|
On April 19 2011 06:16 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 06:13 Insouciant wrote:
I watched idra wreck some protoss players and their death balls just by going heavy baneling.
Its not the same as going against pros but if idra can completely wreck the ball using uncommon units against inferior players then its possible that a slight change in mechanics can make these methods work vs pro players too.
The death ball is strong and easy to make but I think that discovering the counter will unleash a satisfying wave of protoss late game tears. Would stuff like banelings even be stable? What are you going to do when the Protoss equal of MarineKingPrime comes by and splits his blink stalkers like a gosu showing everyone else how to do it? I say that not as whine even as I do love banelings in ZvP, but using them makes me nervous.
if he splits his stalkers which is only do able with BLINK would leave all of his sentrys zealots and collosi vulnerable and that is a really big hit to his army.
|
Fungal growth + baneling bombs. Wait for it. Fungal and colossi have the same range, yes...except most people aren't going to lead with their colossi and fungal growth has a large AOE.
|
On April 19 2011 05:57 Noocta wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 05:54 Jerax wrote:On April 19 2011 05:49 Antedelerium wrote:
Definitely a copy-paste error. Regardless, OP does make an interesting point with the comparison of how macro Zergs used to be scary while the Protoss deathball strategy goes along the same lines. I highly doubt balance tweaks will be necessary to counter the deathball, but we'll see what happens in higher levels of play. That's how it always goes. Sooner or later, someone figures out how to counter a specific type of strategy. As good as MC is, sooner or later someone will figure out how to consistently stop his insane pushes. Sooner or later, someone will just figure out how to dismantle Cruncher in ZvP in convincing fashion (some pros probably can already and just haven't faced him). But balance tweaks have already been made. The infestor buff hard counters protoss death balls, being highly effective against pretty much the whole protoss composition. And yet every pro don't make them. Broodlords with infestors&anything support destroy any kind of stalkers/colossi deathball protoss can make. But everyone is still sticking to roaches hydra corruptor. :/
Do you realize how hard it is to break out of that midgame tech tier as zerg? You don't just decide "oh I'm going to go infestor broodlord this game, and it's going to beat my opponent's 200/200 blink stalker colossus army ez" - you have to transition out of the standard midgame roach play, which leaves a huge timing window where the protoss can just roll over anything you have. It's not that zergs don't want to get to broodlords, it's that spending money on early tech leaves you with a lower unit count that will just wilt over and die to the deathball.
And no, though it sounds very nice in theory, roach infestor (fungals) isn't particularly strong, and the spire is much more important.
People have been going ling/bling -> roach/ling + carpet bombs, but it's very hard to pull off, very risky.
|
On April 19 2011 06:13 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 05:57 Noocta wrote:On April 19 2011 05:54 Jerax wrote:On April 19 2011 05:49 Antedelerium wrote:
Definitely a copy-paste error. Regardless, OP does make an interesting point with the comparison of how macro Zergs used to be scary while the Protoss deathball strategy goes along the same lines. I highly doubt balance tweaks will be necessary to counter the deathball, but we'll see what happens in higher levels of play. That's how it always goes. Sooner or later, someone figures out how to counter a specific type of strategy. As good as MC is, sooner or later someone will figure out how to consistently stop his insane pushes. Sooner or later, someone will just figure out how to dismantle Cruncher in ZvP in convincing fashion (some pros probably can already and just haven't faced him). But balance tweaks have already been made. The infestor buff hard counters protoss death balls, being highly effective against pretty much the whole protoss composition. And yet every pro don't make them. Broodlords with infestors&anything support destroy any kind of stalkers/colossi deathball protoss can make. But everyone is still sticking to roaches hydra corruptor. :/ BL/Infestor are incredibly hard to get out safely which is why you don't see them more often. On top of that imagine a Protoss deathball, but your 'ball' moves at 1.4 speed (instead of 2.25 speed). I know personally I've had situations where P will just run stalkers right around the (well blink around) the broodlords and then proceed to wreck havoc in your base. Sure you FG them, but at 4 seconds it's not like your BLs are going to catch up very much if they weren't initially in range. So you end up refungaling the same stalkers 2-3 times while the rest of the pack can just move on or you fungal everything once or twice and then they break free before the bl's catch up and kill them. Now on maps without good flanking possibilities, close-ish bases, or when the P hasn't spread out at all BL/Infestor is great. You basically need to be able to do what Mondragon does and get out BL/Infestor + a crap ton of crawlers to defend which is going to be well after you have to initially max on units if you want to last that long. I'm also curious about this so-called period of Zerg domination. All I remember is 2 players pulling out against all odds to win a tournament and IdrA being the favorite because of how long he had been training in Korea at a time when the SC2 scene was still really young and developing. Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 06:11 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2011 06:06 dere wrote:
This entire post does not even account for the map changes. Which I personally believe has the largest impact on gameplay. I agree but if anything Zerg should be doing better now with these maps since zergs across the board wanted bigger maps. They got what they wanted but things have either stayed the same or gotten worse statistically. Bigger maps help vs the aggression options, but hurt vs the turtle play if they get too large. So it's been a give and take for Zerg.
There was a solid 6 weeks around MLG Dallas 2010 where protoss were getting stomped by zergs. I think thats what hes referring to.
P.S. If you think that you're supposed to be FGing the stalkers when you use infestors then you are lost im afraid. In small engagements thats okay, but the part of the deathball that is killing you is the sentry... not the colossus or anything else. Sentry is the linchpin of the whole thing. Mass stalkers is the logical next step for protoss and infestors are only cost efficient agaisnt mass upgraded blink stalker if they have proper support.
|
On April 19 2011 06:18 Bobo_ wrote:
Instead of Zergs trying to counter the deathball directly, they need to counter it indirectly. Don't let the Protoss achieve that critical mass. As a Zerg player, I have been shifting away from the "normal" roach/hydra composition and into a baneling/muta play(I will give credit to VTgIx because he was the first person I personally saw use it on Bitters stream) and it seems to work great. The muta ball can provide pretty good harass damage once you achieve that critical mass, being able to snipe 5-7 probes in one volley if mutas have +1 attack. Also given that fact that banelings/zerglings are very cheap both in food cost and in resources, it allows Zerg to expand around the map and so forth.
Because of the harass supplied by mutalisks, it weakens the economy of the Protoss in getting their deathball and when they decide to move out with their weakened deathball, you completely run over it with banelings/zerglings/corruptors(if you need them)/mutalisks.
Also doing attacks from two different sides, for example, mutalisks in the base, then suiciding banelings to take out their third, further delays their deathball push and allows you quickly get your broodlords out.
All-in-all: Zergs shouldn't counter the deathball directly, counter it indirectly. If you face a turtling protoss, do everything in your power to not let him get the deathball. I have found the VTgIx style does that perfectly.
I haven't tried this yet, but I can only see it work because most protoss doesn't get stargate units (because they don't need to  ). Even a small number of phoenixes can counter mutas cost efficiency wise and if the protoss isn't dumb you'll never have the critical number of mutas (20+) to do anything.
That said, I've always been interested in mutalisks against toss and since people doesn't expect it it can indeed be rewarding although still easily countered.
|
Tbh I think protoss has the highest skill cap (esp against terran) do you remember back in s1 and s2 how easily terran stomped protoss? It's taken high level protoss players a while to figure out what works - the builds (3 gate expo harass vs T and Z), the gameplay (to get armor first for zealots, how to use force fields correctly). An important thing to keep in mind is that Zerg has only really recieved buffs since season 1 of GSL (Roach buff, Infestor buff, but protoss has only received nerfs)
I know someone will flame me for this, but protoss does have a lot of variety in their play that the they have been figuring out recently. Colossus phoenix was not seen in season 1. Roach hydra was. Armor first upgrade wasn't seen in s1, but mass MMM was. T and Z have been doing essentially the same builds / unit comps since s1 and haven't changed a lot. Recently a few zergs have with the infestor buff (see sheths Infestor Baneling Ultra against Artosis), and I think that will help a lot. People can't just go by the IdrA-syndrome where you say, If I don't do anything innovative with my play I still should win because I am a superior macro player. WELL, the fact is SC2 is very easy on macro and any player in the GSL is a 'great macro player' now. You aren't special with your 'macro' like you were in BW.. you have to keep evolving and changing your playstyle to stay on top. The players that are still doing outdated builds (3 gate Robo BEFORE nexus vs terran) haven't been doing as well (see Liquid Tyler). The players with new-school builds that catch people off guard will do the best, such as Sheth who's ~r1 in grandmaster and is doing well in NASL
|
On April 19 2011 06:36 Yamulo wrote:
too bad collosi outranges infestors
That really dosen't make that big of a difference if you are engaging unless you are engaging with your infesters in front (lol), i could maybe see this as a problem if you wanted to use Fungal as it was intended pre patch to delay armies instead of being a dps champ that it is now. This aside, Mondragon recently said that he would have won if he went pure roach infester, and i would link but i don't want to link something kennigit said yesterday on his twitter (skype conversation with him and mondi i think). But basically what this comes down too is using your infesters properly.[/QUOTE]
You're assuming Mondragon knows what he's talking about. As good a player as he is, there's no reason to believe that he's actually correct about infestors. People may remember that IdrA himself said that the new infestors would be overpowered (albeit not as overpowered as Protoss units) when he first saw/played around with the fungal buff, but either he decided that he wouldn't use them because he has self-respect or they just aren't actually that good. Maybe Mondragon is the only Zerg pro in the world who bothered to try out the post-patch infestors and discovered the power of fungal growth, but it doesn't seem particularly likely.
On April 19 2011 06:41 Yamulo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 06:16 Logo wrote:On April 19 2011 06:13 Insouciant wrote:
I watched idra wreck some protoss players and their death balls just by going heavy baneling.
Its not the same as going against pros but if idra can completely wreck the ball using uncommon units against inferior players then its possible that a slight change in mechanics can make these methods work vs pro players too.
The death ball is strong and easy to make but I think that discovering the counter will unleash a satisfying wave of protoss late game tears. Would stuff like banelings even be stable? What are you going to do when the Protoss equal of MarineKingPrime comes by and splits his blink stalkers like a gosu showing everyone else how to do it? I say that not as whine even as I do love banelings in ZvP, but using them makes me nervous. if he splits his stalkers which is only do able with BLINK would leave all of his sentrys zealots and collosi vulnerable and that is a really big hit to his army.
Why can stalkers only split with blink? Marines can split just fine without it. And MC showed that the best way to deal with baneling bombs is to simply FF off the main Zerg army while you deal with the overlords.
|
On April 19 2011 06:46 R3N wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 06:18 Bobo_ wrote:
Instead of Zergs trying to counter the deathball directly, they need to counter it indirectly. Don't let the Protoss achieve that critical mass. As a Zerg player, I have been shifting away from the "normal" roach/hydra composition and into a baneling/muta play(I will give credit to VTgIx because he was the first person I personally saw use it on Bitters stream) and it seems to work great. The muta ball can provide pretty good harass damage once you achieve that critical mass, being able to snipe 5-7 probes in one volley if mutas have +1 attack. Also given that fact that banelings/zerglings are very cheap both in food cost and in resources, it allows Zerg to expand around the map and so forth.
Because of the harass supplied by mutalisks, it weakens the economy of the Protoss in getting their deathball and when they decide to move out with their weakened deathball, you completely run over it with banelings/zerglings/corruptors(if you need them)/mutalisks.
Also doing attacks from two different sides, for example, mutalisks in the base, then suiciding banelings to take out their third, further delays their deathball push and allows you quickly get your broodlords out.
All-in-all: Zergs shouldn't counter the deathball directly, counter it indirectly. If you face a turtling protoss, do everything in your power to not let him get the deathball. I have found the VTgIx style does that perfectly. I haven't tried this yet, but I can only see it work because most protoss doesn't get stargate units (because they don't need to ). Even a small number of phoenixes can counter mutas cost efficiency wise and if the protoss isn't dumb you'll never have the critical number of mutas (20+) to do anything. That said, I've always been interested in mutalisks against toss and since people doesn't expect it it can indeed be rewarding although still easily countered.
Agreed with everything you said. Mutalisks can easily be countered by pheonix's. However just because a Turret counters a banshee doesn't make banshees completely useless. In the perfect scenario, pheonix's will be where your mutas are and therefore making your mutalisks useless. However, Starcraft isn't perfect and your other half of your army can get his army out of position.
But then again, thats if you want to KEEP going mutalisks. If I saw mass pheonix from a Protoss, I would be stupid to keep going Mutalisks  . I would transition into Corruptors and get my hive tech, however, this is just theorycraft and I can only say so much. As a Starcraft player you need to adapt to the game and in my opinion that's what separates the pro's from the semi-pro's.
Nonetheless, I believe banelings still have a place in ZvP just because of their cost efficiency and the damage they are capable of doing to a Protoss army, especially a deathball, since it is nice and bunched up aka baneling heaven .
|
What interests me is that in PvZ in BW a Protoss "death ball" was almost equally unstoppable (in this case, it was reaver-archon-zealot-templar, sometimes with goons), and Zerg had to have a big ultraling-defiler or lurker-ling-defiler, sometimes with other support, to beat it - and the only way to beat it was to whittle it down and outlast, or lure the Protoss into attacking a (lurkered up) simcity.
It seems like the same ought to be true in SC2, except it seems that higher tech units are available faster (for Protoss), meaning the total force that builds up by late-game is more high-tech heavy, while the Zerg can't tech as fast - or maybe doesn't.
|
Don't forget that the new, large, macro oriented maps are heavily toss favored. Free natural, warp gate eliminates defender advantage for the non toss player, large rush distance and warps make counter pressure difficult, and all toss needs to do is stay on a 2-3 bases and form a deathball, even if zerg takes 5+.
|
That the metagame is shifting a year after retail isn't very surprising. People were predicting a lof of chaos for the first two years minimum. Even if things were balanced out now it would all be thrown eschew again with each proceeding expansion.
Expect the momentum to shift constantly for a while longer.
|
I'm not sure I agree, and the core of my disagreement lies in the way in which the PvZ metagame developed compared to the same of ZvP.
If you cast your memory back to the early days of GSL and other tournaments, much of Protoss play in PvZ (and PvT too) was one-base or two-base in nature. There were numerous one-base plays that Protoss could make, from straight up 4-gates to mixtures of gates, Robo, Stargate, or Twilight Council/DT tech plays. Most were fairly easy to execute and hard to defend well, meaning that this style was deemed the most practical for use in tournament play. This style, as has also been ably pointed out by other posters, was reinforced by the map pool of tiny and abusable maps.
The ZvP mindset was, as you pointed out, geared toward economic plays. Though there was some usage of cheese tactics, Protoss could relatively easily fend this off, and the most successful type of Zerg player was the one that had strong mechanics and a macro-oriented style. Even hyper-aggressive Zergs like Kyrix and to some extent Fruitdealer were far more successful in longer games than in shorter ones, shorter games in which they were almost invariably the defender against some 1-base timing attack. Essentially, the ZvP style was as you say it was: macro oriented and focused on mid-to-late game pushes reinforced with a superior economy.
Fast-forward 6 months and what has changed? I think the major change, one which you refer to kind of obliquely, boils down to this: Protoss players have learned what they can get away with economically and still be safe against most or all attacks. What makes me most fear for the state of ZvP is that yes, they have learned better ways of punishing Zerg for being too greedy, but I think that's actually the result of a shift at a more fundamental level. When your style is 1-base, or limited at most to 2-base, there are inherent limitations on what you can accomplish, and what compositions can be reasonably expected. However, when you learn that you can get 3 Gateways and a bunch of low-mineral units and be impervious to all non all-in strategies so that you can get up an expansion not that far behind the Zerg, a whole bunch of other possibilities open up. Thus, the reason for the Protoss being able to punish Zergs in the early mid-game is not because of magical new strategies that involve massively different units (though Sentry usage has obviously improved immensely in the case of someone like MC), but because the economic foundations of PvZ play have fundamentally altered: you learn how few units you can get away with at the start of the game so that you just have way more shit than your opponent a few minutes from now.
This is what makes me fearful of development potential in the ZvP metagame, and its what Lalush was pointing to in his post a while back on the economics of base and drone saturation. A Zerg can't truly react to an increased Protoss economy by being even more macro-oriented. In this case, I mean "truly" in the sense of a robust metagame shift. Yes, its possible to take a super fast third like some Zergs have been doing, but this is always going to be risky. With Chrono Boost, a Protoss is going to match a 3-base Zerg with a 2-base economy for a substantial period of time. With Warp-In and Chrono Boost, a Protoss can very quickly amass an army to punish a risky third Hatchery. As Lalush pointed out, the gain you make in SC2 in going from 2-base to 3-base is much less than it was in Brood War, thus making it riskier to take these earlier expansions because your economy is not going to be clearly superior to your opponent's for much longer.
Essentially, what I'm saying is that Protoss players are quickly learning to push the boundaries at when you can take expansions and still be relatively safe. Instead of seeing third bases at 14 or 15 minutes into the game, you're seeing them at the 10 minute mark instead. However, unless you want the ZvP metagame to devolve into a series of risky all-ins to try kill off a Protoss who might have tried to push the envelope a little too far, there is an end-point in the development of Zerg economic plays.
Maybe I'm being too doom and gloom, or overly pessimistic, but I think we're already beginning to see this. Many top Zergs, the most obvious of which is Idra, have concluded that even if with incredibly strong macro mechanics they feel its dicey to push a late-game engagement with Protoss. Instead, they're opting for risky 2-base drop plays to try cripple the Protoss early on, or Roach/Ling all-ins.
Maybe some revolutionary macro-play will come along that means that late-game Zerg will again have a clear economic advantage, but I don't feel it is likely. The lack of scouting and the prevalence of strong timing attacks that will outright kill you if you don't prepare perfectly mean that boundaries exist for these types of plays.
Anyway, thats my 2c.
|
Italy12246 Posts
Interesting and fair points, i wish people considered this more. Protoss is not designed too well in my opinion (fast warpgates and force fields cause a whole lot of issues, and i play only p), but the whole "zomg protoss imba qq" thing has just gone overboard, to the point where if almost -any- pro p beats a pro z, he's often getting insulted for playing the ezmode race.
|
On April 19 2011 06:56 e4e5nf3 wrote:
That the metagame is shifting a year after retail isn't very surprising. People were predicting a lof of chaos for the first two years minimum. Even if things were balanced out now it would all be thrown eschew again with each proceeding expansion.
Expect the momentum to shift constantly for a while longer.
Makes for exciting times doesn't it? =P
BUT yes. Zerg will figure something out I'm sure of it. Just the same way Toss figured out something for themselves.
It was inevitable that Toss would want to turtle-mass an army though, wasn't it? Having the most powerful units would mean that a massed army would be of greatest effectiveness.
But zerg still have alot of options to explore in a hundred different ways/combinations. Baneling drops, speedling drops, baneling mines, nydus play, infestor play, overseer contaminate play, and even other strategies I haven't thought of or seen yet. New timings, new methods of play, new metagames..
fun fun fun =)
|
Canada13386 Posts
On April 19 2011 05:57 BlasiuS wrote:I don't think it's so much a metagame shift as it is the mid-game and late-game becoming more mapped out in SC2. A big reason why zerg has such a hard time taking out the protoss deathball is that getting 4 or more bases provides only a marginal increase in economy over 3 bases (as outlined in LaLuSh's macro analysis thread). Because of this, 4/5 base zerg doesn't really give much of an increased economy over 3 base. Also, once protoss gets a 3rd base, they have enough to make a maxed army; since protoss' maxed army is the strongest in the game, it's at this point in a game where protoss is stronger than zerg. And with the sheer amount of DPS, a protoss maxed army can steamroll a maxed zerg army AND any reinforcements that come immediately after.
But it does provide additional larva, and if you saturate only 16 workers per mineral patch having a 4th and 5th base allows you to collect more gas and allows for an easier time getting your workers who mine out the main to go to other mineral patches at a 4th and 5th. By also having extra patches, workers can be saved and remain optimal assuming you transfer to the 5th from the 2nd and main with a nydus should it be under attack. I feel a good example was the minigun/spanishiwa show match that showed how nydusing to a different main and rebuilding there can give Zerg a second chance at survival after a major attack.
I feel that extra larva is another resource we shouldn't forget. The queen mechanic makes it difficult in late game to always have optimal larva creation/production. Having extra hatches can mitigate this issue to a certain extent.
|
On April 19 2011 05:57 purecarnagge wrote:
zergs are not being aggressive enough there is no reason to let a protoss get a ball of death going... keep them on 2 base keep pressuring... zergs drone so hard they lose sight of this and suddenly protoss has map control and zerg is trying not to die... not an optimal way to play....
I think I agree with this, if you play really aggressively as Zerg and constantly exchange your army for theirs as well as things such as baneling drops and nydus play you can prevent the opponent from moving out, or at worst force a base race.
I've not really thought on the point enough, and I'm only high diamond so I don't claim to be an expert here but from watching some of the potent aggression that players like Spanishiwa does (and to an extent every player that does baneling busts, MorroW and I think Dimaga spring to mind, probably all the professional Zerg players at some point) I've seen it have great success.
I love how much the StarCraft II meta-game has an impact on play for almost every level. It's literally days you have to wait after seeing a potent strategy exerted by a professional player and it shows up on the ladder frequently.
|
I think it's going to shift to something like roach/infestor/banelings at some point infestors just to hold em still and just then baneling drop everything and then clean up with roaches. Only thing I can see what will take out balls nowadays without broods lateish game.
And someone mentioned that fungal and colousses has same range, yeah it does, but only a tiny bit of the circel touches 9 range, to get a full fungal in you need to be at 6-7 range.
|
I feel like the future of ZvP will involve a lot of tactics that essentially wear the Protoss down to the point where the deathball they produce is much less effective than it could be. Zerg players already know just how hard it is to deal with the deathball, and so instead of dealingly with it dircectly (as another poster said) Zs will have to learn to deal with the deathball indirectly. And since the indircect correlation between Z and P in this MU is based on economy and how far the Protoss can push the limit, then Zergs will have to start punishing Protoss economically to a much greater extreme.
In the few minutes after a Protoss takes an early expansion, I think a lot of different timing windows can be exposed. The Protoss army has to be whittled down and contained completely. From there a Zerg player needs to expand and slowly accumulate the infrastructure needed to wipe out the remains of the Protoss deathball.
I've seen baneling carpet bombs and ling surrounds in the early to midgame completely annhiliate the beginnings of deathballs, and I think Zergs need to take this one step further. Small harrassments all over the map will split the P's attention (and do wonders against those who cannot adequately split their army). Not just one or two, but multiple. While doing a ling run by to the natural, nydus the main and baneling bomb the third etc...all the time. Granted this will probably take a lot of APM and ability to multitask, but if Zerg could get to the point where they punish Protoss this severely for teching up to reach the deathball, it could have great potential.
Zerg was definitely designed as the race meant to be everywhere, all the time. Mutas, creep, lings, fast mobile armies keeping the other races pinned down and contained. Originally Zergs matched the Protoss deathball with deathballs of their own (and still today), but this ruins a lot of potential of the race. Zerg units are naturally more frail and fall quickly to high DPS Protoss units such as the Collosus, but most move much more quickly and can simply evade the Protoss deathball. The greatest aspect of creep is in how quickly it allows you to return to your base and defend attacks. Once your ground forces hit the creep they are up and running.
Just some thoughts I've had in my head for awhile now. Can't wait for the players that begin to utilize a really hyper-aggressive style of play like this. I've already seen baneling bombs for awhile...so much potential.
|
Terran had their time in the light where everyone thought they were too good. Zerg had their time in the light where people had a hard time beating them. Now Protoss have their few months in the light until people figure out the new way to deal with them. So far this is the pattern, dominance until the crack in the race's armor is found. In a month or two, everyone will figure out how to deal with the Protoss before their critical mass is reached, and then another race will step up with their new dominant strat. No point in complaining about races taking over, just get to work on your theorycraft and find the crack in the armor. Eventually we'll figure it out.
|
I agree completely with the OP. Moreso after watching  Sheth's stream for a good few hours the last couple of days. It's almost embarrassing to see how little faith people have in Blizzard's ability to balance a game, especially when they were responsible for what's considered the most balanced RTS on the planet that isn't a pure mirror. If anything people should have MORE faith in them since between now and Brood War Blizzard have had years to refine their methods of balancing games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
