival until then. Becasue Protoss didn't have this problem, the quickest and easiest way to win was figured out. That is why Zergs macro'd and Protoss didn't. What happened was Zergs were getting too good at defending and the Protoss would lose to the "too strong" Zerg. So you started to see a shift where Protoss also began to macro as the game went on. When the Zerg and Protoss are both macroing it is clear protoss is the favor. Zergs have always been ahead of the curve in terms of mid-late game understanding, execution and strategy because that was where all our wins came from. Now that everyone is comfortable with the macro late game Protoss players have discovered their insanely strong army. Is it imbalanced, I don't know. I find that I'm opening Mutalisks only because all the protoss I face blindly go colossus Robo. IT is sad that I only win because of what I'm expected to do. I simply cannot win anymore going Roach/hydra/corruptor. Whe Mutas stop working I'll probably have to spam Infestors. Will this work? I can't tell. It is difficult to say at the moment.
I do exactly the same. Nobody expects the Zerg player to go mutalisks so they don't know how to counter it. I've made a comeback from a 30 worker disadvantage from a 6 gate attack using mutalisks, just because the usual protoss response is pure blink stalker and cracklings eat that for breakfast.
|
On April 19 2011 14:33 hitman133 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 14:27 jhsu98 wrote:On April 19 2011 14:14 dave333 wrote:
I think an essential problem is that 3 bases is just too efficient. There should be rewards for having 4-5+ bases mining. The problems stem from there.
I agree with this. Less mineral patches per base will help here. Bigger maps gave zerg the ability to react to early game pressure better, but also made it easier to avoid the midgame by turtling on the magic 3 bases and taking your 4th after you have the money matrix (deathball). Make the 4th base that sweet spot instead of 3 and things will work themselves out. more bases don't mean a shit. Zerg need more base so they can produce more, when both have the same amount of workers. Just like protoss have to build tons of gates and robot to produce. Please take your bases and maps control reward away. No one care.
Really? Requiring more bases allows zerg to utilize their mobility and forces protoss not to be able to easily turtle on 3 bases to get their deathball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
