|
On July 18 2012 06:57 Charon1979 wrote:There is no statement you ever cared to bring proof or even a half decent argument. All you are saying is: "Toss is terribly underpowered! Anyone can see that! Its a known fact!" So how or better WHY should I comment your "arguments"? Sorry Im not going down to THAT level of "discussion".
And the only statement you are making is that it's balanced where there are clear indications that it's not. Blame the warp-in mechanic? What does the warp-in mechanic have to do with ANYTHING regarding ZvP balance, when it's based on not being able to put on early pressure while the zerg gets a large economic lead while just defending anything with roach/ling/maybe queens? Without the warp-in mechanic to be able to have faster units at the zerg base it would be even more broken because you would have to walk everything across the map to get spotted by an overlord and destroyed with a flood of lings.
With good engagements and flanks in MC v Stephano, Stephano was down 20 workers due to dts and put on 2 base for a bit, was able to beat a 3-0 blink stalker/sentry/immortal army with 1-0 roaches and lings. But yes, zerg must always have a huge worker advantage and a base advantage to enhance efficiency after ~7:30, right?
Face it, toss has no early game presence besides forcing a couple lings with a zealot/stalker poke, no non-all-in mid-game presence besides expensive stargate units because mass roach/ling especially with infestors crushes any mid-game toss army, and late game broodlord/infestor is just as strong or stronger than what toss will have at that time. It's not because of "warp-in", it's because zerg currently has full control of the matchup's direction because they decided to make some lings along with their roaches.
Want to do cute blink stalker harass? Lings will catch up even with blink and kill off that pack of stalkers. Want to use a warp prism? Gets held off with lings, wasted robo time, though there is potential for warp prism use later. Not to mention the amount of zerg-favored maps with thirds hard to defend for any other race, especially with drops being used nowadays to capitalize on the cost-efficiency of small groups of roaches versus stalkers. Zergs are finally starting to use tactics that the other races have been using for a long time such as splitting their army, drops, abusing base distances, pulling back injured units, basic focus firing, etc. and their ability to be anywhere on the map and the amount of units they can push out quickly gives them the advantage. The matchup looks different now that they aren't mashing mass roach against forcefield walls for 30 seconds straight and losing half their army before the fight begins.
and let's not even begin with terran...ho boi. At least protoss isn't massively at a disadvantage that can't be covered by being the better player. Not like every single finals and semi-finals is ZvZ, but most wins are Z.
|
On July 18 2012 07:11 derpinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 05:15 Neurosis wrote:On July 17 2012 19:44 eXdeath wrote:
Don't you think it's all a bit planned by Blizzard?
I mean, Terran being OP at the launch and first months of Wings of Liberty (most new players would pick Terran at this time, it was the campaign, etc.)
Zerg being OP for the launch of HOTS (most new players will play the Zerg campaign and will want to pick Zerg in multiplayer)
I don't think it's a good "excuse", but maybe there is some marketing reason behind this.
I'm pretty convinced this is whats going on. I really think it's that simple. Yes, this sums it all up nicely. Terran went from ridiculously overpowered to a shadow of its former self because harassment is now "balanced" to. When you look at all the nerfs terran has gotten its pretty bizar how badly blizzard nailed it at launch unless it whas intentional. Im so curious what blizzard is going to do now that the terran holocaust is beginning. Wings of Liberty will not be forgotten even when the new expansion comes along.
The way I see it, terran's are the hardest race to play, so they should be the highest reward. Protoss' are the easiest race to use, so they should be the low reward race. Zerg are close with toss, no micro just good mechanics and out macro players.
When using Terran's vs zerg late game, it's not even fun. how are you gonna kill brood lords?? Snipe? no. Vikings?? 4 infestors just Fungal them, GG and now you have a weaker Bio army because the vikings. Thors?? Actually one of the worst anti air units. I don't know how people say their good against Mutas, unless you have them just stand around in your main wasting supply. Turrets do a better job. Terran's have no way to kill brood lords efficiently, hell, even half efficiently. Move broods, fungal marines or whatever, transfuse Broods that are close, rince repeat.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On July 17 2012 00:45 Iamyournoob wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 00:35 Toadvine wrote:On July 17 2012 00:09 Iamyournoob wrote:On July 16 2012 20:39 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 18:46 Iamyournoob wrote:On July 16 2012 18:23 iky43210 wrote:On July 16 2012 17:56 Charon1979 wrote:NP, larvae inject now only gives 2 larvae, it's about time that you guys started spending money on production. Which leads to T and P all-inning you early and midgame because you cant keep up with their production and your units are not cost effective at this point of game. make larva not stack like currently to 20. So zerg actually have to invest on more and more hatcheries later into the game I believe there is a lot of truth to this. The art of Zerg in BW was to decide when to drone and when to build army units. Also back then larvae was a very scarce and limiting ressource for Zergs. It also was in the earlier stages of SC2. There is a reason why Zerg was perceived to be weak at that time. P and T had various early game timings (coupled with small maps and bad scouting possibilities) which required a near perfect response from Z in terms of how many drones to make and when to stop doing so. However this was really hard to figure out and without any balance changes it might have taken several months for Zerg players to understand these timings and find an answer to it. The way the game appears to me these days is that: - The amount of early to midgame pushes and their potential vs Zerg has been severely limited - Due to Queens being able to thwart off pressure quite well and Zerg getting 3 bases very early, Zergs are allowed to drone until they have a good saturation, i. e. the trade-off between economy and army is not such a crucial decision variable anymore - Due to mass Queens and many hatches early on larvae is not a scarce ressource anymore, further diminishing the importance of larvae management which was a huge determinant of skill back in the days. Thoughts? The problem with Zerg right now is, that they straight up don't have a good unit to invest into in the early game and early midgame, that allows them to hold in low economy games if the opponent attacks while being good in putting on pressure on the opponent. So you either waste money on ling/roach/bling or you drone up. ZvT and ZvP have both been balanced around exactly one Zerg strategy: Drone to 60+ on 3base in around 10min, then start interacting with your opponent. On the other hand especially Terran and also Protoss (due to production design) kind of have to go for more units and therefore less economy and therefore some pressure against eco-only builds, but due to Zerg not having any options, even the eco-only builds have to be able to hold every attack. Also due to how Terran and Protoss harass works, it's very hard to give it them a "safe" amount of damage: -) reapers (if you could mass them fast like the old days) and hellions are fast with very high worker damage: you get them in the zergs base and you kill everything, not just a small amount -) Banshee's and Voidrays (or voidray pheonix comobos) are either countered with enough antiair very early, or the long producing, slow early antiair (queens/spores) won't get up at all anymore and then it's again a straight up loss and not just a "safe amount of damage" -) There is no reason to stop a Warpgate attack ever, if you are doing damage. On a side note, this is not the case in ZvZ. Due to the opponent having larva as well, you need quite some investments in army/defense all the time. But without walls and longranged units that shoot from behind walls those invested units are actually very useful and straight up playing aggressive is often times a stronger strategy than defensive/ mass drone play. I think the basic idea to counteract this should be to force Zerg into more units earlier (so in the 5-12min time), but make those units also better at dishing out some damage. I think the core of this problem is that blizzard made a unit for such a purpose --> roaches with their high life regeneration capabilities that could be reused again and again - but out of certain reasons it was changed(was it balancing? I'm not sure. I thought I read once that they scrapped this concept because it was too random and too hard to read. You would have to focusfire roaches, but sometimes they would still survive, and other times they would just go down one by one very quickly. But not sure where I got this from or whether it was just something someone told me) And even at the time it was changed, it wasn't too terrible, because 2armor, 1 supply 3range roaches were still quite a good deal for the zerg early on and basically everybody did put down a roach warren in the first 5mins. The problem with 1armor 2supply 4range roaches however ist that the change has made them more expensive (so more commited early on), less durable (so less longterm capabilities of the early roaches) very potent at a timing where you can produce them nonstop (because of the strongly increased costefficientness in big balls of 4range) and completly useless when you have other choices in a maxed scenario. (ultras more durable, zerglings more costefficient and mobile, infestors - a thousand times more universal etc etc) So as I see it, for WoL their/our best hope should be, that they find a sweet spot in which the MUs are balanced and macrogames are possible with neither race having a big advantage by deafault after something like 20min. (BCs/Ravens take to long to get up and to upgrade, Carriers as well, but the Protoss situation with the mothership and warpgate-archons and warpgate-templar is quite better and the transition way smoother) For HotS from what we have seen, I hope that they see the concepts/potential of the units the way I see them and make at least a bunch of those strategies against zerg possible: -) early gateway pressure, due to no forge required to expand (mothershipcore) and due to the safety of not losing units if the zerg is prepared, because of recall -) reactored widow mine openings being able to snipe queens, slowing down the zerg production, while not "killing X drones to get even", and maybe blocking 3rd base spots with burrow and deactivated autodetonate -) Mech play allowing for more passive Terran play, that the other races have to put pressure against -) better capitalship transitions for T/P (redline reactor maybe making earlier BC harass possible, Tempest being useful because it forces engagements, even if you don't have a lot of them. Also less upgrade dependend than the Carrier) -) Oracle harass slowing down zerg and on the zerg flip side: -) hydras and swarm hosts being useful midgame units, that might even work when produced from 2base economy (or even transitionable 1base Swarm Host cheese against Protoss, because he needs obs and an army to kill it?), so no need to balance everything around 10min 60+ drones on 3bases for zerg. -) earlier hive play with viper/hydra upgrade/ling upgrade that does slow down the zerg eco and basecount, but allows to be more aggressive in the midgame (10min hive for vipersupport anyone?) and one last hope: -) plz rework the roach. It's not the unit that it was designed to be. I absolutly hope that your unwillingness to show the roach in the battlereports until now and the fact that you hide most unit stats in them (hydralisks seem quite stronger) means that there is some major changes coming for the roach. What would be different, if Zerg had that unit? If there is no potential thread for me for the first 10 minutes in the game, why for god's sake should I as a Zerg not drone up? Just because I have an awesome unit that is worth investing? Aren't roaches and lings good units? I mean all the roach pushes and baneling busts show that making them early on in huge numbers is worthwhile. Sure, you have to deal a ton of damage. But let us just assume that Zerg had a unit that would be equal to Terran and Protoss Tier 1 when facing off against each other in equal numbers/supply. Why should Zerg build them and sit around and preserve them for later in the game, when they can just drone? I agree on the part however that Zerg lacks a unit which scales well with micro and player skill. Protoss can use forcefields/blink, Terrans have marines which scale very well with a player's ability to micro. Lings and Roaches are mostly 1a. I think it would be way better if there was more room for control dependant defense and reaction for Zerg rather than "I need to scout that push or I am dead" - defense. The latter we had for quite some time so that by now all pressure builds are nerfed to the point (btw Speedoverlords helped a lot too) where Zergs can sit in their base and macro whilst having the option to be aggressive themselves. In ZvP I feel Zergs lose if they play too greedy and fail to scout timing attacks. Then they are dead. But the art of survival is not to control units better in the actual engagement, but to not miss injects, spread your creep and start producing roaches at the right time. Because if you started early enough with Roach production you can keep flooding your opponent with them, snipe sentries or make them run out of FF and then just overwhelm them with this rediculously cost-efficient unit. To put it simple: If Zerg makes the right calls and knows how to macro (in PvZ), he has great chances to take the game, regardless of how well they control units in a fight, because Zerg units do not offer much micro potential and FF prevents micro of Zerg units to a huge degree. I actually feel that the existence of Stephano invalidates your point about Zerg not benefitting from good unit control. Stephano isn't that good mechanically, he delays injects and gets supply blocked on a fairly regular basis. What separates him from other Zerg players is the attention he gives to his units, and the care with which he sets up his engagements. Ret plays with the mentality you're describing ("I'm just going to macro so well that I can simply a-move over the Protoss"), and it has obvious limits, looking at his performance at NASL finals. I mean, look at g4 of Stephano vs Alicia, you think Stephano was macroing better than any other Zerg? No, he was simply constantly repositioning his units so his lings would fight Stalkers, and his roaches would fight the zealots, and he completely crushed the 4gate. Honestly, I think one of the reasons a lot of Zergs feel ZvP is difficult, is that they focus too much on their macro, and how many drones they need to defend all-in X, when controlling their army better would provide a much greater benefit than having 5 more drones mining minerals. One of the reasons the Immortal/Sentry all-in is so effective, is that it's nigh impossible to a-move over with superior numbers. You need to actually pick a good place to fight, set up a flank, bait out FFs and disengage, and just make your army do some work. I sometimes wonder: What if Zealots had leg speed instead of charge? It would give Protoss an incentive to split forces, to do run-bys, to drop them and sniper workers/buildings and may be even to retreat again. It would also give them better chances to react to run-bys themselves. May be resulting in an overall more dynamic gameplay. That is just what I want after-all. Compared to PvT, I think PvZ is not fun to watch  And that is not because I feel Zerg is too strong or whatever. I mean look at the way Protosses win games... it is retarded.
I love this idea personally, I've been trying to do really heavy warp prism play in PvZ, as well as splitting my army more vs Terran. Sadly Zealots are either slow as hell without charge, or if they have charged they proc and run halfway across the screen to engage a loan Zergling. Often I just find the Zerg will pull his drones instantaneously, and it's annoying as hell having to shift-click every single worker/disable charge autocast to pull off any kind of light harassment without charging headlong into spines. Likewise, I'd rather have a genuinely quick unit as Protoss, I hate having to walk around the place in a ball, and if a runby bypasses my vision, I can be so out of position that I have no hope of getting back. Bit out of shape gameplay wise so it's probably more me sucking 
Having a unit that has a drastically different passive speed from the rest of the army has another added benefit to me as well, it makes controlling a 'deathball' require constant repositioning. I've long held that the deathball is inevitable as a Protoss player because everything moves in or around the same speed. I'd love, for example old school BW zealot speed, with a simultaneous nerf of the Collosus movespeed. The collosus/zealots would have to be continually repositioned to get the most out of them
Anything that adds an extra level of mechanical complexity to playing Protoss, i.e something that separates solid mechanical players from a-moving scrubs
|
On July 18 2012 06:46 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 06:25 Charon1979 wrote:As for pre-fast third against Terran, you guys were doing just fine. You don't need a third before 5 minutes against Terran to be competitive. You just don't. I can understand the terran pov, but I really cant stand you toss jumping on the bandwagon. PvZ ist stale, boring to watch and boring to play but its balanced. Blame Warp in mechanic. In TvZ Terra is at a slight disadvantage at the moment, maybe it needs a fix, maybe not. But I really really hate these bigot statements: "When the MU was balanced I had a 70% winrate against zerg, now it dropped to 30%... wtf! Zerg OP!" The same with progamers "There just a few top ZvT Players like DRG (51,6%) because zerg players suck in general and terran players just are naturally gifted, work harder, are more intelligent and handsome (worst winrate of the worst TvZ player still > 50%) And to be honest... I really enjoy the queen buff as it helped a ton to stabilize ZvZ. In no way is PvZ balanced when one race can only 2base all-in. And no, this isn't up for debate. Macro PvZ is incredibly Zerg favoured since every P pressure has been neutered to the point of uselessness. Everyone sees this except you, and you keep talking as if the matchup being balanced is something everyone should agree on. Either stop misrepresenting my point of view or stop replying to me. You have yet to make an actual argument with regard to anything I've said. You've stepped over into pointlessly Zerg biased whining.
You mean it's retarded that Protoss can't take a third good enough, due to roaches? Yes it is!
You mean it's retarded that Zerg is forced to go 3bases superearly to not get outmacroed by a FFE build but on the flipside can only hold 50% of the Protoss allins, because this greedy strategy makes it very hard to actually hold them?
And don't come with "Zerg has to fuck up to not defend the allin". After all it's Protoss that have the possibility to "FF better" as well a lot of the times (which is not easy, but a lot of times it also comes down simply to FFs).
|
On July 18 2012 06:10 bakedace wrote:
It's a delicate balance to make. The infestors are the only energy unit that cannot attack or morph into something useful after energy spent. So straight nerfing fungal that hard could result in putting zergs back into the dark days.
I'd say nerf fungal move speed from 0 to something reasonable... But also let infestors do something useful after using energy.
Ever heard of Raven?
|
On July 18 2012 07:30 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 06:46 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 06:25 Charon1979 wrote:As for pre-fast third against Terran, you guys were doing just fine. You don't need a third before 5 minutes against Terran to be competitive. You just don't. I can understand the terran pov, but I really cant stand you toss jumping on the bandwagon. PvZ ist stale, boring to watch and boring to play but its balanced. Blame Warp in mechanic. In TvZ Terra is at a slight disadvantage at the moment, maybe it needs a fix, maybe not. But I really really hate these bigot statements: "When the MU was balanced I had a 70% winrate against zerg, now it dropped to 30%... wtf! Zerg OP!" The same with progamers "There just a few top ZvT Players like DRG (51,6%) because zerg players suck in general and terran players just are naturally gifted, work harder, are more intelligent and handsome (worst winrate of the worst TvZ player still > 50%) And to be honest... I really enjoy the queen buff as it helped a ton to stabilize ZvZ. In no way is PvZ balanced when one race can only 2base all-in. And no, this isn't up for debate. Macro PvZ is incredibly Zerg favoured since every P pressure has been neutered to the point of uselessness. Everyone sees this except you, and you keep talking as if the matchup being balanced is something everyone should agree on. Either stop misrepresenting my point of view or stop replying to me. You have yet to make an actual argument with regard to anything I've said. You've stepped over into pointlessly Zerg biased whining. You mean it's retarded that Protoss can't take a third good enough, due to roaches? Yes it is! You mean it's retarded that Zerg is forced to go 3bases superearly to not get outmacroed by a FFE build but on the flipside can only hold 50% of the Protoss allins, because this greedy strategy makes it very hard to actually hold them? And don't come with "Zerg has to fuck up to not defend the allin". After all it's Protoss that have the possibility to "FF better" as well a lot of the times (which is not easy, but a lot of times it also comes down simply to FFs).
Not true, actually. Defending Protoss all-ins is very simple and Stephano/DRG have demonstrated it numerous times. Firstly, the only truly good all-in is Immortal/Sentry, because it can work even if it's scouted. The other all-ins all automatically die if they are scouted. As for Immortal Sentry, as long as the Zerg devotes a couple of Injects to Roach/Ling, doesn't a-move into Forcefields, and doesn't engage when the Protoss is already in a choke/at the Zerg's third, they'll win. You need to be burning FFs with constant prods, especially since your army has the higher move speed and can dart in and out without taking much damage.
I'm not saying that Immortal/Sentry is easy to hold, mind you. I'm saying it's simple. The reason it's not held by many players is because they don't react to it properly. Instead, they try to go for some weird runby play after the Protoss leaves the base. While cute, this only really works if you have drops, because Protoss players will just wall off with a Pylon, mop up your third, and then warp in Sentries at home to defend any more of your misguided attack. If you flank the Immortal/Sentry push on open ground, you will win, no matter how good the Protoss Forcefields are. Why? Because in order to fight you, the Protoss will literally need to Forcefield a perfect ring around his army. Even if he manages to do this without missing a single FF, you can literally just move away and reengage once the FFs fizzle out, because the Toss will have few to no FFs left. The strength of Immortal/Sentry is entirely down to Forcefields, and Zergs players beginning to abuse that more and more. While before it was commonplace to see Roaches literally ram their heads into Forcefields for their entire duration, we now have Zerg players purposely engaging the Immortal/Sentry army even when they haven't got enough units yet just to bait out FFs.
The Protoss player has to FF in this situation. Much like defending a 1-1-1 (the parallels are actually really strong) you want to force the all-inning player to stop, use abilities, and give you more time. With 1-1-1, this means engaging in the open, forcing a siege, and getting more Immortals out behind it. With Immortal/Sentry, it means sending your army out, baiting the FFs or forcing the army to dance, and then darting back. If the Protoss player calls your bluff and doesn't FF, you can win the game straight up by target firing Sentries and killing any left over units with reinforcements from a more defensive position.
Being 2base against Immortal/Sentry would actually be rather shitty, I'd say, since you wouldn't be able to get enough units out to deal with the push in time. Standard Stephano style openings can defend a scouted Immortal/Sentry push due to the presence of the macro Hatchery. This is actually huge for defending, and yet some Zerg players still try to attack head on, which is extremely ineffective.
I'm not going to beat around the bush though; the number one reason Zergs don't hold Immortal/Sentry (or any all-ins) is because they don't scout it until it's halfway across the map. Obviously it's too late by this point, but Immortal Sentry isn't that hard to scout. The third can pretty much always be spotted, especially with the new Overlord speed. Every Zerg player should look up and memorize the Immortal/Sentry build order and be on the lookout for Nexus cancels. Even building a single round of units when you see the 3rd Nexus is a good idea, because even if he really does take a third, you're in a better position to pressure without having sacrificed that much economy. But instead, Zergs have been blindly executing 3base Roach to the letter, and sadly that strategy is hard countered by Immortal Sentry. I don't blame Zergs for doing this, since 3base Roach has been so effective, but it's not something you should be doing blindly and without reactivity present.
Tl;dr: Yes, Protoss all-ins are strong...but then again most all-ins are. The only truly strong Protoss all-in is Immortal/Sentry, and it can be held by simply making units and getting flanks, much like how one defends a 1-1-1 (another strategy that initially had a high winrate but has now fallen into disuse because everyone knows how to beat it). There's a reason Protoss players aren't Immortal/Sentry all-inning every game like they used to, and it's because if the Zerg knows it's coming, it won't work. Basically, Protoss gets 1 chance to FF perfectly. If you make them use their FFs in the middle of the map (even if they don't use them all) you've not only delayed their push, but weakened it significantly. This is the key to beating Immortal/Sentry, along with flanking. I won't touch the other all-ins because they've all been figured out.
I agree with you about the Roach denying the third, though, and I think you'd see the all-ins become less powerful if Protoss players didn't spend 100% of their practice time working on them. I mean, Protoss players don't really need to bother working on macro builds that much since most of them are terrible, so they make damn sure that their 2base all-ins are excellent. Just look at the sheer number that have come out over the years. Immortal/Sentry will pass, and there will be a new all-in to take its place, because theorycrafting macro styles isn't worth it.
|
On July 18 2012 07:34 Rokoz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 06:10 bakedace wrote:
It's a delicate balance to make. The infestors are the only energy unit that cannot attack or morph into something useful after energy spent. So straight nerfing fungal that hard could result in putting zergs back into the dark days.
I'd say nerf fungal move speed from 0 to something reasonable... But also let infestors do something useful after using energy. Ever heard of Raven?
Well it's not like the raven is as important as the infestor.
|
On July 18 2012 07:30 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 06:46 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 06:25 Charon1979 wrote:As for pre-fast third against Terran, you guys were doing just fine. You don't need a third before 5 minutes against Terran to be competitive. You just don't. I can understand the terran pov, but I really cant stand you toss jumping on the bandwagon. PvZ ist stale, boring to watch and boring to play but its balanced. Blame Warp in mechanic. In TvZ Terra is at a slight disadvantage at the moment, maybe it needs a fix, maybe not. But I really really hate these bigot statements: "When the MU was balanced I had a 70% winrate against zerg, now it dropped to 30%... wtf! Zerg OP!" The same with progamers "There just a few top ZvT Players like DRG (51,6%) because zerg players suck in general and terran players just are naturally gifted, work harder, are more intelligent and handsome (worst winrate of the worst TvZ player still > 50%) And to be honest... I really enjoy the queen buff as it helped a ton to stabilize ZvZ. In no way is PvZ balanced when one race can only 2base all-in. And no, this isn't up for debate. Macro PvZ is incredibly Zerg favoured since every P pressure has been neutered to the point of uselessness. Everyone sees this except you, and you keep talking as if the matchup being balanced is something everyone should agree on. Either stop misrepresenting my point of view or stop replying to me. You have yet to make an actual argument with regard to anything I've said. You've stepped over into pointlessly Zerg biased whining. You mean it's retarded that Protoss can't take a third good enough, due to roaches? Yes it is! You mean it's retarded that Zerg is forced to go 3bases superearly to not get outmacroed by a FFE build but on the flipside can only hold 50% of the Protoss allins, because this greedy strategy makes it very hard to actually hold them? And don't come with "Zerg has to fuck up to not defend the allin". After all it's Protoss that have the possibility to "FF better" as well a lot of the times (which is not easy, but a lot of times it also comes down simply to FFs).
you know why Protoss' started to FFE in the first place?? Because zerg's were taking an extra base regardless. Being down 2 bases to 3 is better than 1 base to 2. Zerg's only get 33 percent more income than protoss 3 bases to 2, where as Zerg's double Protoss' income 2 bases to 1. This is called meta game. Adapting to what works best against common zergs. If zerg's didn't expo 3 bases they would have more units therefore hold off Protoss All-in's even easier. What am i saying, 3 base Zerg's hold off any Protoss 2 base all-ins 85 percent of the time so nvm. You know it takes a lot of sentries to FF, and which they have no dps.
The big difference, Zerg's can lose the 3rd base, re-expand and win the game. Protoss fail all-in is automatically lose.
|
i think infestors have too much utility. theres really no mid game or beyond comp for zerg in any mu that doesnt include them
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On July 18 2012 07:43 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 07:30 Big J wrote:On July 18 2012 06:46 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 06:25 Charon1979 wrote:As for pre-fast third against Terran, you guys were doing just fine. You don't need a third before 5 minutes against Terran to be competitive. You just don't. I can understand the terran pov, but I really cant stand you toss jumping on the bandwagon. PvZ ist stale, boring to watch and boring to play but its balanced. Blame Warp in mechanic. In TvZ Terra is at a slight disadvantage at the moment, maybe it needs a fix, maybe not. But I really really hate these bigot statements: "When the MU was balanced I had a 70% winrate against zerg, now it dropped to 30%... wtf! Zerg OP!" The same with progamers "There just a few top ZvT Players like DRG (51,6%) because zerg players suck in general and terran players just are naturally gifted, work harder, are more intelligent and handsome (worst winrate of the worst TvZ player still > 50%) And to be honest... I really enjoy the queen buff as it helped a ton to stabilize ZvZ. In no way is PvZ balanced when one race can only 2base all-in. And no, this isn't up for debate. Macro PvZ is incredibly Zerg favoured since every P pressure has been neutered to the point of uselessness. Everyone sees this except you, and you keep talking as if the matchup being balanced is something everyone should agree on. Either stop misrepresenting my point of view or stop replying to me. You have yet to make an actual argument with regard to anything I've said. You've stepped over into pointlessly Zerg biased whining. You mean it's retarded that Protoss can't take a third good enough, due to roaches? Yes it is! You mean it's retarded that Zerg is forced to go 3bases superearly to not get outmacroed by a FFE build but on the flipside can only hold 50% of the Protoss allins, because this greedy strategy makes it very hard to actually hold them? And don't come with "Zerg has to fuck up to not defend the allin". After all it's Protoss that have the possibility to "FF better" as well a lot of the times (which is not easy, but a lot of times it also comes down simply to FFs). Not true, actually. Defending Protoss all-ins is very simple and Stephano/DRG have demonstrated it numerous times. Firstly, the only truly good all-in is Immortal/Sentry, because it can work even if it's scouted. The other all-ins all automatically die if they are scouted. As for Immortal Sentry, as long as the Zerg devotes a couple of Injects to Roach/Ling, doesn't a-move into Forcefields, and doesn't engage when the Protoss is already in a choke/at the Zerg's third, they'll win. You need to be burning FFs with constant prods, especially since your army has the higher move speed and can dart in and out without taking much damage. I'm not saying that Immortal/Sentry is easy to hold, mind you. I'm saying it's simple. The reason it's not held by many players is because they don't react to it properly. Instead, they try to go for some weird runby play after the Protoss leaves the base. While cute, this only really works if you have drops, because Protoss players will just wall off with a Pylon, mop up your third, and then warp in Sentries at home to defend any more of your misguided attack. If you flank the Immortal/Sentry push on open ground, you will win, no matter how good the Protoss Forcefields are. Why? Because in order to fight you, the Protoss will literally need to Forcefield a perfect ring around his army. Even if he manages to do this without missing a single FF, you can literally just move away and reengage once the FFs fizzle out, because the Toss will have few to no FFs left. The strength of Immortal/Sentry is entirely down to Forcefields, and Zergs players beginning to abuse that more and more. While before it was commonplace to see Roaches literally ram their heads into Forcefields for their entire duration, we now have Zerg players purposely engaging the Immortal/Sentry army even when they haven't got enough units yet just to bait out FFs. The Protoss player has to FF in this situation. Much like defending a 1-1-1 (the parallels are actually really strong) you want to force the all-inning player to stop, use abilities, and give you more time. With 1-1-1, this means engaging in the open, forcing a siege, and getting more Immortals out behind it. With Immortal/Sentry, it means sending your army out, baiting the FFs or forcing the army to dance, and then darting back. If the Protoss player calls your bluff and doesn't FF, you can win the game straight up by target firing Sentries and killing any left over units with reinforcements from a more defensive position. Being 2base against Immortal/Sentry would actually be rather shitty, I'd say, since you wouldn't be able to get enough units out to deal with the push in time. Standard Stephano style openings can defend a scouted Immortal/Sentry push due to the presence of the macro Hatchery. This is actually huge for defending, and yet some Zerg players still try to attack head on, which is extremely ineffective. I'm not going to beat around the bush though; the number one reason Zergs don't hold Immortal/Sentry (or any all-ins) is because they don't scout it until it's halfway across the map. Obviously it's too late by this point, but Immortal Sentry isn't that hard to scout. The third can pretty much always be spotted, especially with the new Overlord speed. Every Zerg player should look up and memorize the Immortal/Sentry build order and be on the lookout for Nexus cancels. Even building a single round of units when you see the 3rd Nexus is a good idea, because even if he really does take a third, you're in a better position to pressure without having sacrificed that much economy. But instead, Zergs have been blindly executing 3base Roach to the letter, and sadly that strategy is hard countered by Immortal Sentry. I don't blame Zergs for doing this, since 3base Roach has been so effective, but it's not something you should be doing blindly and without reactivity present. Tl;dr: Yes, Protoss all-ins are strong...but then again most all-ins are. The only truly strong Protoss all-in is Immortal/Sentry, and it can be held by simply making units and getting flanks, much like how one defends a 1-1-1 (another strategy that initially had a high winrate but has now fallen into disuse because everyone knows how to beat it). There's a reason Protoss players aren't Immortal/Sentry all-inning every game like they used to, and it's because if the Zerg knows it's coming, it won't work. Basically, Protoss gets 1 chance to FF perfectly. If you make them use their FFs in the middle of the map (even if they don't use them all) you've not only delayed their push, but weakened it significantly. This is the key to beating Immortal/Sentry, along with flanking. I won't touch the other all-ins because they've all been figured out. I agree with you about the Roach denying the third, though, and I think you'd see the all-ins become less powerful if Protoss players didn't spend 100% of their practice time working on them. I mean, Protoss players don't really need to bother working on macro builds that much since most of them are terrible, so they make damn sure that their 2base all-ins are excellent. Just look at the sheer number that have come out over the years. Immortal/Sentry will pass, and there will be a new all-in to take its place, because theorycrafting macro styles isn't worth it.
Great post! Usually don't bother to comment, but I've become increasingly annoyed by posting as what I see as salient points, only for idiots to ignore it and post something retarded, flooding such threads.
It pains me how correct you are on the above points thought I'd give you some TL karma.
|
Demuslim just made a really good point on itg: Stephano, while we played excellently, did the exact same build every single game and pretty much never looked vulnerable.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On July 18 2012 08:30 Shiori wrote:
Demuslim just made a really good point on SotG: Stephano, while we played excellently, did the exact same build every single game and pretty much never looked vulnerable.
That is what has long annoyed me when people come out with 'Toss make the matchup boring', think I posted it earlier but from recollection from MC's series (may be wrong with the maps/order of games but this is from memory)
1. Antiga I think it was, MC went for a 9 minute third with 4 gate robo infrastructure, lost a bit too much against Stephano's roach/ling pressure and while he pulled his way back admirably and almost took the game.
2. MC went to hard counter Stephano's style and he threw in a muta build so MC was behind right from the start.
3. Think this was Daybreak, MC went stargate/robo and Steph went for Drop play. MC defended incredibly well and took this.
4. MC went DTs, caught Stephano with his pants down and killed a ton of drones (20 or so) and got the lair. Had a bad engagement and lost.
5. Think this was the Stargate opener on Ohana. MC had planned to do a sentry drop/warpin combo and failed initially but snuck in the second time around.
6. Went for some gateway allin which Stephano defended
It's not so much that Stephano always does the exact same thing, but the opener is always really similar when he plays and the gameplan after that tends to change.
Look at the variation of openers and strategic gambits MC is employing here, and not one of them gave him anywhere approaching a free win against a player doing near enough the same opener every game. Even with MC's BoX chops, and deadly timings Stephano's openers are so robust that he can deflect a ton of different styles with small adjustments. Protoss lack that kind of opener that can safely get them into the lategame without taking damage from that heavy low-tier pressure, except on a few maps where the map architecture allows them to (i.e Entombed Valley which I view as TOO Protoss friendly).
Not really claiming that Zerg is overpowered based on this, merely that the contention that Protoss turtle and go for a deathball, and that it's our race that contribute to the boring state of PvZ have it the wrong way round.
|
On July 18 2012 07:58 TeamBreezy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 07:30 Big J wrote:On July 18 2012 06:46 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 06:25 Charon1979 wrote:As for pre-fast third against Terran, you guys were doing just fine. You don't need a third before 5 minutes against Terran to be competitive. You just don't. I can understand the terran pov, but I really cant stand you toss jumping on the bandwagon. PvZ ist stale, boring to watch and boring to play but its balanced. Blame Warp in mechanic. In TvZ Terra is at a slight disadvantage at the moment, maybe it needs a fix, maybe not. But I really really hate these bigot statements: "When the MU was balanced I had a 70% winrate against zerg, now it dropped to 30%... wtf! Zerg OP!" The same with progamers "There just a few top ZvT Players like DRG (51,6%) because zerg players suck in general and terran players just are naturally gifted, work harder, are more intelligent and handsome (worst winrate of the worst TvZ player still > 50%) And to be honest... I really enjoy the queen buff as it helped a ton to stabilize ZvZ. In no way is PvZ balanced when one race can only 2base all-in. And no, this isn't up for debate. Macro PvZ is incredibly Zerg favoured since every P pressure has been neutered to the point of uselessness. Everyone sees this except you, and you keep talking as if the matchup being balanced is something everyone should agree on. Either stop misrepresenting my point of view or stop replying to me. You have yet to make an actual argument with regard to anything I've said. You've stepped over into pointlessly Zerg biased whining. You mean it's retarded that Protoss can't take a third good enough, due to roaches? Yes it is! You mean it's retarded that Zerg is forced to go 3bases superearly to not get outmacroed by a FFE build but on the flipside can only hold 50% of the Protoss allins, because this greedy strategy makes it very hard to actually hold them? And don't come with "Zerg has to fuck up to not defend the allin". After all it's Protoss that have the possibility to "FF better" as well a lot of the times (which is not easy, but a lot of times it also comes down simply to FFs). you know why Protoss' started to FFE in the first place?? Because zerg's were taking an extra base regardless. Being down 2 bases to 3 is better than 1 base to 2. Zerg's only get 33 percent more income than protoss 3 bases to 2, where as Zerg's double Protoss' income 2 bases to 1. This is called meta game. Adapting to what works best against common zergs. If zerg's didn't expo 3 bases they would have more units therefore hold off Protoss All-in's even easier. What am i saying, 3 base Zerg's hold off any Protoss 2 base all-ins 85 percent of the time so nvm. You know it takes a lot of sentries to FF, and which they have no dps. The big difference, Zerg's can lose the 3rd base, re-expand and win the game. Protoss fail all-in is automatically lose.
No; try taking a third against 3 gate expand.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On July 18 2012 08:51 wcr.4fun wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 07:58 TeamBreezy wrote:On July 18 2012 07:30 Big J wrote:On July 18 2012 06:46 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 06:25 Charon1979 wrote:As for pre-fast third against Terran, you guys were doing just fine. You don't need a third before 5 minutes against Terran to be competitive. You just don't. I can understand the terran pov, but I really cant stand you toss jumping on the bandwagon. PvZ ist stale, boring to watch and boring to play but its balanced. Blame Warp in mechanic. In TvZ Terra is at a slight disadvantage at the moment, maybe it needs a fix, maybe not. But I really really hate these bigot statements: "When the MU was balanced I had a 70% winrate against zerg, now it dropped to 30%... wtf! Zerg OP!" The same with progamers "There just a few top ZvT Players like DRG (51,6%) because zerg players suck in general and terran players just are naturally gifted, work harder, are more intelligent and handsome (worst winrate of the worst TvZ player still > 50%) And to be honest... I really enjoy the queen buff as it helped a ton to stabilize ZvZ. In no way is PvZ balanced when one race can only 2base all-in. And no, this isn't up for debate. Macro PvZ is incredibly Zerg favoured since every P pressure has been neutered to the point of uselessness. Everyone sees this except you, and you keep talking as if the matchup being balanced is something everyone should agree on. Either stop misrepresenting my point of view or stop replying to me. You have yet to make an actual argument with regard to anything I've said. You've stepped over into pointlessly Zerg biased whining. You mean it's retarded that Protoss can't take a third good enough, due to roaches? Yes it is! You mean it's retarded that Zerg is forced to go 3bases superearly to not get outmacroed by a FFE build but on the flipside can only hold 50% of the Protoss allins, because this greedy strategy makes it very hard to actually hold them? And don't come with "Zerg has to fuck up to not defend the allin". After all it's Protoss that have the possibility to "FF better" as well a lot of the times (which is not easy, but a lot of times it also comes down simply to FFs). you know why Protoss' started to FFE in the first place?? Because zerg's were taking an extra base regardless. Being down 2 bases to 3 is better than 1 base to 2. Zerg's only get 33 percent more income than protoss 3 bases to 2, where as Zerg's double Protoss' income 2 bases to 1. This is called meta game. Adapting to what works best against common zergs. If zerg's didn't expo 3 bases they would have more units therefore hold off Protoss All-in's even easier. What am i saying, 3 base Zerg's hold off any Protoss 2 base all-ins 85 percent of the time so nvm. You know it takes a lot of sentries to FF, and which they have no dps. The big difference, Zerg's can lose the 3rd base, re-expand and win the game. Protoss fail all-in is automatically lose. No; try taking a third against 3 gate expand.
That'd be kinda dumb though, there's no need for the superfast 3rd which is a response to an FFE to pump out your economy when you're racing a relatively uneconomic opener
|
On July 18 2012 08:55 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 08:51 wcr.4fun wrote:On July 18 2012 07:58 TeamBreezy wrote:On July 18 2012 07:30 Big J wrote:On July 18 2012 06:46 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 06:25 Charon1979 wrote:As for pre-fast third against Terran, you guys were doing just fine. You don't need a third before 5 minutes against Terran to be competitive. You just don't. I can understand the terran pov, but I really cant stand you toss jumping on the bandwagon. PvZ ist stale, boring to watch and boring to play but its balanced. Blame Warp in mechanic. In TvZ Terra is at a slight disadvantage at the moment, maybe it needs a fix, maybe not. But I really really hate these bigot statements: "When the MU was balanced I had a 70% winrate against zerg, now it dropped to 30%... wtf! Zerg OP!" The same with progamers "There just a few top ZvT Players like DRG (51,6%) because zerg players suck in general and terran players just are naturally gifted, work harder, are more intelligent and handsome (worst winrate of the worst TvZ player still > 50%) And to be honest... I really enjoy the queen buff as it helped a ton to stabilize ZvZ. In no way is PvZ balanced when one race can only 2base all-in. And no, this isn't up for debate. Macro PvZ is incredibly Zerg favoured since every P pressure has been neutered to the point of uselessness. Everyone sees this except you, and you keep talking as if the matchup being balanced is something everyone should agree on. Either stop misrepresenting my point of view or stop replying to me. You have yet to make an actual argument with regard to anything I've said. You've stepped over into pointlessly Zerg biased whining. You mean it's retarded that Protoss can't take a third good enough, due to roaches? Yes it is! You mean it's retarded that Zerg is forced to go 3bases superearly to not get outmacroed by a FFE build but on the flipside can only hold 50% of the Protoss allins, because this greedy strategy makes it very hard to actually hold them? And don't come with "Zerg has to fuck up to not defend the allin". After all it's Protoss that have the possibility to "FF better" as well a lot of the times (which is not easy, but a lot of times it also comes down simply to FFs). you know why Protoss' started to FFE in the first place?? Because zerg's were taking an extra base regardless. Being down 2 bases to 3 is better than 1 base to 2. Zerg's only get 33 percent more income than protoss 3 bases to 2, where as Zerg's double Protoss' income 2 bases to 1. This is called meta game. Adapting to what works best against common zergs. If zerg's didn't expo 3 bases they would have more units therefore hold off Protoss All-in's even easier. What am i saying, 3 base Zerg's hold off any Protoss 2 base all-ins 85 percent of the time so nvm. You know it takes a lot of sentries to FF, and which they have no dps. The big difference, Zerg's can lose the 3rd base, re-expand and win the game. Protoss fail all-in is automatically lose. No; try taking a third against 3 gate expand. That'd be kinda dumb though, there's no need for the superfast 3rd which is a response to an FFE to pump out your economy when you're racing a relatively uneconomic opener
I understand that. He was saying 'zergs can take third regardless what P is doing', but that's not true at all. I understand 3 gate expand came before 1 gate expand, but I never played during the time that 1 gate expand was popular so can't comment on that. But I know for sure that zergs weren't taking thirds versus 3 gate expand.
I just had an issue with saying 'Z can take third regardless of what P is doing.'
|
On July 18 2012 08:59 wcr.4fun wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 08:55 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 18 2012 08:51 wcr.4fun wrote:On July 18 2012 07:58 TeamBreezy wrote:On July 18 2012 07:30 Big J wrote:On July 18 2012 06:46 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 06:25 Charon1979 wrote:As for pre-fast third against Terran, you guys were doing just fine. You don't need a third before 5 minutes against Terran to be competitive. You just don't. I can understand the terran pov, but I really cant stand you toss jumping on the bandwagon. PvZ ist stale, boring to watch and boring to play but its balanced. Blame Warp in mechanic. In TvZ Terra is at a slight disadvantage at the moment, maybe it needs a fix, maybe not. But I really really hate these bigot statements: "When the MU was balanced I had a 70% winrate against zerg, now it dropped to 30%... wtf! Zerg OP!" The same with progamers "There just a few top ZvT Players like DRG (51,6%) because zerg players suck in general and terran players just are naturally gifted, work harder, are more intelligent and handsome (worst winrate of the worst TvZ player still > 50%) And to be honest... I really enjoy the queen buff as it helped a ton to stabilize ZvZ. In no way is PvZ balanced when one race can only 2base all-in. And no, this isn't up for debate. Macro PvZ is incredibly Zerg favoured since every P pressure has been neutered to the point of uselessness. Everyone sees this except you, and you keep talking as if the matchup being balanced is something everyone should agree on. Either stop misrepresenting my point of view or stop replying to me. You have yet to make an actual argument with regard to anything I've said. You've stepped over into pointlessly Zerg biased whining. You mean it's retarded that Protoss can't take a third good enough, due to roaches? Yes it is! You mean it's retarded that Zerg is forced to go 3bases superearly to not get outmacroed by a FFE build but on the flipside can only hold 50% of the Protoss allins, because this greedy strategy makes it very hard to actually hold them? And don't come with "Zerg has to fuck up to not defend the allin". After all it's Protoss that have the possibility to "FF better" as well a lot of the times (which is not easy, but a lot of times it also comes down simply to FFs). you know why Protoss' started to FFE in the first place?? Because zerg's were taking an extra base regardless. Being down 2 bases to 3 is better than 1 base to 2. Zerg's only get 33 percent more income than protoss 3 bases to 2, where as Zerg's double Protoss' income 2 bases to 1. This is called meta game. Adapting to what works best against common zergs. If zerg's didn't expo 3 bases they would have more units therefore hold off Protoss All-in's even easier. What am i saying, 3 base Zerg's hold off any Protoss 2 base all-ins 85 percent of the time so nvm. You know it takes a lot of sentries to FF, and which they have no dps. The big difference, Zerg's can lose the 3rd base, re-expand and win the game. Protoss fail all-in is automatically lose. No; try taking a third against 3 gate expand. That'd be kinda dumb though, there's no need for the superfast 3rd which is a response to an FFE to pump out your economy when you're racing a relatively uneconomic opener I understand that. He was saying 'zergs can take third regardless what P is doing', but that's not true at all. I understand 3 gate expand came before 1 gate expand, but I never played during the time that 1 gate expand was popular so can't comment on that. But I know for sure that zergs weren't taking thirds versus 3 gate expand. I just had an issue with saying 'Z can take third regardless of what P is doing.'
LOL do u even play the game?? i can give you 100000000000 replays of the best Protoss'... not just any, koreans Protoss' using 3 gate Expo. Zerg seeing a 3 gate expand from protoss' and they all laugh. By the the time the expo is up, Zerg's already have over 50+ drones and will, WILL, expo to their 3rd as soon as they seen the nexus up. 3 gating, you will not have enough units to harrass a Zerg's third. You will be at 45 probes vs 80 drones. Going FFE, you will be at 46 probes vs 70. 10 drone difference is why ALL PROTOSS' GO FFE VS ZERG.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On July 18 2012 09:05 TeamBreezy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 08:59 wcr.4fun wrote:On July 18 2012 08:55 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 18 2012 08:51 wcr.4fun wrote:On July 18 2012 07:58 TeamBreezy wrote:On July 18 2012 07:30 Big J wrote:On July 18 2012 06:46 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 06:25 Charon1979 wrote:As for pre-fast third against Terran, you guys were doing just fine. You don't need a third before 5 minutes against Terran to be competitive. You just don't. I can understand the terran pov, but I really cant stand you toss jumping on the bandwagon. PvZ ist stale, boring to watch and boring to play but its balanced. Blame Warp in mechanic. In TvZ Terra is at a slight disadvantage at the moment, maybe it needs a fix, maybe not. But I really really hate these bigot statements: "When the MU was balanced I had a 70% winrate against zerg, now it dropped to 30%... wtf! Zerg OP!" The same with progamers "There just a few top ZvT Players like DRG (51,6%) because zerg players suck in general and terran players just are naturally gifted, work harder, are more intelligent and handsome (worst winrate of the worst TvZ player still > 50%) And to be honest... I really enjoy the queen buff as it helped a ton to stabilize ZvZ. In no way is PvZ balanced when one race can only 2base all-in. And no, this isn't up for debate. Macro PvZ is incredibly Zerg favoured since every P pressure has been neutered to the point of uselessness. Everyone sees this except you, and you keep talking as if the matchup being balanced is something everyone should agree on. Either stop misrepresenting my point of view or stop replying to me. You have yet to make an actual argument with regard to anything I've said. You've stepped over into pointlessly Zerg biased whining. You mean it's retarded that Protoss can't take a third good enough, due to roaches? Yes it is! You mean it's retarded that Zerg is forced to go 3bases superearly to not get outmacroed by a FFE build but on the flipside can only hold 50% of the Protoss allins, because this greedy strategy makes it very hard to actually hold them? And don't come with "Zerg has to fuck up to not defend the allin". After all it's Protoss that have the possibility to "FF better" as well a lot of the times (which is not easy, but a lot of times it also comes down simply to FFs). you know why Protoss' started to FFE in the first place?? Because zerg's were taking an extra base regardless. Being down 2 bases to 3 is better than 1 base to 2. Zerg's only get 33 percent more income than protoss 3 bases to 2, where as Zerg's double Protoss' income 2 bases to 1. This is called meta game. Adapting to what works best against common zergs. If zerg's didn't expo 3 bases they would have more units therefore hold off Protoss All-in's even easier. What am i saying, 3 base Zerg's hold off any Protoss 2 base all-ins 85 percent of the time so nvm. You know it takes a lot of sentries to FF, and which they have no dps. The big difference, Zerg's can lose the 3rd base, re-expand and win the game. Protoss fail all-in is automatically lose. No; try taking a third against 3 gate expand. That'd be kinda dumb though, there's no need for the superfast 3rd which is a response to an FFE to pump out your economy when you're racing a relatively uneconomic opener I understand that. He was saying 'zergs can take third regardless what P is doing', but that's not true at all. I understand 3 gate expand came before 1 gate expand, but I never played during the time that 1 gate expand was popular so can't comment on that. But I know for sure that zergs weren't taking thirds versus 3 gate expand. I just had an issue with saying 'Z can take third regardless of what P is doing.' LOL do u even play the game?? i can give you 100000000000 replays of the best Protoss'... not just any, koreans Protoss' using 3 gate Expo. Zerg seeing a 3 gate expand from protoss' and they all laugh. By the the time the expo is up, Zerg's already have over 50+ drones and will, WILL, expo to their 3rd as soon as they seen the nexus up. 3 gating, you will not have enough units to harrass a Zerg's third. You will be at 45 probes vs 80 drones. Going FFE, you will be at 46 probes vs 70. 10 drone difference is why ALL PROTOSS' GO FFE VS ZERG.
Not necessarily, some 3 gate pressures can be pretty dicey to hold if you go for a fast third, not common by any means but not something that doesn't happen.
|
On July 18 2012 08:59 wcr.4fun wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 08:55 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 18 2012 08:51 wcr.4fun wrote:On July 18 2012 07:58 TeamBreezy wrote:On July 18 2012 07:30 Big J wrote:On July 18 2012 06:46 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 06:25 Charon1979 wrote:As for pre-fast third against Terran, you guys were doing just fine. You don't need a third before 5 minutes against Terran to be competitive. You just don't. I can understand the terran pov, but I really cant stand you toss jumping on the bandwagon. PvZ ist stale, boring to watch and boring to play but its balanced. Blame Warp in mechanic. In TvZ Terra is at a slight disadvantage at the moment, maybe it needs a fix, maybe not. But I really really hate these bigot statements: "When the MU was balanced I had a 70% winrate against zerg, now it dropped to 30%... wtf! Zerg OP!" The same with progamers "There just a few top ZvT Players like DRG (51,6%) because zerg players suck in general and terran players just are naturally gifted, work harder, are more intelligent and handsome (worst winrate of the worst TvZ player still > 50%) And to be honest... I really enjoy the queen buff as it helped a ton to stabilize ZvZ. In no way is PvZ balanced when one race can only 2base all-in. And no, this isn't up for debate. Macro PvZ is incredibly Zerg favoured since every P pressure has been neutered to the point of uselessness. Everyone sees this except you, and you keep talking as if the matchup being balanced is something everyone should agree on. Either stop misrepresenting my point of view or stop replying to me. You have yet to make an actual argument with regard to anything I've said. You've stepped over into pointlessly Zerg biased whining. You mean it's retarded that Protoss can't take a third good enough, due to roaches? Yes it is! You mean it's retarded that Zerg is forced to go 3bases superearly to not get outmacroed by a FFE build but on the flipside can only hold 50% of the Protoss allins, because this greedy strategy makes it very hard to actually hold them? And don't come with "Zerg has to fuck up to not defend the allin". After all it's Protoss that have the possibility to "FF better" as well a lot of the times (which is not easy, but a lot of times it also comes down simply to FFs). you know why Protoss' started to FFE in the first place?? Because zerg's were taking an extra base regardless. Being down 2 bases to 3 is better than 1 base to 2. Zerg's only get 33 percent more income than protoss 3 bases to 2, where as Zerg's double Protoss' income 2 bases to 1. This is called meta game. Adapting to what works best against common zergs. If zerg's didn't expo 3 bases they would have more units therefore hold off Protoss All-in's even easier. What am i saying, 3 base Zerg's hold off any Protoss 2 base all-ins 85 percent of the time so nvm. You know it takes a lot of sentries to FF, and which they have no dps. The big difference, Zerg's can lose the 3rd base, re-expand and win the game. Protoss fail all-in is automatically lose. No; try taking a third against 3 gate expand. That'd be kinda dumb though, there's no need for the superfast 3rd which is a response to an FFE to pump out your economy when you're racing a relatively uneconomic opener I understand that. He was saying 'zergs can take third regardless what P is doing', but that's not true at all. I understand 3 gate expand came before 1 gate expand, but I never played during the time that 1 gate expand was popular so can't comment on that. But I know for sure that zergs weren't taking thirds versus 3 gate expand. I just had an issue with saying 'Z can take third regardless of what P is doing.'
...There's a reason no one 3 gate expos anymore. If the zerg sees it he will be far ahead if he handles it properly, you don't need the super quick third, you just need to get a quick third after the protoss expands. The protoss is sacrificing a ton of economy to do such a delayed expand, so the zerg can also delay his third a bit and still have a massive economic advantage. This works sometimes, on some maps, if the toss is superior AND the zerg takes gas + no quick third in the first place (see MC v Ret or MC v Sheth on Daybreak) but if the zerg plays it out properly then the advantage should go to them. Because the third is so hard to take it's a way of keeping the game low bases in the beginning, where each decision and choice of drone or ling is more important than it would be if the zerg had 70 drones on 3 or 4 bases.
People switched to FFE because it put you on equal probe count at least for a bit, and there was power behind two base all-ins when zergs were suiciding overlords and random units for no reason so they just straight up died. Over half the time I see a protoss all-in work on two base nowadays it's because of a massive supply block from zerg, and often not even because overlords were sniped. Eventually they just decided to throw down a quicker third in response and at 7:30 they start to go 60 to 40 workers. Nowadays zergs have learned things like when to scout the gas to prepare for mass gateway all-ins, better overlord positioning, looking around for pylons with lings, etc. so that makes them safe.
We see Stephano do the same opener every time---a surge of lings and maybe a few roaches for map control, then he is completely safe to do whatever he wants and god forbid the toss attempts to take a quick third or apply any light pressure. He is either safe to expand, drone, tech, or all three at once, while maintaining the possibility of denying the protoss third while going up to four base. We even see zergs have learned to be greedier than before in some cases, such as Ret v Puzzle on Cloud Kingdom where he held off a two base all-in while taking his fourth instead of a macro hatch, and teching up to infestors.
Some toss are now doing 1 gate expands because zergs don't recall how to handle them, but after a couple games of practice and looking back a bit they will---make speed on your zerglings and delay your third and prevent them from ever taking an expansion. Again, the zerg will have an economic advantage if they play properly.
Either way the zerg will have an economic advantage going into the midgame. Just because in the past zergs suicided a ton, didn't understand timings or scouting patterns, etc. and made the win ratio even or sometimes even toss favored when a new all-in came out, does not make them currently balanced. Nerchio beats MC 3-1, (IPL Slayers v Liquid spoiler + Show Spoiler +Min beats Hero in IPL fairly convincingly despite not playing particularly well, and he could have won far easier by making lings versus a small amount of stalkers and immortals instead of roaches against a roach killing army
Perhaps a lot of it has to do with the map pool but really, something should change.
|
On July 18 2012 09:11 Heavenlee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 08:59 wcr.4fun wrote:On July 18 2012 08:55 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 18 2012 08:51 wcr.4fun wrote:On July 18 2012 07:58 TeamBreezy wrote:On July 18 2012 07:30 Big J wrote:On July 18 2012 06:46 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 06:25 Charon1979 wrote:As for pre-fast third against Terran, you guys were doing just fine. You don't need a third before 5 minutes against Terran to be competitive. You just don't. I can understand the terran pov, but I really cant stand you toss jumping on the bandwagon. PvZ ist stale, boring to watch and boring to play but its balanced. Blame Warp in mechanic. In TvZ Terra is at a slight disadvantage at the moment, maybe it needs a fix, maybe not. But I really really hate these bigot statements: "When the MU was balanced I had a 70% winrate against zerg, now it dropped to 30%... wtf! Zerg OP!" The same with progamers "There just a few top ZvT Players like DRG (51,6%) because zerg players suck in general and terran players just are naturally gifted, work harder, are more intelligent and handsome (worst winrate of the worst TvZ player still > 50%) And to be honest... I really enjoy the queen buff as it helped a ton to stabilize ZvZ. In no way is PvZ balanced when one race can only 2base all-in. And no, this isn't up for debate. Macro PvZ is incredibly Zerg favoured since every P pressure has been neutered to the point of uselessness. Everyone sees this except you, and you keep talking as if the matchup being balanced is something everyone should agree on. Either stop misrepresenting my point of view or stop replying to me. You have yet to make an actual argument with regard to anything I've said. You've stepped over into pointlessly Zerg biased whining. You mean it's retarded that Protoss can't take a third good enough, due to roaches? Yes it is! You mean it's retarded that Zerg is forced to go 3bases superearly to not get outmacroed by a FFE build but on the flipside can only hold 50% of the Protoss allins, because this greedy strategy makes it very hard to actually hold them? And don't come with "Zerg has to fuck up to not defend the allin". After all it's Protoss that have the possibility to "FF better" as well a lot of the times (which is not easy, but a lot of times it also comes down simply to FFs). you know why Protoss' started to FFE in the first place?? Because zerg's were taking an extra base regardless. Being down 2 bases to 3 is better than 1 base to 2. Zerg's only get 33 percent more income than protoss 3 bases to 2, where as Zerg's double Protoss' income 2 bases to 1. This is called meta game. Adapting to what works best against common zergs. If zerg's didn't expo 3 bases they would have more units therefore hold off Protoss All-in's even easier. What am i saying, 3 base Zerg's hold off any Protoss 2 base all-ins 85 percent of the time so nvm. You know it takes a lot of sentries to FF, and which they have no dps. The big difference, Zerg's can lose the 3rd base, re-expand and win the game. Protoss fail all-in is automatically lose. No; try taking a third against 3 gate expand. That'd be kinda dumb though, there's no need for the superfast 3rd which is a response to an FFE to pump out your economy when you're racing a relatively uneconomic opener I understand that. He was saying 'zergs can take third regardless what P is doing', but that's not true at all. I understand 3 gate expand came before 1 gate expand, but I never played during the time that 1 gate expand was popular so can't comment on that. But I know for sure that zergs weren't taking thirds versus 3 gate expand. I just had an issue with saying 'Z can take third regardless of what P is doing.' We see Stephano do the same opener every time---a surge of lings and maybe a few roaches for map control, then he is completely safe to do whatever he wants and god forbid the toss attempts to take a quick third or apply any light pressure. He is either safe to expand, drone, tech, or all three at once, while maintaining the possibility of denying the protoss third while going up to four base. We even see zergs have learned to be greedier than before in some cases, such as Ret v Puzzle on Cloud Kingdom where he held off a two base all-in while taking his fourth instead of a macro hatch, and teching up to infestors. Some toss are now doing 1 gate expands because zergs don't recall how to handle them, but after a couple games of practice and looking back a bit they will---make speed on your zerglings and delay your third and prevent them from ever taking an expansion. Again, the zerg will have an economic advantage if they play properly. Either way the zerg will have an economic advantage going into the midgame. Just because in the past zergs suicided a ton, didn't understand timings or scouting patterns, etc. and made the win ratio even or sometimes even toss favored when a new all-in came out, does not make them currently balanced.
Yeah, we get it. Zerg players are too dumb to defend allins and it's not Stephano outclassing his opponents at NASL, but rather just abusing Zerg imbaness.
When 2months ago all the whine was about Terrans "not having a chance in TvP" and "having to rely on allins and drops", it was just Protoss players being too dumb to defend them.
And yeah, Stephano did the same opener in the NASL finals against Alicia (who btw played horrible). Guess what... MC won two GSL's by basically using 1 build for PvT and PvZ (6gate), and one build for PvP (4gate).
Maybe the way stephano does is not really figuered out yet? Or maybe you just have to be on even level with him to win (MC took two games of him and has beaten him several times before).
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On July 18 2012 09:11 Heavenlee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 08:59 wcr.4fun wrote:On July 18 2012 08:55 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 18 2012 08:51 wcr.4fun wrote:On July 18 2012 07:58 TeamBreezy wrote:On July 18 2012 07:30 Big J wrote:On July 18 2012 06:46 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 06:25 Charon1979 wrote:As for pre-fast third against Terran, you guys were doing just fine. You don't need a third before 5 minutes against Terran to be competitive. You just don't. I can understand the terran pov, but I really cant stand you toss jumping on the bandwagon. PvZ ist stale, boring to watch and boring to play but its balanced. Blame Warp in mechanic. In TvZ Terra is at a slight disadvantage at the moment, maybe it needs a fix, maybe not. But I really really hate these bigot statements: "When the MU was balanced I had a 70% winrate against zerg, now it dropped to 30%... wtf! Zerg OP!" The same with progamers "There just a few top ZvT Players like DRG (51,6%) because zerg players suck in general and terran players just are naturally gifted, work harder, are more intelligent and handsome (worst winrate of the worst TvZ player still > 50%) And to be honest... I really enjoy the queen buff as it helped a ton to stabilize ZvZ. In no way is PvZ balanced when one race can only 2base all-in. And no, this isn't up for debate. Macro PvZ is incredibly Zerg favoured since every P pressure has been neutered to the point of uselessness. Everyone sees this except you, and you keep talking as if the matchup being balanced is something everyone should agree on. Either stop misrepresenting my point of view or stop replying to me. You have yet to make an actual argument with regard to anything I've said. You've stepped over into pointlessly Zerg biased whining. You mean it's retarded that Protoss can't take a third good enough, due to roaches? Yes it is! You mean it's retarded that Zerg is forced to go 3bases superearly to not get outmacroed by a FFE build but on the flipside can only hold 50% of the Protoss allins, because this greedy strategy makes it very hard to actually hold them? And don't come with "Zerg has to fuck up to not defend the allin". After all it's Protoss that have the possibility to "FF better" as well a lot of the times (which is not easy, but a lot of times it also comes down simply to FFs). you know why Protoss' started to FFE in the first place?? Because zerg's were taking an extra base regardless. Being down 2 bases to 3 is better than 1 base to 2. Zerg's only get 33 percent more income than protoss 3 bases to 2, where as Zerg's double Protoss' income 2 bases to 1. This is called meta game. Adapting to what works best against common zergs. If zerg's didn't expo 3 bases they would have more units therefore hold off Protoss All-in's even easier. What am i saying, 3 base Zerg's hold off any Protoss 2 base all-ins 85 percent of the time so nvm. You know it takes a lot of sentries to FF, and which they have no dps. The big difference, Zerg's can lose the 3rd base, re-expand and win the game. Protoss fail all-in is automatically lose. No; try taking a third against 3 gate expand. That'd be kinda dumb though, there's no need for the superfast 3rd which is a response to an FFE to pump out your economy when you're racing a relatively uneconomic opener I understand that. He was saying 'zergs can take third regardless what P is doing', but that's not true at all. I understand 3 gate expand came before 1 gate expand, but I never played during the time that 1 gate expand was popular so can't comment on that. But I know for sure that zergs weren't taking thirds versus 3 gate expand. I just had an issue with saying 'Z can take third regardless of what P is doing.' Either way the zerg will have an economic advantage going into the midgame. Just because in the past zergs suicided a ton, didn't understand timings or scouting patterns, etc. and made the win ratio even or sometimes even toss favored when a new all-in came out, does not make them currently balanced. Nerchio beats MC 3-1, (IPL Slayers v Liquid spoiler + Show Spoiler +Min beats Hero in IPL fairly convincingly despite not playing particularly well, and he could have won far easier by making lings versus a small amount of stalkers and immortals instead of roaches against a roach killing army , etc...would this have ever happened a few months ago when the matchup was considered fairly balanced and around 50% winrate? People can point at one thing that lost the protoss the game, but they won't point out the 10 more mistakes the zerg makes that should be equally punishing. Perhaps a lot of it has to do with the map pool but really, something should change.
Agreed to an extent, I mean it's gone beyond Protoss needing to defend pretty well to survive with a chance of winning in the later game, they have to defend close to perfectly. I remember where MC played Stephano on Daybreak and at one point had 1 unit lost to 34, a single stalker to like 3.5k minerals and the game was still really tight.
Hopefully we'll figure out a good catch-all opener/midgame soon though, one can but hope
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
