|
1) FYI!!! This strategy is severly lacking a cool name.
I read neo-bisu build a few pages back, and man, that made me smile and is an awesome name to boot because well... bisu rocks.
2) I won't be able to test this build until tomorrow, but it may be above my current level of ability as a high Gold protoss (although, only just swapped from Zerg and am having much more success as Toss). From what I understand, the DTs give your main army a huge dps increase and remain unattackable - the issue is taking out the overseer fast enough.
Does this build fall on its face if your micro isn't up to the level of feedbacking overseers instantly?
|
On September 02 2010 21:12 kcdc wrote:
I'm seeing a weakness where you're talking about going 2-gate, late gas, cybercore, stargate, forge, and having cannons and 2 void rays by the time Z tries a baneling bust. That's just not gonna happen.
Also, as with any 2-gate opening, you need to do damage to justify your delayed tech and slight economic loss. I've played against openings where upon scouting 2-gate, Z opens with ~2 lings into a spine crawler and ~3 roaches followed by an expansion and a couple more spine crawlers. The 2-gate will do essentially no damage and the zerg player will have been droning hard through the entire aggression. When 2-gating against this minimal but effective defense, I've found myself with literally half the income in the midgame.
I don't really understand this post. As stated in the original post, what happens at tier 1 isn't particularly important for the purposes of this build. The build predominantly concerns the tier 2 and tier 3 transitions after you have your expansion up. How you get there is up to you. I don't think that there is one good, rigid build order for tier 1 in all PvZs. The optimal build order, whether it be FE, 1-gate core, or 2-gate, is going to depend upon a number of things such as the map, proximity between bases, etc. I don't always 2-gate, and even when I do 2-gate, I often cut zealot production early to get tech going faster if I see the zerg doing something that I can exploit. It all depends.
I also think you really misunderstand what the 2-gate opening does. By opening 2-gate, you FORCE the zerg to react in certain predictable ways, such as cutting his economy to produce spine crawlers, lots of lings, or roaches. You don't even have to attack when 2-gating to hurt the zerg. Two-gating almost shuts down zerg FE builds (again, depending upon the map and proximity). That is DAMAGE to the zerg. Watch a replay and compare zerg and protoss worker counts when the protoss 2-gates and the zerg reacts. Again, that difference in workers IS DAMAGE to the zerg. This is why Blizzard is nerfing zealot buildtime. If you just robotically FE as toss every game, the zerg will FE every game as well, pump all of his larvae into drones, and create a huge macroeconomic advantage for himself that a protoss player cannot compete with. These are elementary PvZ concepts.
|
I had been thoughtcrafting a very similar build in my free time, I'm glad I found someone else had already fleshed it all out.
I would call this a "No Robo" build, throwing that in there always makes it sound even crazier!
I'd like to ask about increasing the amount of warp prism usage, particularly with DTs and chargelots, and later HTs.
When is it feasible to start the Robo and start making a couple Warp Prisms? Should we get observers afterwards just because we can? How early can this fit into the build progression?
Thanks!
|
On September 02 2010 23:06 learning wrote:
I had been thoughtcrafting a very similar build in my free time, I'm glad I found someone else had already fleshed it all out.
I would call this a "No Robo" build, throwing that in there always makes it sound even crazier!
I'd like to ask about increasing the amount of warp prism usage, particularly with DTs and chargelots, and later HTs.
When is it feasible to start the Robo and start making a couple Warp Prisms? Should we get observers afterwards just because we can? How early can this fit into the build progression?
Thanks!
Depending upon how badly you need high templar tech (which is a function of how much help you need with hydralisks), you can probably get away with starting your robo right after you start charge and your dark shrine. Gas is going to be the limiting factor.
I don't think that you really want or need the phase prism that early. Phase prism play against zerg only really starts to become good when the zerg takes his third. Then you can really abuse the distances between bases.
|
Been using a variation of the Antimage build for a while now. Instead of the colossus, I've been trying to go for HT, but the timing window for a hydralisk attack is huge, so I've been unable to pull it off. This, though, seems to be an effective way to transition from void rays to templar tech. I was already using phoenixes to some degree, but I think if I start with 2 void rays => pump phoenixes, then tech to DTs with a photon cannon or two at my natural, I should be okay to a early hydra push. Also, I'll have the void rays, which I could precharge on my nexus and handle the hydras quite well.
But then again, when I played vs Artosis, his hydralisk push came before my first colossus was out, so I'm not so sure.
|
On September 02 2010 22:47 Moreboom wrote:
2) I won't be able to test this build until tomorrow, but it may be above my current level of ability as a high Gold protoss (although, only just swapped from Zerg and am having much more success as Toss). From what I understand, the DTs give your main army a huge dps increase and remain unattackable - the issue is taking out the overseer fast enough.
Does this build fall on its face if your micro isn't up to the level of feedbacking overseers instantly?
I don't think that you need to kill the overseers "instantly," but if you're not fast enough on the trigger, yeah, you're going to have problems. You'll be relying very heavily upon the dark templar in many situations.
This is a fairly complicated and difficult build to use. I'm not sure that I'd use it if you're below diamond (you probably don't need it and would be better served by practicing your mechanics). That said, give it a whirl and see how you do with it. If you can use it and like it, fantastic.
|
On September 02 2010 23:37 Khrane wrote:
Been using a variation of the Antimage build for a while now. Instead of the colossus, I've been trying to go for HT, but the timing window for a hydralisk attack is huge, so I've been unable to pull it off. This, though, seems to be an effective way to transition from void rays to templar tech. I was already using phoenixes to some degree, but I think if I start with 2 void rays => pump phoenixes, then tech to DTs with a photon cannon or two at my natural, I should be okay to a early hydra push. Also, I'll have the void rays, which I could precharge on my nexus and handle the hydras quite well.
But then again, when I played vs Artosis, his hydralisk push came before my first colossus was out, so I'm not so sure.
Yep, cutting down that tier 3 transition period by getting the DTs out early is the whole point of this build. I'm very interested in seeing whether a player like Artosis can still abuse the Tier2/Tier3 window with hydras against a toss using this build.
|
I really do not know where this idea of corruptors allowing zerg to retake map control come from. Mutalisk damage (if you count bounce damage) actually does more dps than a corruptor to a phoenix. Corruptors are even slower than mutas so a player with phoenixes never has to fight a corruptor if he doesn't want to. And even if you do engage if they have a muta/corruptor mix, just focus down the mutas and fly away. The zerg player will have to invest a significant amount of resources to retake air dominance, and it's debatable if that is not better achieved by just making more mutas than a muta/corruptor mix.
I really do not think corruptors are the way to go if you're zerg. I'm not a zerg player nor have I ever tried this build (I usually go robo for colossi after stargate opener due to the threat of a hydra push from your T2 -> T3 transition), but I can't imagine how Infestors wouldn't throw a huge wrench in this unit composition, given equal micro among both players. It is easy to dump energy on infestors be hedge against feedback, and it is easier to fungal growth phoenixes and obliterate them w/ hydras than it is using them to pick off infestors or overseers.
Even if you can kill the infestors it's highly unlikely it can be done before the critical fungal growths hit your zealots & DTs. It's somewhat similar in PvT w/ ghosts and HT. Theoretically ghosts counter HT but it's just not feasible that you will be able to emp all of his HT before he throws down a few round of storms.
|
I had someone try this build on me (zerg) today, and I thought I'd share the results. He went zealots, I went banelings so he understandably stayed back. He went phoenix, I built a spore crawler in every expo. He went DT, my spore crawlers to counter the phoenix harass detected him and he failed miserably. He went HT and did some nice drop/warp-in harass but at this point my army was too big (ultras out).
I think since it was a new build for him his execution wasn't that great (he said so himself), but the baneling/spore crawler thing seems like a big problem. Skipping DT seems better if your opponent gets spore crawlers. I don't think the build is bad, but I also don't think you can always execute it without fail.
|
On September 03 2010 01:45 Glacius0 wrote:
I had someone try this build on me (zerg) today, and I thought I'd share the results. He went zealots, I went banelings so he understandably stayed back. He went phoenix, I built a spore crawler in every expo. He went DT, my spore crawlers to counter the phoenix harass detected him and he failed miserably. He went HT and did some nice drop/warp-in harass but at this point my army was too big (ultras out).
I think since it was a new build for him his execution wasn't that great (he said so himself), but the baneling/spore crawler thing seems like a big problem. Skipping DT seems better if your opponent gets spore crawlers. I don't think the build is bad, but I also don't think you can always execute it without fail.
A few questions about the game:
1) What did the protoss try to do with the phoenixes and DTs?
2) What was your mid-game, pre-ultra army composition? Banelings and what else?
3) Were there any battles in the open field? If so, how did those go and what were the force compositions?
|
On September 02 2010 22:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 21:12 kcdc wrote:
I'm seeing a weakness where you're talking about going 2-gate, late gas, cybercore, stargate, forge, and having cannons and 2 void rays by the time Z tries a baneling bust. That's just not gonna happen.
Also, as with any 2-gate opening, you need to do damage to justify your delayed tech and slight economic loss. I've played against openings where upon scouting 2-gate, Z opens with ~2 lings into a spine crawler and ~3 roaches followed by an expansion and a couple more spine crawlers. The 2-gate will do essentially no damage and the zerg player will have been droning hard through the entire aggression. When 2-gating against this minimal but effective defense, I've found myself with literally half the income in the midgame. I don't really understand this post. As stated in the original post, what happens at tier 1 isn't particularly important for the purposes of this build. The build predominantly concerns the tier 2 and tier 3 transitions after you have your expansion up. How you get there is up to you. I don't think that there is one good, rigid build order for tier 1 in all PvZs. The optimal build order, whether it be FE, 1-gate core, or 2-gate, is going to depend upon a number of things such as the map, proximity between bases, etc. I don't always 2-gate, and even when I do 2-gate, I often cut zealot production early to get tech going faster if I see the zerg doing something that I can exploit. It all depends. I also think you really misunderstand what the 2-gate opening does. By opening 2-gate, you FORCE the zerg to react in certain predictable ways, such as cutting his economy to produce spine crawlers, lots of lings, or roaches. You don't even have to attack when 2-gating to hurt the zerg. Two-gating almost shuts down zerg FE builds (again, depending upon the map and proximity). That is DAMAGE to the zerg. Watch a replay and compare zerg and protoss worker counts when the protoss 2-gates and the zerg reacts. Again, that difference in workers IS DAMAGE to the zerg. This is why Blizzard is nerfing zealot buildtime. If you just robotically FE as toss every game, the zerg will FE every game as well, pump all of his larvae into drones, and create a huge macroeconomic advantage for himself that a protoss player cannot compete with. These are elementary PvZ concepts.
Ok....we disagree about what 2-gating forces from Z....Your reply makes it sound like you believe a 2-gating P will always be able to get a worker advantage against Z and will always be able to prevent a FE. I strongly disagree, but like you said, this threadis more about the tech progression from phoenixes to DTs to HTs, and is not the place for a discussion about 2-gating vs Z. For purposes of discussing your proprosed tech progression, we'll hopefully be able to agree that it's possible for Zerg to enter the mid-game on at least equal ground against any Protoss opening.
As for that tech progression, against a Z with equal economy, I think there are more efficient ways to go. I'd skip the DT's in favor of earlier and more HT's honestly. You're winning because you've been able to (1) secure an economic lead in the early game, and (2) eliminate Z's detection. You can't count on #1, however, because a 2-gate does not ensure an economic lead against a capable Zer player. As for #2, feedbacking overseers will work a lot on ladder, but it's not a permanent solution since the Zerg player can easily drain their energy. Then you're stuck blinking into a force of zerglings, roaches and hydras trying to snipe overseers....and you will lose even-resource fights. Z needs to spend 200/200 on detection, but you have phoenixes which aren't shooting anything and stalkers and DT's that aren't cost-efficient in a straight up fight.
Anyway, using phoenixes to corral Z toward hydras instead of mutas is a viable idea. I find that blink stalkers deal with mutas decently enough, and phoenixes aren't particularly useful beyond discouraging mutas, so I prefer not to make that investment. It's a matter of preference tho--early phoenixes definitely can be good.
The big problems with this build are (1) you're assuming that 2-gating will grant you an economic lead, and (2) your army isn't cost-efficient if Z can keep detection. It's still a decent build that will work well on ladder up to a point. It's just not quite stable.
|
Wont the new patch mess up this build since it will make 2 gate pushes much slower?
Maybe adjust it to a FE...
|
On September 03 2010 02:14 kcdc wrote:The big problems with this build are (1) you're assuming that 2-gating will grant you an economic lead, and (2) your army isn't cost-efficient if Z can keep detection. It's still a decent build that will work well on ladder up to a point. It's just not quite stable.
I don't really see how this army is not cost-efficient. Phoenix/Zealot is already efficient against Muta/Ling. Overseer with Speed (which they'll likely want so they can be mobile) is already 250/200 compared to a Dark Shrine's 100/250.
You could screw it up by building too many DT's, but that's on you as they have to respond to the threat of DT's, whereas you only have to respond to the reality of detection.
|
On September 03 2010 01:24 Skyro wrote:
I really do not know where this idea of corruptors allowing zerg to retake map control come from. Mutalisk damage (if you count bounce damage) actually does more dps than a corruptor to a phoenix. Corruptors are even slower than mutas so a player with phoenixes never has to fight a corruptor if he doesn't want to. And even if you do engage if they have a muta/corruptor mix, just focus down the mutas and fly away. The zerg player will have to invest a significant amount of resources to retake air dominance, and it's debatable if that is not better achieved by just making more mutas than a muta/corruptor mix.
I really do not think corruptors are the way to go if you're zerg. I'm not a zerg player nor have I ever tried this build (I usually go robo for colossi after stargate opener due to the threat of a hydra push from your T2 -> T3 transition), but I can't imagine how Infestors wouldn't throw a huge wrench in this unit composition, given equal micro among both players. It is easy to dump energy on infestors be hedge against feedback, and it is easier to fungal growth phoenixes and obliterate them w/ hydras than it is using them to pick off infestors or overseers.
Even if you can kill the infestors it's highly unlikely it can be done before the critical fungal growths hit your zealots & DTs. It's somewhat similar in PvT w/ ghosts and HT. Theoretically ghosts counter HT but it's just not feasible that you will be able to emp all of his HT before he throws down a few round of storms.
Even if corruptors have worse DPS than mutas against phoenixes, phoenixes' dps is EVEN WORSE vs corruptors because of their base armor of 2, which reduces phoenix damage to 6 per volley of 2 shots. That's terrible. On top of that, corruptors have 80 more hp than mutas AND outrange phoenixes by 2. The point of the corruptors is not to kill the phoenixes, although they can certainly do that if the protoss player decides to engage, but to protect the muta numbers while they grow to critical mass or protect your air while massing up some ground unit. If the protoss doesn't engage with the phoenixes, voila, you have air control which was the goal of building the corruptors in the first place. You aren't a zerg player and have never tried the build...but you don't think corruptors are the way to go :/
TBH against P that 1gate/2gate stargate, I almost never build hydras, because I know if I do I'm just falling into the tech path that the protoss player wants to take. I've had success with massing roach on 2 bases and then attacking before the colossus numbers get above 2, or before HTs can really start coming onto the field seriously.
|
When do you add your Robo for this?
|
On September 03 2010 02:14 kcdc wrote:
For purposes of discussing your proprosed tech progression, we'll hopefully be able to agree that it's possible for Zerg to enter the mid-game on at least equal ground against any Protoss opening.
Yes, I agree with this, and depending upon the map, I believe that it is inevitable.
On September 03 2010 02:14 kcdc wrote:
As for that tech progression, against a Z with equal economy, I think there are more efficient ways to go. I'd skip the DT's in favor of earlier and more HT's honestly. You're winning because you've been able to (1) secure an economic lead in the early game, and (2) eliminate Z's detection. You can't count on #1, however, because a 2-gate does not ensure an economic lead against a capable Zer player. As for #2, feedbacking overseers will work a lot on ladder, but it's not a permanent solution since the Zerg player can easily drain their energy. Then you're stuck blinking into a force of zerglings, roaches and hydras trying to snipe overseers....and you will lose even-resource fights. Z needs to spend 200/200 on detection, but you have phoenixes which aren't shooting anything and stalkers and DT's that aren't cost-efficient in a straight up fight.
....
The big problems with this build are (1) you're assuming that 2-gating will grant you an economic lead, and (2) your army isn't cost-efficient if Z can keep detection. It's still a decent build that will work well on ladder up to a point. It's just not quite stable.
Ok, I disagree that the build is dependent upon securing an economic lead at tier 1. Even though I have the larger economy in most of the replays, the zerg, at one point in each of those games, has a larger army than I do when we engage in the mid game because I have been pumping workers and he has been cutting drones.
I also disagree that the build is dependent upon feedbacking overseers. I wouldn't introduce a build that is founded entirely upon a gimmick such as that. Is the build dependent upon killing overseers? Yes, and especially before you get your high templar on the field. Phoenixes, feedback, stalkers, and sentries all contribute to killing the overseers. If you watch some of the replays, a lot of battles are fought when dark templar and phoenixes are on the field but high templar are not.
I also think that you're missing the point of getting the dark templar before high templar. The point is to get a force out onto the field that can be aggressive against the zerg quicker. This eases the transition from tier 2 into tier 3, which is usually very time- and resource-intensive. It is during this transition period that zerg's usually are able to either take extra bases or put a lot of pressure on the protoss. The whole point of the build is to eliminate this period. I absolutely agree that high templar are better unit to have in the long run, which is why I advocate getting them ASAP after the dark templar are up.
I strongly suggest that you give the build a few tries to see how it works. Again, it's complicated, and some of the dynamics aren't obvious.
|
On September 03 2010 02:40 ThatsNoMoon wrote:
Wont the new patch mess up this build since it will make 2 gate pushes much slower?
Maybe adjust it to a FE...
The new patch will mess up 2-gating. But this build doesn't require 2-gating to work, so the patch won't effect it.
|
On September 03 2010 03:00 sooch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 01:24 Skyro wrote:
I really do not know where this idea of corruptors allowing zerg to retake map control come from. Mutalisk damage (if you count bounce damage) actually does more dps than a corruptor to a phoenix. Corruptors are even slower than mutas so a player with phoenixes never has to fight a corruptor if he doesn't want to. And even if you do engage if they have a muta/corruptor mix, just focus down the mutas and fly away. The zerg player will have to invest a significant amount of resources to retake air dominance, and it's debatable if that is not better achieved by just making more mutas than a muta/corruptor mix.
I really do not think corruptors are the way to go if you're zerg. I'm not a zerg player nor have I ever tried this build (I usually go robo for colossi after stargate opener due to the threat of a hydra push from your T2 -> T3 transition), but I can't imagine how Infestors wouldn't throw a huge wrench in this unit composition, given equal micro among both players. It is easy to dump energy on infestors be hedge against feedback, and it is easier to fungal growth phoenixes and obliterate them w/ hydras than it is using them to pick off infestors or overseers.
Even if you can kill the infestors it's highly unlikely it can be done before the critical fungal growths hit your zealots & DTs. It's somewhat similar in PvT w/ ghosts and HT. Theoretically ghosts counter HT but it's just not feasible that you will be able to emp all of his HT before he throws down a few round of storms. Even if corruptors have worse DPS than mutas against phoenixes, phoenixes' dps is EVEN WORSE vs corruptors because of their base armor of 2, which reduces phoenix damage to 6 per volley of 2 shots. That's terrible. On top of that, corruptors have 80 more hp than mutas AND outrange phoenixes by 2. The point of the corruptors is not to kill the phoenixes, although they can certainly do that if the protoss player decides to engage, but to protect the muta numbers while they grow to critical mass or protect your air while massing up some ground unit. If the protoss doesn't engage with the phoenixes, voila, you have air control which was the goal of building the corruptors in the first place. You aren't a zerg player and have never tried the build...but you don't think corruptors are the way to go :/ TBH against P that 1gate/2gate stargate, I almost never build hydras, because I know if I do I'm just falling into the tech path that the protoss player wants to take. I've had success with massing roach on 2 bases and then attacking before the colossus numbers get above 2, or before HTs can really start coming onto the field seriously.
I think you don't understand what I'm trying to say. What forces a protoss player to attack your corruptors with phoenixes? Nothing. You can literally come in with your phoenix force, focus down the mutas, and fly away. Now you have a useless corruptor army floating around doing nothing, while I likely have a superior ground army stomping your base. Corruptors also only have a marginal effect in preventing phoenixes kiting your mutas because corruptors are slower than mutas. This, along with the fact protoss usually uses a combination of phoenix and stalkers (who corruptors are useless against) in response to mutas, is why I said it is debatable whether corruptors are even worth it if your goal is muta harass and air dominance vs phoenixes. If a protoss player is stupid enough to engage with his phoenixes w/o stalker and sentry report, don't micro at all, and focus fire your corruptors instead of mutas, then yes corruptors would be worth it in that scenario. I somehow doubt that is a safe bet however.
I am not a zerg player and have never tried the build as I've stated, but I also did state I often go with a stargate opener into phoenixes when I FE on certain maps and I was strictly talking about the mid-game aka T2 time period which would be exactly the same T2 as this build. I diverge in T3 where I choose to go robo rather than templar tech, usually because the appearance of phoenixes often causes zerg to go hydras, and causes a slower transition into corruptors. This would actually be a case where I wouldn't go for colossi since there would already be a lot of corruptors on the field. So I can say from experience corruptors do not do much for zerg in this particular scenario.
I suppose there is some benefit in corruptors in that they help with a transition in broodlords or hedge against colossi (though a protoss player could easily go templar tech since he'll see your corruptors in T2), but I was just countering the point that a few corruptors in T2/mid-game somehow magically makes zerg regain air dominance and enhances muta harass against phoenixes, which I point out is clearly not the case.
|
On September 02 2010 21:12 kcdc wrote:
I'm seeing a weakness where you're talking about going 2-gate, late gas, cybercore, stargate, forge, and having cannons and 2 void rays by the time Z tries a baneling bust. That's just not gonna happen.
Also, as with any 2-gate opening, you need to do damage to justify your delayed tech and slight economic loss. I've played against openings where upon scouting 2-gate, Z opens with ~2 lings into a spine crawler and ~3 roaches followed by an expansion and a couple more spine crawlers. The 2-gate will do essentially no damage and the zerg player will have been droning hard through the entire aggression. When 2-gating against this minimal but effective defense, I've found myself with literally half the income in the midgame.
maybe i get this wrong but:
protoss: 5 zealots = 500 minerals + slight(!) eco damage
zerg: 2lings = 50minerals, 3 roach = 225minerals + 75 gas, 1 spinecrawler = 150minerals.
that are 425 minerals, 75 gas + the loss of larvae and it gets much worse for z the more spinecrawler he builds. zerg also gets a eco loss!
seems like an equal "loss"
you also dont need to suicide your 5 zealots, just back up if he has >1 spinecrawler and your just fine
|
On September 03 2010 03:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 02:14 kcdc wrote:
For purposes of discussing your proprosed tech progression, we'll hopefully be able to agree that it's possible for Zerg to enter the mid-game on at least equal ground against any Protoss opening.
Yes, I agree with this, and depending upon the map, I believe that it is inevitable. Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 02:14 kcdc wrote:
As for that tech progression, against a Z with equal economy, I think there are more efficient ways to go. I'd skip the DT's in favor of earlier and more HT's honestly. You're winning because you've been able to (1) secure an economic lead in the early game, and (2) eliminate Z's detection. You can't count on #1, however, because a 2-gate does not ensure an economic lead against a capable Zer player. As for #2, feedbacking overseers will work a lot on ladder, but it's not a permanent solution since the Zerg player can easily drain their energy. Then you're stuck blinking into a force of zerglings, roaches and hydras trying to snipe overseers....and you will lose even-resource fights. Z needs to spend 200/200 on detection, but you have phoenixes which aren't shooting anything and stalkers and DT's that aren't cost-efficient in a straight up fight.
....
The big problems with this build are (1) you're assuming that 2-gating will grant you an economic lead, and (2) your army isn't cost-efficient if Z can keep detection. It's still a decent build that will work well on ladder up to a point. It's just not quite stable. Ok, I disagree that the build is dependent upon securing an economic lead at tier 1. Even though I have the larger economy in most of the replays, the zerg, at one point in each of those games, has a larger army than I do when we engage in the mid game because I have been pumping workers and he has been cutting drones. I also disagree that the build is dependent upon feedbacking overseers. I wouldn't introduce a build that is founded entirely upon a gimmick such as that. Is the build dependent upon killing overseers? Yes, and especially before you get your high templar on the field. Phoenixes, feedback, stalkers, and sentries all contribute to killing the overseers. If you watch some of the replays, a lot of battles are fought when dark templar and phoenixes are on the field but high templar are not. I also think that you're missing the point of getting the dark templar before high templar. The point is to get a force out onto the field that can be aggressive against the zerg quicker. This eases the transition from tier 2 into tier 3, which is usually very time- and resource-intensive. It is during this transition period that zerg's usually are able to either take extra bases or put a lot of pressure on the protoss. The whole point of the build is to eliminate this period. I absolutely agree that high templar are better unit to have in the long run, which is why I advocate getting them ASAP after the dark templar are up. I strongly suggest that you give the build a few tries to see how it works. Again, it's complicated, and some of the dynamics aren't obvious.
I agree that there's a critical time window where Z has enough hydra/roach to beat your gateway units and you don't have storm yet that Z can exploit. DT's are a reasonable way to try to maintain map control during this window. Particularly on big maps where Z won't be able to spread creep so that hydras can effectively defend overseers, DT's could be good. Still, it costs 500 gas to get two DT's, and it's possible (though difficult) to make those DT's effectively expensive zealots. If you skip the DTs, you'll have storm a minute and a half earlier.
I'm also can't buy that zealot/stalker/sentry/phoenix/DT beats roach/hydra/overseer for cost if the overseers are controlled well. Roaches and hydras are simply more cost efficient then every P unit on the field as long as there's detection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
