|
^ A zerg 'fast expanding' is not a huge macro advantage. They need the extra base for production. Think of it as chrono boost, or better yet, as warpgate tech. The creep and queen production is also important - that's why Zerg cannot hold a 4 gate on 1 base. There's something very flawed in your view of Zerg if you think they are being greedy in 'fast expanding'. A 2 base Zerg will not be ahead economically of a 1 base Protoss until saturation becomes an issue, and even then, it's more like 1 base Protoss = 1.8 base Zerg.
1 Base Protoss hurts Zerg very much so. By not opening FFE or Nexus first, it means Zerg can't take a third base. While you may think 'that's ridiculous', there's very little aggression Zerg can do on less than 3 bases without it being an all-in. They will also fall by the wayside if it's 2 base vs 2 base, there's no way Zerg can win in that situation unless they do some cute tech opening that catches Protoss off guard (and that just makes it even, not winning).
Pro's like nestea are very good at this, and lower level zergs are figuring this out more and more.
You realize that when they do the fast third, they don't get a lair until 120+ supply right? That means Zerg can't push at all or get kited by stalkers all day, and if Protoss responds with tech or macro, they'll be ahead. Most Protoss think that they have to do some sort of damage if they go FFE, and as true as it may be, a lot of Zerg bank on this. So if you open stargate, or 7 gate, from a FFE, and Zerg's ready for it, they will be in a huge lead. If you play macro, like grab a fast third yourself, you'll be far ahead. Of course, this is pretty much an either/or situation in Z's favor, so maybe you shouldn't FFE and 'stop being so greedy'.
Add to this the strength and cheapness of the roach, and the power of the infestor and zerg just has an easy time if he's doing it correctly. Games end way before protoss has the chance to get 2 totally separate tech trees, robo for colossus and archives for templars. Even if games last this long zerg still has more than enough to win it.
Yes. I agree. I would say that FFE is a horrible build, it relies on Protoss doing some sort of coin-flip 2 base timing that they instantly lose if it fails or wins if Zerg is unprepared. Things like double stargate and 6 gate are horrible all-innish builds that Zerg can easily hold on hatch tech with 3 bases. That's why, imo, I think 1 gate expo is a much better 'macro' build - it automatically denies Zerg's third, and you can easily put pressure on before Zerg has lair/3rd.
When Protoss stop trying to view the game as having to all-in, they will fare much better. Right now most Protoss either open something gimicky like stargate or archons, or 6 gate or 7 gate, but in reality they are exactly that - gimmicky all-ins. A Protoss who macros is just impossible to contend with for Zerg, and if Protoss gets 3 bases and just builds a normal stalker/sentry/colossi army with HT support, it's near impossible for Zerg to hold. Saying something like "dont let P get to that point" is kind of ridiculous when P can just cannon up and add forcefields, and Zerg's lack of aggression in early game, and then roll out with an immensely strong 3 base army.
There's just a huge timing window where stalker/sentry/colossi with HT support can roll a Zerg before they get Hive tech. I would recommend that:
1. FG is slightly nerfed while FB is nerfed against infestors as well - this will prevent infestors just being suddenly worthless when HT arrive, but also make infestors a more well-rounded unit.
2. Sentries have FF on cooldown (EMP would have to be able to dispel FF), cost more energy but spawn with enough energy for 1 FF, or make queens massive.
|
On August 25 2011 00:19 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 00:11 Huntz wrote:
Collosus are definitely not imbalanced. Corruptors do counter them, no matter how much you Zergs hate to use them. Maxing out and having 160 supply is HUGE difference. You're obsessed with the power of Collosus/HT but that's along the same lines as infestor/broodlord. Further. Protoss don't just magically get that, its at the end of two entirely different tech trees. If he's got HT, collosus, and a respectable stalker force before you have hive tech, its not the reason you lost. The deathball was figured out a long time ago, I don't know why you're still having trouble with it. Main issue with corruptors is that if P remax on ground you have to kill your own useless units. Vikings can at least land for harass
This means you made too many corruptors. And you can always morph them into broodlords. Besides that, if you destroy all colossi protoss has, it should be easy enough to make a bunch of lings and roaches and win the game. You can use the corruptors to kill off the next colossus in production if protoss is still making them.
|
On August 25 2011 00:21 Belial88 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +^ A zerg 'fast expanding' is not a huge macro advantage. They need the extra base for production. Think of it as chrono boost, or better yet, as warpgate tech. The creep and queen production is also important - that's why Zerg cannot hold a 4 gate on 1 base. There's something very flawed in your view of Zerg if you think they are being greedy in 'fast expanding'. A 2 base Zerg will not be ahead economically of a 1 base Protoss until saturation becomes an issue, and even then, it's more like 1 base Protoss = 1.8 base Zerg. 1 Base Protoss hurts Zerg very much so. By not opening FFE or Nexus first, it means Zerg can't take a third base. While you may think 'that's ridiculous', there's very little aggression Zerg can do on less than 3 bases without it being an all-in. They will also fall by the wayside if it's 2 base vs 2 base, there's no way Zerg can win in that situation unless they do some cute tech opening that catches Protoss off guard (and that just makes it even, not winning). Pro's like nestea are very good at this, and lower level zergs are figuring this out more and more. You realize that when they do the fast third, they don't get a lair until 120+ supply right? That means Zerg can't push at all or get kited by stalkers all day, and if Protoss responds with tech or macro, they'll be ahead. Most Protoss think that they have to do some sort of damage if they go FFE, and as true as it may be, a lot of Zerg bank on this. So if you open stargate, or 7 gate, from a FFE, and Zerg's ready for it, they will be in a huge lead. If you play macro, like grab a fast third yourself, you'll be far ahead. Of course, this is pretty much an either/or situation in Z's favor, so maybe you shouldn't FFE and 'stop being so greedy'. Add to this the strength and cheapness of the roach, and the power of the infestor and zerg just has an easy time if he's doing it correctly. Games end way before protoss has the chance to get 2 totally separate tech trees, robo for colossus and archives for templars. Even if games last this long zerg still has more than enough to win it. Yes. I agree. I would say that FFE is a horrible build, it relies on Protoss doing some sort of coin-flip 2 base timing that they instantly lose if it fails or wins if Zerg is unprepared. Things like double stargate and 6 gate are horrible all-innish builds that Zerg can easily hold on hatch tech with 3 bases. That's why, imo, I think 1 gate expo is a much better 'macro' build - it automatically denies Zerg's third, and you can easily put pressure on before Zerg has lair/3rd. When Protoss stop trying to view the game as having to all-in, they will fare much better. Right now most Protoss either open something gimicky like stargate or archons, or 6 gate or 7 gate, but in reality they are exactly that - gimmicky all-ins. A Protoss who macros is just impossible to contend with for Zerg, and if Protoss gets 3 bases and just builds a normal stalker/sentry/colossi army with HT support, it's near impossible for Zerg to hold. Saying something like "dont let P get to that point" is kind of ridiculous when P can just cannon up and add forcefields, and Zerg's lack of aggression in early game, and then roll out with an immensely strong 3 base army. There's just a huge timing window where stalker/sentry/colossi with HT support can roll a Zerg before they get Hive tech. I would recommend that: 1. FG is slightly nerfed while FB is nerfed against infestors as well - this will prevent infestors just being suddenly worthless when HT arrive, but also make infestors a more well-rounded unit. 2. Sentries have FF on cooldown (EMP would have to be able to dispel FF), cost more energy but spawn with enough energy for 1 FF, or make queens massive.
You don't seem to know how to play Zerg then.
Especially when i read something along
When Protoss stop trying to view the game as having to all-in, they will fare much better. Right now most Protoss either open something gimicky like stargate or archons, or 6 gate or 7 gate, but in reality they are exactly that - gimmicky all-ins. A Protoss who macros is just impossible to contend with for Zerg, and if Protoss gets 3 bases and just builds a normal stalker/sentry/colossi army with HT support, it's near impossible for Zerg to hold. Saying something like "dont let P get to that point" is kind of ridiculous when P can just cannon up and add forcefields, and Zerg's lack of aggression in early game, and then roll out with an immensely strong 3 base army.
Protoss can't just macro, what happens, is for instance MC vs Coca (i believe) on Terminus.
Winning every fight while losing nothing, being extremely cost efficient, yet still lose horribly because you get outmacroed insanely hard.
It's a myth that protoss should sit back and form a ball. That time is over, only zergs that can't play their race claim protoss is strong while building "their" deathball.
Zergs lategame is infinitely stronger than Protoss.
|
^ A zerg 'fast expanding' is not a huge macro advantage. They need the extra base for production. Think of it as chrono boost, or better yet, as warpgate tech. The creep and queen production is also important - that's why Zerg cannot hold a 4 gate on 1 base. There's something very flawed in your view of Zerg if you think they are being greedy in 'fast expanding'. A 2 base Zerg will not be ahead economically of a 1 base Protoss until saturation becomes an issue, and even then, it's more like 1 base Protoss = 1.8 base Zerg.
Who said it was? Either way, you're wrong. Yes zerg needs the extra production, but they don't really need the extra income. 1 basing will but you waay behind a zerg player. I have no idea what you're trying to prove. FE as zerg is nothing like warp gate tech other than that its required. I don't think Zerg is being greedy by FEing. Once saturation becomes an issue, one base P is like a 1 base zerg with a macro hatch. Maybe 1.2 zerg bases. Zerg is way ahead.
You realize that when they do the fast third, they don't get a lair until 120+ supply right? That means Zerg can't push at all
Of course they can't push. If Zerg could take a fast third base and be aggressive to the point you'd have to cut things to defend it, it would be imbalanced as hell.
Protoss responds with tech or macro, they'll be ahead. Most Protoss think that they have to do some sort of damage if they go FFE
If protoss responds with "macro" whatever the hell that is, after a quick third from zerg you just lose. Zerg crushes protoss who do not pressure. Tech is a viable choice if you're trying to hit a timing window, but other than that you need to pressure the zerg in some way. Taking your own third will put you behind.
Yes if you FFE you must do some sort of damage.
1 gate expo is a much better 'macro' build - it automatically denies Zerg's third, and you can easily put pressure on before Zerg has lair/3rd.
It definitely doesn't deny a third, is impossible on some maps (TDA) and incredibly weak to any kind of roach/ling or speed lings all-in/run by.
Any of your FF suggestions would probably break the game. Massive queens would for sure. EMP dispelling FF would be so imbalanced lol
I dont have time to tell you that there really isn't a huge timing window before hive, ill get back to you on that
broodlord infestor beats that composition, so turtle yourself
|
On August 25 2011 00:21 Belial88 wrote:^ A zerg 'fast expanding' is not a huge macro advantage. They need the extra base for production. Think of it as chrono boost, or better yet, as warpgate tech. The creep and queen production is also important - that's why Zerg cannot hold a 4 gate on 1 base. There's something very flawed in your view of Zerg if you think they are being greedy in 'fast expanding'. A 2 base Zerg will not be ahead economically of a 1 base Protoss until saturation becomes an issue, and even then, it's more like 1 base Protoss = 1.8 base Zerg. 1 Base Protoss hurts Zerg very much so. By not opening FFE or Nexus first, it means Zerg can't take a third base. While you may think 'that's ridiculous', there's very little aggression Zerg can do on less than 3 bases without it being an all-in. They will also fall by the wayside if it's 2 base vs 2 base, there's no way Zerg can win in that situation unless they do some cute tech opening that catches Protoss off guard (and that just makes it even, not winning). Show nested quote + Pro's like nestea are very good at this, and lower level zergs are figuring this out more and more. You realize that when they do the fast third, they don't get a lair until 120+ supply right? That means Zerg can't push at all or get kited by stalkers all day, and if Protoss responds with tech or macro, they'll be ahead. Most Protoss think that they have to do some sort of damage if they go FFE, and as true as it may be, a lot of Zerg bank on this. So if you open stargate, or 7 gate, from a FFE, and Zerg's ready for it, they will be in a huge lead. If you play macro, like grab a fast third yourself, you'll be far ahead. Of course, this is pretty much an either/or situation in Z's favor, so maybe you shouldn't FFE and 'stop being so greedy'. Show nested quote +Add to this the strength and cheapness of the roach, and the power of the infestor and zerg just has an easy time if he's doing it correctly. Games end way before protoss has the chance to get 2 totally separate tech trees, robo for colossus and archives for templars. Even if games last this long zerg still has more than enough to win it. Yes. I agree. I would say that FFE is a horrible build, it relies on Protoss doing some sort of coin-flip 2 base timing that they instantly lose if it fails or wins if Zerg is unprepared. Things like double stargate and 6 gate are horrible all-innish builds that Zerg can easily hold on hatch tech with 3 bases. That's why, imo, I think 1 gate expo is a much better 'macro' build - it automatically denies Zerg's third, and you can easily put pressure on before Zerg has lair/3rd. When Protoss stop trying to view the game as having to all-in, they will fare much better. Right now most Protoss either open something gimicky like stargate or archons, or 6 gate or 7 gate, but in reality they are exactly that - gimmicky all-ins. A Protoss who macros is just impossible to contend with for Zerg, and if Protoss gets 3 bases and just builds a normal stalker/sentry/colossi army with HT support, it's near impossible for Zerg to hold. Saying something like "dont let P get to that point" is kind of ridiculous when P can just cannon up and add forcefields, and Zerg's lack of aggression in early game, and then roll out with an immensely strong 3 base army. There's just a huge timing window where stalker/sentry/colossi with HT support can roll a Zerg before they get Hive tech. I would recommend that: 1. FG is slightly nerfed while FB is nerfed against infestors as well - this will prevent infestors just being suddenly worthless when HT arrive, but also make infestors a more well-rounded unit. 2. Sentries have FF on cooldown (EMP would have to be able to dispel FF), cost more energy but spawn with enough energy for 1 FF, or make queens massive.
First of all I'm a random player and I know what I'm talking about.
Zerg fast expanding is a huge macro advantage because with inject you can pump a huge amount of drones. You can get a fast third if protoss does any expand build. The only way for protoss to keep the zerg from having 2x more workers than them is to put some pressure up, but all pressure builds from protoss have been significantly nerfed or figured out.
Now go look at nestea playing ZvP. Protoss does some kind of expand build, because 1basing means an autoloss. What happens, is zerg gets on 3 bases. He gets around 80+ drones when protoss has only 40 probes. If protoss attacks, it is easy enough to produce a ton of roaches and lings before the attack arrives, because at this point protoss can't have enough colossus or templar yet. Without those units it is sort of impossible to put pressure on the zerg and not allow them to get a huge huge worker advantage.
And this is the problem. Protoss can not macro like zerg does, so responding with macro will only result in zerg doing more macro and them being more ahead. Responding with tech allows zerg to macro enough before the attack hits so they can repel it and be ahead anyway.
FFE is a terrible build because protoss falls behind a lot. Not expanding results in the same. The only thing protoss can do to have a bit of a chance is 2 base timing pushes like 6gate and colossus pushes. Zergs are getting closer to figuring this out, right now we're seeing zerg crushing protoss in gsl.
There is a reason these all ins happen. There's not much more protoss can do. Claiming stalker/sentry/colossus/ht can roll zerg is silly as well. Reaching that is very difficult for protoss already, and as a zerg you can easily kill protoss before they go there. If the protoss reaches this composition you can have a hive already, and you can definitively have infestors.
You're saying that stalker/sentry/colossus/ht is overpowered and that "don't let them get it" is a stupid argument. It is really not OP, I can easily roll that composition while playing zerg. Zerg macro combined with protoss' lack of power to punish it to even things out is a problem though. Saying "don't let them macro" is not possible, because you just can't punish it enough to be even.
|
any recent standard korean PvZ, the protoss always enter the mid-game being behind, no matter what he do, he is always behind in the mid-game, Protoss players are in need for a new opening, what they have now is not working.
|
On August 25 2011 00:44 rpgalon wrote:
any recent standard korean PvZ, the protoss always enter the mid-game being behind, no matter what he do, he is always behind in the mid-game, Protoss players are in need for a new opening, what they have now is not working.
Can you give a recent PvZ example that isn't Nestea or Losira?
|
On August 25 2011 03:20 Ziggitz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 00:44 rpgalon wrote:
any recent standard korean PvZ, the protoss always enter the mid-game being behind, no matter what he do, he is always behind in the mid-game, Protoss players are in need for a new opening, what they have now is not working. Can you give a recent PvZ example that isn't Nestea or Losira?
Ret vs Naniwa Blizzard EU invitational.
But that's the only other example that's recent.
|
On August 25 2011 03:20 Ziggitz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 00:44 rpgalon wrote:
any recent standard korean PvZ, the protoss always enter the mid-game being behind, no matter what he do, he is always behind in the mid-game, Protoss players are in need for a new opening, what they have now is not working. Can you give a recent PvZ example that isn't Nestea or Losira?
Any PvZ vs DRG in the GSTL?
|
On August 25 2011 00:31 Elefanto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 00:21 Belial88 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +^ A zerg 'fast expanding' is not a huge macro advantage. They need the extra base for production. Think of it as chrono boost, or better yet, as warpgate tech. The creep and queen production is also important - that's why Zerg cannot hold a 4 gate on 1 base. There's something very flawed in your view of Zerg if you think they are being greedy in 'fast expanding'. A 2 base Zerg will not be ahead economically of a 1 base Protoss until saturation becomes an issue, and even then, it's more like 1 base Protoss = 1.8 base Zerg. 1 Base Protoss hurts Zerg very much so. By not opening FFE or Nexus first, it means Zerg can't take a third base. While you may think 'that's ridiculous', there's very little aggression Zerg can do on less than 3 bases without it being an all-in. They will also fall by the wayside if it's 2 base vs 2 base, there's no way Zerg can win in that situation unless they do some cute tech opening that catches Protoss off guard (and that just makes it even, not winning). Pro's like nestea are very good at this, and lower level zergs are figuring this out more and more. You realize that when they do the fast third, they don't get a lair until 120+ supply right? That means Zerg can't push at all or get kited by stalkers all day, and if Protoss responds with tech or macro, they'll be ahead. Most Protoss think that they have to do some sort of damage if they go FFE, and as true as it may be, a lot of Zerg bank on this. So if you open stargate, or 7 gate, from a FFE, and Zerg's ready for it, they will be in a huge lead. If you play macro, like grab a fast third yourself, you'll be far ahead. Of course, this is pretty much an either/or situation in Z's favor, so maybe you shouldn't FFE and 'stop being so greedy'. Add to this the strength and cheapness of the roach, and the power of the infestor and zerg just has an easy time if he's doing it correctly. Games end way before protoss has the chance to get 2 totally separate tech trees, robo for colossus and archives for templars. Even if games last this long zerg still has more than enough to win it. Yes. I agree. I would say that FFE is a horrible build, it relies on Protoss doing some sort of coin-flip 2 base timing that they instantly lose if it fails or wins if Zerg is unprepared. Things like double stargate and 6 gate are horrible all-innish builds that Zerg can easily hold on hatch tech with 3 bases. That's why, imo, I think 1 gate expo is a much better 'macro' build - it automatically denies Zerg's third, and you can easily put pressure on before Zerg has lair/3rd. When Protoss stop trying to view the game as having to all-in, they will fare much better. Right now most Protoss either open something gimicky like stargate or archons, or 6 gate or 7 gate, but in reality they are exactly that - gimmicky all-ins. A Protoss who macros is just impossible to contend with for Zerg, and if Protoss gets 3 bases and just builds a normal stalker/sentry/colossi army with HT support, it's near impossible for Zerg to hold. Saying something like "dont let P get to that point" is kind of ridiculous when P can just cannon up and add forcefields, and Zerg's lack of aggression in early game, and then roll out with an immensely strong 3 base army. There's just a huge timing window where stalker/sentry/colossi with HT support can roll a Zerg before they get Hive tech. I would recommend that: 1. FG is slightly nerfed while FB is nerfed against infestors as well - this will prevent infestors just being suddenly worthless when HT arrive, but also make infestors a more well-rounded unit. 2. Sentries have FF on cooldown (EMP would have to be able to dispel FF), cost more energy but spawn with enough energy for 1 FF, or make queens massive. You don't seem to know how to play Zerg then. Especially when i read something along Show nested quote +When Protoss stop trying to view the game as having to all-in, they will fare much better. Right now most Protoss either open something gimicky like stargate or archons, or 6 gate or 7 gate, but in reality they are exactly that - gimmicky all-ins. A Protoss who macros is just impossible to contend with for Zerg, and if Protoss gets 3 bases and just builds a normal stalker/sentry/colossi army with HT support, it's near impossible for Zerg to hold. Saying something like "dont let P get to that point" is kind of ridiculous when P can just cannon up and add forcefields, and Zerg's lack of aggression in early game, and then roll out with an immensely strong 3 base army. Protoss can't just macro, what happens, is for instance MC vs Coca (i believe) on Terminus. Winning every fight while losing nothing, being extremely cost efficient, yet still lose horribly because you get outmacroed insanely hard. It's a myth that protoss should sit back and form a ball. That time is over, only zergs that can't play their race claim protoss is strong while building "their" deathball. Zergs lategame is infinitely stronger than Protoss.
Seriously? The protoss isn't supposed to let zerg have an easy time of macroing, Protoss is not supposed to just trade armies or come out barely ahead in a fight, Protoss has timing pushes that are going to do economic damage if for no other reason then that they force the zerg to halt drone production. And a late game protoss death ball that has correct unit composition absolutely ROLLS zerg, you see it time and time again. That being said I don't think P is OP. The only balance I see after doing quite a bit of research watching games, etc. is that TvP is heavily favored for T. This cannot be fixed by boosting P tech speed because 4gate becomes too strong against Z. I think the only thing that really needs to be done is something about the ghost. EMP is just super strong, making it easy for a marauder heavy army to just shoot over any early FFs and making retreat nearly impossible with concussive shells and stim.
p.s. Protoss also has DTs which are super effective at taking out expansions because Z rarely gets overseers, they just throw down SC with Spores for detection, making it easy to quickly eliminate all detection
|
On August 25 2011 03:57 SPQRGaius wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 00:31 Elefanto wrote:On August 25 2011 00:21 Belial88 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +^ A zerg 'fast expanding' is not a huge macro advantage. They need the extra base for production. Think of it as chrono boost, or better yet, as warpgate tech. The creep and queen production is also important - that's why Zerg cannot hold a 4 gate on 1 base. There's something very flawed in your view of Zerg if you think they are being greedy in 'fast expanding'. A 2 base Zerg will not be ahead economically of a 1 base Protoss until saturation becomes an issue, and even then, it's more like 1 base Protoss = 1.8 base Zerg. 1 Base Protoss hurts Zerg very much so. By not opening FFE or Nexus first, it means Zerg can't take a third base. While you may think 'that's ridiculous', there's very little aggression Zerg can do on less than 3 bases without it being an all-in. They will also fall by the wayside if it's 2 base vs 2 base, there's no way Zerg can win in that situation unless they do some cute tech opening that catches Protoss off guard (and that just makes it even, not winning). Pro's like nestea are very good at this, and lower level zergs are figuring this out more and more. You realize that when they do the fast third, they don't get a lair until 120+ supply right? That means Zerg can't push at all or get kited by stalkers all day, and if Protoss responds with tech or macro, they'll be ahead. Most Protoss think that they have to do some sort of damage if they go FFE, and as true as it may be, a lot of Zerg bank on this. So if you open stargate, or 7 gate, from a FFE, and Zerg's ready for it, they will be in a huge lead. If you play macro, like grab a fast third yourself, you'll be far ahead. Of course, this is pretty much an either/or situation in Z's favor, so maybe you shouldn't FFE and 'stop being so greedy'. Add to this the strength and cheapness of the roach, and the power of the infestor and zerg just has an easy time if he's doing it correctly. Games end way before protoss has the chance to get 2 totally separate tech trees, robo for colossus and archives for templars. Even if games last this long zerg still has more than enough to win it. Yes. I agree. I would say that FFE is a horrible build, it relies on Protoss doing some sort of coin-flip 2 base timing that they instantly lose if it fails or wins if Zerg is unprepared. Things like double stargate and 6 gate are horrible all-innish builds that Zerg can easily hold on hatch tech with 3 bases. That's why, imo, I think 1 gate expo is a much better 'macro' build - it automatically denies Zerg's third, and you can easily put pressure on before Zerg has lair/3rd. When Protoss stop trying to view the game as having to all-in, they will fare much better. Right now most Protoss either open something gimicky like stargate or archons, or 6 gate or 7 gate, but in reality they are exactly that - gimmicky all-ins. A Protoss who macros is just impossible to contend with for Zerg, and if Protoss gets 3 bases and just builds a normal stalker/sentry/colossi army with HT support, it's near impossible for Zerg to hold. Saying something like "dont let P get to that point" is kind of ridiculous when P can just cannon up and add forcefields, and Zerg's lack of aggression in early game, and then roll out with an immensely strong 3 base army. There's just a huge timing window where stalker/sentry/colossi with HT support can roll a Zerg before they get Hive tech. I would recommend that: 1. FG is slightly nerfed while FB is nerfed against infestors as well - this will prevent infestors just being suddenly worthless when HT arrive, but also make infestors a more well-rounded unit. 2. Sentries have FF on cooldown (EMP would have to be able to dispel FF), cost more energy but spawn with enough energy for 1 FF, or make queens massive. You don't seem to know how to play Zerg then. Especially when i read something along When Protoss stop trying to view the game as having to all-in, they will fare much better. Right now most Protoss either open something gimicky like stargate or archons, or 6 gate or 7 gate, but in reality they are exactly that - gimmicky all-ins. A Protoss who macros is just impossible to contend with for Zerg, and if Protoss gets 3 bases and just builds a normal stalker/sentry/colossi army with HT support, it's near impossible for Zerg to hold. Saying something like "dont let P get to that point" is kind of ridiculous when P can just cannon up and add forcefields, and Zerg's lack of aggression in early game, and then roll out with an immensely strong 3 base army. Protoss can't just macro, what happens, is for instance MC vs Coca (i believe) on Terminus. Winning every fight while losing nothing, being extremely cost efficient, yet still lose horribly because you get outmacroed insanely hard. It's a myth that protoss should sit back and form a ball. That time is over, only zergs that can't play their race claim protoss is strong while building "their" deathball. Zergs lategame is infinitely stronger than Protoss. Seriously? The protoss isn't supposed to let zerg have an easy time of macroing, Protoss is not supposed to just trade armies or come out barely ahead in a fight, Protoss has timing pushes that are going to do economic damage if for no other reason then that they force the zerg to halt drone production. And a late game protoss death ball that has correct unit composition absolutely ROLLS zerg, you see it time and time again. That being said I don't think P is OP. The only balance I see after doing quite a bit of research watching games, etc. is that TvP is heavily favored for T. This cannot be fixed by boosting P tech speed because 4gate becomes too strong against Z. I think the only thing that really needs to be done is something about the ghost. EMP is just super strong, making it easy for a marauder heavy army to just shoot over any early FFs and making retreat nearly impossible with concussive shells and stim. p.s. Protoss also has DTs which are super effective at taking out expansions because Z rarely gets overseers, they just throw down SC with Spores for detection, making it easy to quickly eliminate all detection
Protoss has been nerfed so much they are no longer able to put pressure on the zerg so that things become even. Nerfing warpgate timing was nonsense, 4gate was too weak against zerg if anything. It was totally figured out already. The protoss deathball can defeat a 200/200 roach ling army, but after that zerg can easily remax and take the game. Protoss only has 2base timing pushses that are sometimes effective against zerg, and pro zergs like nestea already figured those out as well. The reason those 2base pushes exist is because for protoss it is impossible to keep up with zerg macro or to attack to keep their macro close to the protoss' macro. DT and stargates can be destroyed by building just 1 spore, which is what players like nestea, drg and losira are doing. Watch gsl and you'll see what I'm talking about.
You're correct about the emp thing.
|
All this shit about Protoss having no answer to Infestors doesn't make sense. What exactly is it about HT that make them unusable? 2 storms kill an Infestor while Feedback instantly kills an Infestor if it didn't just spawn. They're also 50 minerals cheaper so it's not like it's inefficient to use them.
And don't say "fungal insta kills HT". How hard is it to spread them out?
|
On August 24 2011 23:22 Belial88 wrote:
I would also say colossi are a bit imbalanced. Zerg really has no counter before Ultralisks, and you can't get Ultras before P maxes out (or at least has their 160ish supply of 'dream' army). Right now Zerg's best options are infestors, but a stalker/colossi army with HT support completely nullifies that. P armies with huge colossi support are almost impossible to stop for Zerg as well.
Zerg counters to colossi: corruptors, roach/muta combo, infestors with neural parasite, broodlords, ultralisks.
So no, I don't think colossi are imbalanced, personally.
|
On August 25 2011 04:25 Rob28 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 23:22 Belial88 wrote:
I would also say colossi are a bit imbalanced. Zerg really has no counter before Ultralisks, and you can't get Ultras before P maxes out (or at least has their 160ish supply of 'dream' army). Right now Zerg's best options are infestors, but a stalker/colossi army with HT support completely nullifies that. P armies with huge colossi support are almost impossible to stop for Zerg as well.
Zerg counters to colossi: corruptors, roach/muta combo, infestors with neural parasite, broodlords, ultralisks. So no, I don't think colossi are imbalanced, personally.
Roach/muta doesn't sound like a counter to a traditional colossus based army and certainly isn't once high templar are out. I think a mix of roach/ling/infestor with bling drops kills the traditional sentry/stalker/colossi army pretty well (Micro dependent ofc). If high templar are added in then you need ultras or broodlords to survive the storms and colossi. If archons are being made in significant numbers ultras will probably be less useful.
Of course I'm pretty sure that unit composition needs a superior economy because of the high tech level that comes with a lot of different units and drop tech. I don't think the gas cost of infestors and blings is overly bad as long as you don't produce too many of either.
|
Zerg counters to colossi: corruptors, roach/muta combo, infestors with neural parasite, broodlords, ultralisks.
So no, I don't think colossi are imbalanced, personally.
Corruptors don't kill colossi fast enough. And despite the myth that 'just make them broodlords', Zerg will die attempting to get Hive tech against Protoss unless they have somehow managed to get a huge lead.
Roaches are horrible against colossi, particularly with sentries. Roach/Muta isn't exactly affordable - like at all (that's why in ZvZ nestea goes ling/muta, and then transitions into roaches, he uses mutas to deny third and ling+mass spine to defend to get his own third up, then gets roaches). And Stalker/Colossi owns Ling/Muta (or roach/muta), especially with blink or storm added in. It's a bad unit composition, that's why no one uses it.
NP doesn't work with HT feedbacking, and Colossi have same range as infestors, so unless your caught out of position (which, granted, happens a lot), NP isn't the best.
And BL/Ultras are, as I said, unaffordable Hive tech. But BL doesn't kill Colossi fast enough, that's why Stalker/Colossi usually beats BL based compositions, as does Vr/Colossi.
Ultralisks do well though, but are just prohibitively expensive and take over a minute to morph. It's pretty hard to somehow free up 60 supply for 10 ultras (and have the money to do so) somewhere in the game.
The protoss deathball can defeat a 200/200 roach ling army, but after that zerg can easily remax and take the game.
You must not have seen that many pre-patch ZvPs, like in the TSL. Because it's worthless to remax on an army that won't even kill 20 supply of the Protoss army.
p.s. Protoss also has DTs which are super effective at taking out expansions because Z rarely gets overseers, they just throw down SC with Spores for detection, making it easy to quickly eliminate all detection
I usually prefer getting overseers rather than spores for detection. This isn't really an imbalance, just lack of judgement by Zergs.
Zerg fast expanding is a huge macro advantage because with inject you can pump a huge amount of drones. You can get a fast third if protoss does any expand build. The only way for protoss to keep the zerg from having 2x more workers than them is to put some pressure up, but all pressure builds from protoss have been significantly nerfed or figured out.
You can't take a third against 3 gate sentry expand, 1 gate expand, nexus first without forge, etc.
FFE is a terrible build because protoss falls behind a lot. Not expanding results in the same. The only thing protoss can do to have a bit of a chance is 2 base timing pushes like 6gate and colossus pushes. Zergs are getting closer to figuring this out, right now we're seeing zerg crushing protoss in gsl.
No, Protoss can easily just take a third and stop relying on all-ins that severely lack certain tech and get owned if Z know what is going on (ie 6 gate without detection). If Zerg gets a fast third, they can't really build an army, and definitely won't have lair, while Protoss can slowly mass an army and tech. 3 base P vs 4 base Zerg is definitely in P's favor.
|
On August 25 2011 07:49 Belial88 wrote:
No, Protoss can easily just take a third and stop relying on all-ins that severely lack certain tech and get owned if Z know what is going on (ie 6 gate without detection). If Zerg gets a fast third, they can't really build an army, and definitely won't have lair, while Protoss can slowly mass an army and tech. 3 base P vs 4 base Zerg is definitely in P's favor.
False. Like I said, if protoss does macro, zerg just does more macro and is ahead a lot. I play the game from both sides, I really know what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter what protoss players do against me, I can always outmacro them in a ridiculous way and flood them with lings and roaches and take the game. Taking a third is also very hard on the protoss side, zerg can do a lot of harass and deny the third, outmacroing while doing that.
And your claims about the colossus sentry army being so so strong are false as well. Use infestors. Trust me. When you attack with corruptors the goal isn't to take down colossi in 5 seconds, the goal is to take them out so there are none when your next attack happens, which will crush the opponent.
|
On August 25 2011 04:22 Joey Wheeler wrote:
All this shit about Protoss having no answer to Infestors doesn't make sense. What exactly is it about HT that make them unusable? 2 storms kill an Infestor while Feedback instantly kills an Infestor if it didn't just spawn. They're also 50 minerals cheaper so it's not like it's inefficient to use them.
And don't say "fungal insta kills HT". How hard is it to spread them out?
I pointed out much earlier in this thread that the speed advantage of infestors vs. templars is a huge plus especially considering feedback is only single target. Very often zerg will shift spell and run away while killing the templars who are queued to feedback a infestor that ran off. I tried to flank with warp prism but it's very gimmicky.
2.25 speed templar would be quite nice, don't see them being too OP with a slight speed buff tbh.
That said, I think it's better to see how toss metagame evolve in the next few months before patching.
|
On August 23 2011 16:03 Sackings wrote:
Restore the warpgate research time to what it was before, and reduce the build time and cost of the immortal. Would make 4gate extinct and actually give the immortal some purpose. I'm sure there would be some new immortal timing attacks, but other than that...seems good to me
I'd be all for this as a Toss player , the Immortal is really overlooked at times because it's just so bloody expensive and easily countered. It's not much cheaper than a Colossus but the Colossus has ranged and can be micro'd etc wheras the Immortal has to get right up to a units face to atk it 
|
On August 25 2011 08:13 Willsonite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2011 16:03 Sackings wrote:
Restore the warpgate research time to what it was before, and reduce the build time and cost of the immortal. Would make 4gate extinct and actually give the immortal some purpose. I'm sure there would be some new immortal timing attacks, but other than that...seems good to me I'd be all for this as a Toss player , the Immortal is really overlooked at times because it's just so bloody expensive and easily countered. It's not much cheaper than a Colossus but the Colossus has range + range-upgrade and can be micro'd etc wheras the Immortal has to get right up to a units face to atk it
|
On August 23 2011 16:03 Sackings wrote:
Restore the warpgate research time to what it was before, and reduce the build time and cost of the immortal. Would make 4gate extinct and actually give the immortal some purpose. I'm sure there would be some new immortal timing attacks, but other than that...seems good to me
I'd be all for this as a Toss player , the Immortal is really overlooked at times because it's just so bloody expensive and easily countered. It's not much cheaper than a Colossus but the Colossus has range + range-upgrade and can be micro'd etc wheras the Immortal has to get right up to a units face to atk it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
