|
On November 15 2008 10:45 simon311A wrote:
Two zerglings take just about as much to shoot down as a hydra. So what are you saying, that the hydras take the damage, while lings stream in to destroy the ensnared army? Problem with that is that if you had 2 lings to take the damage instead of the hydra, it would buy you just as much time, but actually give you some offensive power.
If you left out the hydra, and replaced it with more lings, that would allow the terran to overcompensate his firebat count. He wont have to deal with hydra, and can deal with more lings quite effectively. What I notice is that once the hydra are upgraded, and made in mass, its really hard to stop with just m&m. You pretty much have to have 2 factories to push the middle. If you cannot push the middle, you are gonna lose to pure macro hydraling without much effort.
Personally, I think a nice addition to the strat is to have 4-5 lurker as well. Scout his terran army, and when he pushes out towards your nat or expo , burrow the 4-5 lurker behind his forces. When you engage him with hydraling + ensnare, odds are he is gonna panic and try and move back for better positioning. Basically, he will walk right into your lurkers.
|
On November 15 2008 10:45 simon311A wrote:
Two zerglings take just about as much to shoot down as a hydra. So what are you saying, that the hydras take the damage, while lings stream in to destroy the ensnared army? Problem with that is that if you had 2 lings to take the damage instead of the hydra, it would buy you just as much time, but actually give you some offensive power.
Two lings are going to melt long before a hydralisk will i would think. And they do the same amount of damage to a marine as a zergling does..Though i think you can focus down (like dragoon micro) with hydralisks also.
EDIT : Hydralisks also used to be in alot of old ZvT's i watched.
|
On November 15 2008 10:52 Wala.Revolution wrote:
You assume those lings would be attacking 100% of the time AND that it would be 1v1 fight with the marines. Hydras have range, hence they take less damage because less marines' guns can reach them; therefore, lings might not do any damage at all as they have to REACH their target, but often, they die before.
400 lings=/=2000 damage per cycle. That doesn't mean hydras do 2000 damage per cycle, but much more than lings. (unupgraded)
If you had any amount of lings in your army, the entire terran ball would be firing. Once those lings die, you have nothing to do damage anymore.
Another thing to consider is that you'll be needing more larva to make these useless hydras.
On November 15 2008 10:56 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2008 10:45 simon311A wrote:
Two zerglings take just about as much to shoot down as a hydra. So what are you saying, that the hydras take the damage, while lings stream in to destroy the ensnared army? Problem with that is that if you had 2 lings to take the damage instead of the hydra, it would buy you just as much time, but actually give you some offensive power. Two lings are going to melt long before a hydralisk will i would think. And they do the same amount of damage to a marine as a zergling does..Though i think you can focus down (like dragoon micro) with hydralisks also. EDIT : Hydralisks also used to be in alot of old ZvT's i watched.
2 lings = 70 hp : 50 minerals
hydra = 80 hp : 75 minerals 25 gas
2 lings = 10 damage with cooldown 8
hydra = 5 damage with cooldown 15
4x damage
Of course I realize that these numbers don't mean anything if the lings can't get near the marines, but my point is that hydras do not allow you to do this since they do not increase the total longevity of your army.
|
On November 15 2008 11:02 simon311A wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2008 10:52 Wala.Revolution wrote:
You assume those lings would be attacking 100% of the time AND that it would be 1v1 fight with the marines. Hydras have range, hence they take less damage because less marines' guns can reach them; therefore, lings might not do any damage at all as they have to REACH their target, but often, they die before.
400 lings=/=2000 damage per cycle. That doesn't mean hydras do 2000 damage per cycle, but much more than lings. (unupgraded) If you had any amount of lings in your army, the entire terran ball would be firing. Once those lings die, you have nothing to do damage anymore. Another thing to consider is that you'll be needing more larva to make these useless hydras. Show nested quote +On November 15 2008 10:56 arb wrote:On November 15 2008 10:45 simon311A wrote:
Two zerglings take just about as much to shoot down as a hydra. So what are you saying, that the hydras take the damage, while lings stream in to destroy the ensnared army? Problem with that is that if you had 2 lings to take the damage instead of the hydra, it would buy you just as much time, but actually give you some offensive power. Two lings are going to melt long before a hydralisk will i would think. And they do the same amount of damage to a marine as a zergling does..Though i think you can focus down (like dragoon micro) with hydralisks also. EDIT : Hydralisks also used to be in alot of old ZvT's i watched. 2 lings = 70 hp : 50 minerals hydra = 80 hp : 75 minerals 25 gas 2 lings = 10 damage with cooldown 8 hydra = 5 damage with cooldown 15 4x damage Of course I realize that these numbers don't mean anything if the lings can't get near the marines, but my point is that hydras do not allow you to do this since they do not increase the total longevity of your army.
How often have you tried this opening? I play terran and I can tell you from fact that 3-3 hydra ling armies are not useless, and can be REALLY hard to beat.They don't just melt like you think. You keep stating that hydras are useless, which only goes on to show that you don't really grasp alot of zvt concepts. Why not play with the strat 20-30 times, and make an educated decision, rather than just shoot it off as useless without any decent information backing you up.
|
On November 15 2008 11:37 eXigent. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2008 11:02 simon311A wrote:On November 15 2008 10:52 Wala.Revolution wrote:
You assume those lings would be attacking 100% of the time AND that it would be 1v1 fight with the marines. Hydras have range, hence they take less damage because less marines' guns can reach them; therefore, lings might not do any damage at all as they have to REACH their target, but often, they die before.
400 lings=/=2000 damage per cycle. That doesn't mean hydras do 2000 damage per cycle, but much more than lings. (unupgraded) If you had any amount of lings in your army, the entire terran ball would be firing. Once those lings die, you have nothing to do damage anymore. Another thing to consider is that you'll be needing more larva to make these useless hydras. On November 15 2008 10:56 arb wrote:On November 15 2008 10:45 simon311A wrote:
Two zerglings take just about as much to shoot down as a hydra. So what are you saying, that the hydras take the damage, while lings stream in to destroy the ensnared army? Problem with that is that if you had 2 lings to take the damage instead of the hydra, it would buy you just as much time, but actually give you some offensive power. Two lings are going to melt long before a hydralisk will i would think. And they do the same amount of damage to a marine as a zergling does..Though i think you can focus down (like dragoon micro) with hydralisks also. EDIT : Hydralisks also used to be in alot of old ZvT's i watched. 2 lings = 70 hp : 50 minerals hydra = 80 hp : 75 minerals 25 gas 2 lings = 10 damage with cooldown 8 hydra = 5 damage with cooldown 15 4x damage Of course I realize that these numbers don't mean anything if the lings can't get near the marines, but my point is that hydras do not allow you to do this since they do not increase the total longevity of your army. How often have you tried this opening? I play terran and I can tell you from fact that 3-3 hydra ling armies are not useless, and can be REALLY hard to beat.They don't just melt like you think. You keep stating that hydras are useless, which only goes on to show that you don't really grasp alot of zvt concepts. Why not play with the strat 20-30 times, and make an educated decision, rather than just shoot it off as useless without any decent information backing you up.
No thanks, I'd rather dismiss ridiculous statements right off the bat instead of wasting my time testing it. I don't even play Terran.
Hey, don't dismiss my stargate first PvP opening without testing it 20-30 times, see something wrong there?
Anyway, back on topic,
by the time you have 3-3, you should be doing ultra ling + swarm/plague, there is no better unit combination for zerg vs mnm, tanks, and vessels. I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is on you to show that hydras aren't completely useless, when every calculation, every way of looking at them, results in failure.
|
United States17042 Posts
I think that more important than the damage numbers/soaking ability/mobility (they don't get in the way of lings) is the fact that hydra are both larger than lings, and have range.
range lets you micro, which lets you force your units to be more effective.
the larger than lings is a lot better- the fact is that hydra are basically there to snipe the firebats. Firebats, even when ensnared do line splash damage, which kills the lings like no problem. sniping the firebats with hydra makes killing the T ball much easier.
|
On November 15 2008 13:21 waterGHOSTCLAWdragon wrote:
I think that more important than the damage numbers/soaking ability/mobility (they don't get in the way of lings) is the fact that hydra are both larger than lings, and have range.
range lets you micro, which lets you force your units to be more effective.
the larger than lings is a lot better- the fact is that hydra are basically there to snipe the firebats. Firebats, even when ensnared do line splash damage, which kills the lings like no problem. sniping the firebats with hydra makes killing the T ball much easier.
The marines will still shred lings apart without firebats though. Not only that, but sniping a bat takes 12 hydra hits. And sure hydras can fire from behind the lings, so can lurkers.
|
On November 15 2008 12:59 simon311A wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2008 11:37 eXigent. wrote:On November 15 2008 11:02 simon311A wrote:On November 15 2008 10:52 Wala.Revolution wrote:
You assume those lings would be attacking 100% of the time AND that it would be 1v1 fight with the marines. Hydras have range, hence they take less damage because less marines' guns can reach them; therefore, lings might not do any damage at all as they have to REACH their target, but often, they die before.
400 lings=/=2000 damage per cycle. That doesn't mean hydras do 2000 damage per cycle, but much more than lings. (unupgraded) If you had any amount of lings in your army, the entire terran ball would be firing. Once those lings die, you have nothing to do damage anymore. Another thing to consider is that you'll be needing more larva to make these useless hydras. On November 15 2008 10:56 arb wrote:On November 15 2008 10:45 simon311A wrote:
Two zerglings take just about as much to shoot down as a hydra. So what are you saying, that the hydras take the damage, while lings stream in to destroy the ensnared army? Problem with that is that if you had 2 lings to take the damage instead of the hydra, it would buy you just as much time, but actually give you some offensive power. Two lings are going to melt long before a hydralisk will i would think. And they do the same amount of damage to a marine as a zergling does..Though i think you can focus down (like dragoon micro) with hydralisks also. EDIT : Hydralisks also used to be in alot of old ZvT's i watched. 2 lings = 70 hp : 50 minerals hydra = 80 hp : 75 minerals 25 gas 2 lings = 10 damage with cooldown 8 hydra = 5 damage with cooldown 15 4x damage Of course I realize that these numbers don't mean anything if the lings can't get near the marines, but my point is that hydras do not allow you to do this since they do not increase the total longevity of your army. How often have you tried this opening? I play terran and I can tell you from fact that 3-3 hydra ling armies are not useless, and can be REALLY hard to beat.They don't just melt like you think. You keep stating that hydras are useless, which only goes on to show that you don't really grasp alot of zvt concepts. Why not play with the strat 20-30 times, and make an educated decision, rather than just shoot it off as useless without any decent information backing you up. No thanks, I'd rather dismiss ridiculous statements right off the bat instead of wasting my time testing it. I don't even play Terran. Hey, don't dismiss my stargate first PvP opening without testing it 20-30 times, see something wrong there? Anyway, back on topic, by the time you have 3-3, you should be doing ultra ling + swarm/plague, there is no better unit combination for zerg vs mnm, tanks, and vessels. I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is on you to show that hydras aren't completely useless, when every calculation, every way of looking at them, results in failure.
First off, your post is pretty weak. It's not a ridicilous statement, and it has been used at the progamer level (not this hydra / ling / ensnare build). You don't play terran, so obviously you just admitted that you don't know what you are talking about but rather just blindly making statements based on your inexperience.
Next, the difference between opening stargate first PvP, and opening 12hatch hydra ling queen, is that 1 is viable, 1 is just made up so you could troll my post. A stargate opening is obviously a bad idea, and I wouldn't be debating its usability. A 12hatch opening is standard, and allows you to transition in this build. You're trolling and its pointless.
Lastly, you are not looking at the strategy for what it is. You are utilizing the fact that a zerg can pound for pound out produce a terran player. So, the idea is to use massive amounts of hydra ling, COMBINED WITH ENSNARE. The point being, ensnare negates stim, as well as movement of both marines and medics. So basically, a terran stims his marines as he is being flanked by LARGE amounts of units. His now stimmed marines are ensnared, which makes stim alot less useful. So they all have 1 health bar missing, and stim is not helping nearly as much as it normally should. Medics are ensnared, so moving around and healing a large group of marines is more time consuming. Ensnare is the point of this build, as it creates an equal playing ground for a hydra ling army.
The strategy transitions into ultra swarm late game, like a normal zerg player would do. Your agrument that 5/3 ultras with swarm are stronger is correct. No one is debating that. The goal of the build is to transition to hive with ultra swarm tech late game like normal, the only change is that rather than a typical muta or lurker opening, hydra/ling/ensnare could be used to the same effect. It can create wins just like any other opening, and allows enough map control to transition properly into hive tech.
There has already been a replay posted of a C+ zerg using the strategy, and his thoughts about it. I don't see why I would have to "prove" that its viable, when someone has already gone ahead and posted a replay. Did you watch it? Now if you want me to post games where hydras are used against terran in general. I could do that too.
|
On November 15 2008 13:46 eXigent. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2008 12:59 simon311A wrote:On November 15 2008 11:37 eXigent. wrote:On November 15 2008 11:02 simon311A wrote:On November 15 2008 10:52 Wala.Revolution wrote:
You assume those lings would be attacking 100% of the time AND that it would be 1v1 fight with the marines. Hydras have range, hence they take less damage because less marines' guns can reach them; therefore, lings might not do any damage at all as they have to REACH their target, but often, they die before.
400 lings=/=2000 damage per cycle. That doesn't mean hydras do 2000 damage per cycle, but much more than lings. (unupgraded) If you had any amount of lings in your army, the entire terran ball would be firing. Once those lings die, you have nothing to do damage anymore. Another thing to consider is that you'll be needing more larva to make these useless hydras. On November 15 2008 10:56 arb wrote:On November 15 2008 10:45 simon311A wrote:
Two zerglings take just about as much to shoot down as a hydra. So what are you saying, that the hydras take the damage, while lings stream in to destroy the ensnared army? Problem with that is that if you had 2 lings to take the damage instead of the hydra, it would buy you just as much time, but actually give you some offensive power. Two lings are going to melt long before a hydralisk will i would think. And they do the same amount of damage to a marine as a zergling does..Though i think you can focus down (like dragoon micro) with hydralisks also. EDIT : Hydralisks also used to be in alot of old ZvT's i watched. 2 lings = 70 hp : 50 minerals hydra = 80 hp : 75 minerals 25 gas 2 lings = 10 damage with cooldown 8 hydra = 5 damage with cooldown 15 4x damage Of course I realize that these numbers don't mean anything if the lings can't get near the marines, but my point is that hydras do not allow you to do this since they do not increase the total longevity of your army. How often have you tried this opening? I play terran and I can tell you from fact that 3-3 hydra ling armies are not useless, and can be REALLY hard to beat.They don't just melt like you think. You keep stating that hydras are useless, which only goes on to show that you don't really grasp alot of zvt concepts. Why not play with the strat 20-30 times, and make an educated decision, rather than just shoot it off as useless without any decent information backing you up. No thanks, I'd rather dismiss ridiculous statements right off the bat instead of wasting my time testing it. I don't even play Terran. Hey, don't dismiss my stargate first PvP opening without testing it 20-30 times, see something wrong there? Anyway, back on topic, by the time you have 3-3, you should be doing ultra ling + swarm/plague, there is no better unit combination for zerg vs mnm, tanks, and vessels. I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is on you to show that hydras aren't completely useless, when every calculation, every way of looking at them, results in failure. First off, your post is pretty weak. It's not a ridicilous statement, and it has been used at the progamer level (not this hydra / ling / ensnare build). You don't play terran, so obviously you just admitted that you don't know what you are talking about but rather just blindly making statements based on your inexperience. Next, the difference between opening stargate first PvP, and opening 12hatch hydra ling queen, is that 1 is viable, 1 is just made up so you could troll my post. A stargate opening is obviously a bad idea, and I wouldn't be debating its usability. A 12hatch opening is standard, and allows you to transition in this build. You're trolling and its pointless. Lastly, you are not looking at the strategy for what it is. You are utilizing the fact that a zerg can pound for pound out produce a terran player. So, the idea is to use massive amounts of hydra ling, COMBINED WITH ENSNARE. The point being, ensnare negates stim, as well as movement of both marines and medics. So basically, a terran stims his marines as he is being flanked by LARGE amounts of units. His now stimmed marines are ensnared, which makes stim alot less useful. So they all have 1 health bar missing, and stim is not helping nearly as much as it normally should. Medics are ensnared, so moving around and healing a large group of marines is more time consuming. Ensnare is the point of this build, as it creates an equal playing ground for a hydra ling army. The strategy transitions into ultra swarm late game, like a normal zerg player would do. Your agrument that 5/3 ultras with swarm are stronger is correct. No one is debating that. The goal of the build is to transition to hive with ultra swarm tech late game like normal, the only change is that rather than a typical muta or lurker opening, hydra/ling/ensnare could be used to the same effect. It can create wins just like any other opening, and allows enough map control to transition properly into hive tech. There has already been a replay posted of a C+ zerg using the strategy, and his thoughts about it. I don't see why I would have to "prove" that its viable, when someone has already gone ahead and posted a replay. Did you watch it? Now if you want me to post games where hydras are used against terran in general. I could do that too.
I never argued against the viability of ensnare, it was used very well in the replay. However, what makes no sense to me are these lines:
'So, the idea is to use massive amounts of hydra ling, COMBINED WITH ENSNARE.'
'Ensnare is the point of this build, as it creates an equal playing ground for a hydra ling army. '
Why is it that you want to use hydraling? I understand the gas limitations, but as I've said, I believe lurkers, just a fewer number of them, would work far better. Instead of using ensnare to equal a playing ground, why not use it to take an even playing ground and tip it to your favor? Hydraling has minimal surprise factor; the terran barely has to adjust.
In the replay, I think the Terran didn't have range for the first encounter with the hydralisks. As I stated, just because the marines in the back cannot fire at the hydralisks does not mean they cannot fire at the real damage dealers. And once the lings were gone, the hydras weak firepower showed.
There are two issues being lumped into one here. Use of ensnare, and use of hydras. Queens don't benefit hydralisks any more than other units. In fact, I would say queens would be even more effective used with lurkers.
Don't let the fact that I do not believe this is viable at all dissuade you from experimenting, I am just explaining what seems to me a huge flaw in the entire premise (the arbitrary lumping of two unrelated ideas). That replay far from convinced me of the use of hydras.
And if you have replays of hydras being used effectively in zvt, sure, post them.
|
So glad we have another person with a jihad going crazy in this thread. Of course, simon311A is an expert on this build, having never played it and also admits that he doesn't play T. I have more reps, of course not at the highest level of play, but i hope that it can show a few things.
Also simon311A please explain to me how your going to support luker play, with queen play on 2 and then later 3 gas with upgrades? Not to mention the fact that if you go 3 hatch lurker, you would be giving up map control and most likely get contained. If you decide to go for muta- that is even more gas, so really I am confused by your statements.
I would love to hear how a gosu like you does it. Do you have perfect hold lurker? Micro? Do you magically know where the terran is going, and have your lurkers ready in advance?
Reps:
http://www.mediafire.com/?rnmndhjifyn
http://www.mediafire.com/?ommnyozgnmj
|
On November 15 2008 14:29 simon311A wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2008 13:46 eXigent. wrote:On November 15 2008 12:59 simon311A wrote:On November 15 2008 11:37 eXigent. wrote:On November 15 2008 11:02 simon311A wrote:On November 15 2008 10:52 Wala.Revolution wrote:
You assume those lings would be attacking 100% of the time AND that it would be 1v1 fight with the marines. Hydras have range, hence they take less damage because less marines' guns can reach them; therefore, lings might not do any damage at all as they have to REACH their target, but often, they die before.
400 lings=/=2000 damage per cycle. That doesn't mean hydras do 2000 damage per cycle, but much more than lings. (unupgraded) If you had any amount of lings in your army, the entire terran ball would be firing. Once those lings die, you have nothing to do damage anymore. Another thing to consider is that you'll be needing more larva to make these useless hydras. On November 15 2008 10:56 arb wrote:On November 15 2008 10:45 simon311A wrote:
Two zerglings take just about as much to shoot down as a hydra. So what are you saying, that the hydras take the damage, while lings stream in to destroy the ensnared army? Problem with that is that if you had 2 lings to take the damage instead of the hydra, it would buy you just as much time, but actually give you some offensive power. Two lings are going to melt long before a hydralisk will i would think. And they do the same amount of damage to a marine as a zergling does..Though i think you can focus down (like dragoon micro) with hydralisks also. EDIT : Hydralisks also used to be in alot of old ZvT's i watched. 2 lings = 70 hp : 50 minerals hydra = 80 hp : 75 minerals 25 gas 2 lings = 10 damage with cooldown 8 hydra = 5 damage with cooldown 15 4x damage Of course I realize that these numbers don't mean anything if the lings can't get near the marines, but my point is that hydras do not allow you to do this since they do not increase the total longevity of your army. How often have you tried this opening? I play terran and I can tell you from fact that 3-3 hydra ling armies are not useless, and can be REALLY hard to beat.They don't just melt like you think. You keep stating that hydras are useless, which only goes on to show that you don't really grasp alot of zvt concepts. Why not play with the strat 20-30 times, and make an educated decision, rather than just shoot it off as useless without any decent information backing you up. No thanks, I'd rather dismiss ridiculous statements right off the bat instead of wasting my time testing it. I don't even play Terran. Hey, don't dismiss my stargate first PvP opening without testing it 20-30 times, see something wrong there? Anyway, back on topic, by the time you have 3-3, you should be doing ultra ling + swarm/plague, there is no better unit combination for zerg vs mnm, tanks, and vessels. I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is on you to show that hydras aren't completely useless, when every calculation, every way of looking at them, results in failure. First off, your post is pretty weak. It's not a ridicilous statement, and it has been used at the progamer level (not this hydra / ling / ensnare build). You don't play terran, so obviously you just admitted that you don't know what you are talking about but rather just blindly making statements based on your inexperience. Next, the difference between opening stargate first PvP, and opening 12hatch hydra ling queen, is that 1 is viable, 1 is just made up so you could troll my post. A stargate opening is obviously a bad idea, and I wouldn't be debating its usability. A 12hatch opening is standard, and allows you to transition in this build. You're trolling and its pointless. Lastly, you are not looking at the strategy for what it is. You are utilizing the fact that a zerg can pound for pound out produce a terran player. So, the idea is to use massive amounts of hydra ling, COMBINED WITH ENSNARE. The point being, ensnare negates stim, as well as movement of both marines and medics. So basically, a terran stims his marines as he is being flanked by LARGE amounts of units. His now stimmed marines are ensnared, which makes stim alot less useful. So they all have 1 health bar missing, and stim is not helping nearly as much as it normally should. Medics are ensnared, so moving around and healing a large group of marines is more time consuming. Ensnare is the point of this build, as it creates an equal playing ground for a hydra ling army. The strategy transitions into ultra swarm late game, like a normal zerg player would do. Your agrument that 5/3 ultras with swarm are stronger is correct. No one is debating that. The goal of the build is to transition to hive with ultra swarm tech late game like normal, the only change is that rather than a typical muta or lurker opening, hydra/ling/ensnare could be used to the same effect. It can create wins just like any other opening, and allows enough map control to transition properly into hive tech. There has already been a replay posted of a C+ zerg using the strategy, and his thoughts about it. I don't see why I would have to "prove" that its viable, when someone has already gone ahead and posted a replay. Did you watch it? Now if you want me to post games where hydras are used against terran in general. I could do that too. I never argued against the viability of ensnare, it was used very well in the replay. However, what makes no sense to me are these lines: 'So, the idea is to use massive amounts of hydra ling, COMBINED WITH ENSNARE.' 'Ensnare is the point of this build, as it creates an equal playing ground for a hydra ling army. ' Why is it that you want to use hydraling? I understand the gas limitations, but as I've said, I believe lurkers, just a fewer number of them, would work far better. Instead of using ensnare to equal a playing ground, why not use it to take an even playing ground and tip it to your favor? Hydraling has minimal surprise factor; the terran barely has to adjust. In the replay, I think the Terran didn't have range for the first encounter with the hydralisks. As I stated, just because the marines in the back cannot fire at the hydralisks does not mean they cannot fire at the real damage dealers. And once the lings were gone, the hydras weak firepower showed. There are two issues being lumped into one here. Use of ensnare, and use of hydras. Queens don't benefit hydralisks any more than other units. In fact, I would say queens would be even more effective used with lurkers. Don't let the fact that I do not believe this is viable at all dissuade you from experimenting, I am just explaining what seems to me a huge flaw in the entire premise (the arbitrary lumping of two unrelated ideas). That replay far from convinced me of the use of hydras. And if you have replays of hydras being used effectively in zvt, sure, post them.
Hi.
If I understand correctly, you're arguing that lurker/ling would be a more useful combo than hydra/ing regardless of the fact that ensnare is now in play as opposed to standard lurker/ling play. Here are my thoughts:
1. Lurkers are higher in tech and somewhat more gas intensive than mass hydra. While this isn't all that bad at first, the aim of this build isn't just to kill the terran ball, but also to have map control early, and turn the map control into extra expansion(s). This can't be done with lurker/ling, since lurkers won't come out early enough.
2. Hydras are more mobile than Lurkers, especially when upgraded. It takes around a full second from the time you hit u until the time the lurkers attack, and then you'll have to unburrow them and move them forward. Though this may be a minor point as I think about it.
3. Lurkers have way less HP/cost than hydras, and simultaneously provide great targets for irradiate, and apparently this build currently doesn't get a spire (not sure I agree with that though).
4. Hydras are gonna be way better at taking out firebats than lurkers.
That said, I'm not sure if I like the idea of hydras all that much myself. I know they're not at all worthless, but I just can't stand the idea of purchasing those hydra ups. I guess I'm still undecided on this build myself.
|
On November 15 2008 14:51 Misrah wrote:So glad we have another person with a jihad going crazy in this thread. Of course, simon311A is an expert on this build, having never played it and also admits that he doesn't play T. I have more reps, of course not at the highest level of play, but i hope that it can show a few things. Also simon311A please explain to me how your going to support luker play, with queen play on 2 and then later 3 gas with upgrades? Not to mention the fact that if you go 3 hatch lurker, you would be giving up map control and most likely get contained. If you decide to go for muta- that is even more gas, so really I am confused by your statements. I would love to hear how a gosu like you does it. Do you have perfect hold lurker? Micro? Do you magically know where the terran is going, and have your lurkers ready in advance? Reps: http://www.mediafire.com/?rnmndhjifynhttp://www.mediafire.com/?ommnyozgnmj
Remind me, what part of your build grants you map control? Hydras? Those upgrades would finish just around when your lurker one would. Not to mention... hydras can't kill marines.
So in the first replay, your opponent sat back on 4 bunkers at his natural, missed supply depots, poorly executed build order, and trapped seige tanks, and did not meet your forces until you had ultralisks. And you're talking about map control.. ? If i learned anything from that replay, it's that the hydralisks did nothing for you.
Will watch 2nd one later.
Dromar makes a good point about the hydras having more HP per cost. Of course, you DO want your units to do things other than take a beating...
|
once again LOW LEVEL REPLAYS will always come from me. I suck. Thanks for pointing that out again tho. Also I am so glad that you have figured out that hydras are not cost effective to lurkers. Congrats, all zerg units are not cost effect (except maybe ultras) Zerg is a wasteful race. Zerg builds more, and spends more than ANY OTHER RACE in a game. Cocaine style uses hydras simply to hold down the map until you can switch to ultra ling late game.
Will your army get shredded? YES that is the point. Zerg armies that are hydra/ling will melt to a terran ball. But here is the catch. This build has more hatcheries and allows for more expansions. Zergs produce faster and harder than terran. So when i trade my army for killing most of yours, i can make a brand new one before you can. That way i can send another wave at you, slowing grinding you down.
Your argument that hydras are not cost effective is correct. They are not. But it doesn't matter because you are going to be powering off of 4+ expos, and because you can get a fast hive, and because you are also getting fast upgrades- allows you to quickly and easily transition to ultra.
So whats your point?
|
that at the level you are playing even weak strategies are viable?
|
On November 05 2008 14:44 BlasiuS wrote:Found this game today: http://www.replayhome.com:8080/sc/replay-87604.htmlUnfortunately this Terran goes mech instead of m&m, so we don't get to see ensnare/hydra/ling go up against the ball, but hey, they're right there before your very eyes: QUEENS.This terran is no chump either, I'd say at least C level EDIT: wow this is exactly how to play ZvT against mech with queens: 1) fast hydras + fast upgrades (move/speed/attack/carapace) 2) expo all over the map (5 bases by the 11-minute mark) 3) fast queens (fast enough so that the queens have 150 energy to broodling the tanks by the time terran comes with first push) 4) queens broodling tanks, hydras clean up the gols 5) super fast hive for quick defiler teching (although he didn't even really need them LOL)
The link doesn't work! Can anyone send me this replay?????
|
Played another one today - it was vs a C+ terran and I refined my build and actually found quite good success with a 9 pool into the build. I owned him pretty convincingly, although later I checked he was C+ but only played C level people so he probably wasn't as good as I thought. The game wasn't really good so I actually don't know if he was even close to C+ but he was like 55% C+ (vs C's). Anyone want rep?
|
On November 17 2008 09:57 Superiorwolf wrote:
Played another one today - it was vs a C+ terran and I refined my build and actually found quite good success with a 9 pool into the build. I owned him pretty convincingly, although later I checked he was C+ but only played C level people so he probably wasn't as good as I thought. The game wasn't really good so I actually don't know if he was even close to C+ but he was like 55% C+ (vs C's). Anyone want rep?
NO suerior, i don't want to see your rep of raepage using cocaine build. Why the hell would I?
In case you didn't get the sarcasm- YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS OMG YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS LINK PLZ!
|
Well, I rose to the level of D+ recently and tried this gamestyle again. I'm not using the BO, just playing muta harass into hydraling queen to Ultraling.
The Terran hovers between D+/C- so I was surprised I beat him since I'm just barely D+
Every battle went just as I wanted to in this game. I got good ensnares and flanks. I was sloppy with my scouting and didn't notice he had an expo up, but it didn't matter because his macro fell apart for some reason.
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?5zxumlnzeyj
|
I'm a C zerg user, right now this season i've climbed to C- at 70%.
Haven't gotten GREAT games yet with the build, but here are some of my inputs. I haven't read the thread all too much yet.
Hydra/Ling is basically suppose to be a mini Ultra/Ling combo. Hydras are needed to lay some damange onto firebats otherwise the ling army will be slaughtered. Don't expect hydras to play a significant role, but they need to engage first and then the lings can come through and hopefully rape the Terran army. The most important part of the build seems to be +1 armor, allowing your units to "tank" a little bit more because the hardest part is doing enough damage before all your units die before getting there. Note: You still need a lot of hydras even though they don't do jack.
Mid-game gets really tough because of dropships. Its hard to contain the Terran army and you have to be VERY picky about where to fight and when. As you are occupied with that you have to worry about all that dropships are flying and killing off bases. I'm thinking a sauron zerg style or just bait expos to stall time to figure out where dropships are going and get your eco running.
I sacrifice a lot of single lings to make sure I know where the armies are at all time, it helps a lot to have speedy ovies to patrol around the map to look for dropships and have an eye on the army. I actually haven't used queens because well...queens suck and require too much micro when there's enough on my plate already with bases spread around the map, dropships, Terran ball, etc.
My favorite thing about this build is the terran has to work for his expos and then make sure you don't run around his army with your SUPERIOR mobility and snipe off expos. Then once you hit ultra/ling, it's gg because your eco is already rolling.
Just like going lurker/ling, you have to stall time to get your army big enough to compete with his, your upgrades to finish, and securing expos as soon as possible. Maybe adding drop would help a lot since he's trying to contain your army from equalizing the Terran army, you can drop quite a bit of lings to throw him off.
This is my experience with it so far. It might be a decent build dependant on map. Don't know if it will work at pro level though.
|
On November 18 2008 02:03 Galneryus wrote:
I actually haven't used queens because well...queens suck and require too much micro when there's enough on my plate already with bases spread around the map, dropships, Terran ball, etc.
You're missing the point. Ensnare negates stim which allows you to use the hydraling in the first place. If you try to bruteforce the Terran with hydraling you're in for a lot of trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
