|
Introduction
Well alright, the primary reason why I have decided to post up a thread of this topic is because of what have been happening so far in this link:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=370350 where Jaedong have apparently said that
You're playing Zerg in both BW and SC2. What are the similarities and differences?
Similarities first?
Zerg only have one production building, the Hatchery. Protoss and Terran have limited units that can be produced in a building, but Zerg can make all the units with
this larvae, Overlords, Ultralisks, and so on. So this is the main similarity of BW and SC2's Zerg.
The main difference of Zerg in both games, if the Queen. I personally think that SC2's Zerg is harder to play than BW's Zerg, because in SC2, player should spawn
larvae with Queens to produce units 'Zergishly'. This should be done during whole play time, so it requires more physical ability than before.
And also SC2 has less variables in micro-control such as Zergling micro or Mutalisk micro. I can overwhelm my opponent only with micro-conrol in BW games but I can't
do that in SC2. But I think there are many unrevealed elements in SC2 and I expect we can show you more in the future.
in the interview for HotS.
This has lead to many backlash from both community as read by the comment of the ambivalence of such quotation. Is Jaedong saying that BW Zerg is easier to play just
like what this dude have speculated?
On September 21 2012 06:23 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:11 Elroi wrote:Thank you so much for this interview seron! It is very apreciated. I always enjoy reading Jaedong's interviews, but this was more interesting than usual.
To all eSports fans, I want to be remembered as a progamer who can make something out of nothing, and someone who always does his best. I think that is the right way
of living, and I'm always doing my best to follow that.
Jaedong is my role model. I just love this guy. And also SC2 has less variables in micro-control such as Zergling micro or Mutalisk micro. I can overwhelm my opponent only with micro-conrol in BW games but I
can't do that in SC2. And this is, in two sentences, the explanation to why sc2 is a bad game. your role model also said sc2 is harder to play for zerg. where is your god now?
OR does he mean that for reasons explained by this guy:
On September 21 2012 06:33 andrewlt wrote:
Many of you guys obviously did not follow or even watch a single game of BW and are completely misunderstanding the context. In BW, zerglings and mutas were much more
microable than they are in SC2. Jaedong was able to win plenty of games on zergling/muta micro alone. He can't do that anymore in SC2 so it's harder for him. Without
the strength of his zergling/mutalisk micro, he's nowhere near the dominant player he was at his peak.
However what this quote have inspired to do is to delve deeper into the mechanical aspect of both games and compare them side by side:
On September 21 2012 10:38 smOOthMayDie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 10:23 samuraibael wrote:
The translation must be wrong on that zerg in bw vs sc2 part. No one in their right mind thinks the mechanics of sc2 are harder than broodwars. The queen is an
additional one, so in a sense that particular mechanic is harder than in bw where it didnt exist...
(no bias, love both games) Most people think zerg in SC2 is harder than in BW, this isn't something new. I for one think so too, having played both races in both games. You dont have to constantly remind yourself/look at larvae injects in BW.
And I have decided to bring in some concrete math into this whole debates so that we can finally settle on this topic to determine which side of the race in the
franchise truly have the more onerous mechanics in mass production.
DISCLAIMER: NOTE THAT EVERY CALCULATATIONS ARE ASSUMED THAT THE BASES ARE FULLY SATURATED WITH OPTIMAL INCOME AT HAND.
Equivalence Exchange
BW Zerg have a spawn rate of 1 Larvae/12.5 Seconds or simply put 0.08 larvae/second
And the StarCraft 2's equivalence of 15 Larvae is about 4 Larvaes in the span of 40 seconds per Queen. That makes it 0.1 Larvae Spawn with one Larva spawned every 15 seconds.
So far so good with the math? Good, let's continue.
1/15 makes it spawn 0.06667 (approximate) Larvae spawned with the Hatchery.
Okay so let's add the 0.06667 to the 0.1 of the Larvae Injects which makes it 0.16667 Larvae/1 Hatchery + 1 Queen.
Wait hold, on this is data for one hatchery + one queen as a typical StarCraft 2's lategame macro.
The comparison is 0.16667 Larvae/second produced in a Set of SC2's Zerg macro composition, and 0.08 Larvae/Second in BW's Hatchery.
In Essence BW needs to have 0.1666667 divided by 0.08 times of hatcheries to sort of make up for the StarCraft 2's Zerg macro mechanics.
That constant number happens to be 2.08333333333333
Let's round this number to 2 Hatcheries.
So to supplement the lack of larvae spawned in SC2, BW have to have 2 Hatcheries in contrast to Zerg's in StarCraft 2's 1 Queen/Hatchery combo.
Alright, now lets get into the focal purpose of those numbers.
Mechanically explained
BW have to have three Hatcheries to be selected or hotkeyed. That makes it 3 actions. Now to Select larvae, another 3 actions. Finally we get to select to unit needed
to be produced, another 3 piece of action. But I want to add another 3 here for the sake of Re-rallying the unit's destination.
Total amount of actions: 3*4 = 12 (this is being done in a span of 12.5 seconds as that is the time it takes for one larvae to be spawned).
Action necessary: 12 Actions/12.5 Seconds = 0.96 APM needed
Moving on to StarCraft 2, you either select or hotkeyed the Queen, one action. Use Spawn Larvae's ability, one action. Target the Hatchery, the third action. You
follow the exact premise as the last sentence with Hatchery, 4 actions so far. You then have yourself to select the larvae. This part is tricky to calculate. Okay so a
larvae is spawned at a rate of 1 per 15 seconds in an one Hatchery condition. However a Queen is only able to cast at an interval of 40 Seconds. So for this testing, we need a time interval of an entirety of 40 seconds in contrast to BW's 12.5.
Let's scrap the above breakdown and formulate a brand new analysis.
So in 40 Seconds, we get the spawn larvae at rate of 1 per 15 seconds. So in that case, the player must use the hatchery 2.66667 times in the span of 40 seconds since 40 total seconds/15 seconds of spawn.
To examinate the actions now. Click/Press hotkeyed Hatchery, one action. Select the larvae, 2 actions. Pick which unit you want to produce, 3 actions. Re-rallying, 4 actions. Times that by 2.66667, the result is 10.66664 total actions taken with only the Hatchery. Now onto the Queen. Alright you either have hotkeyed the queen or need to press it, one action. Use the ability, 2 actions. Target the hatchery, 3 action. Select on the laravae produced, 4 action. Pick unit selection, 5 action.
In combined, you have 10.66666664+5 Actions needed in an equivalence situation in StarCraft which equals to 15.666664. We got 15.666664 actions in a time period of 40 seconds.
Action necessary: 15.66666664 Actions/40 Seconds = 0.3916666 APS (Actions Per Second)
But oh no, we gotta go back to BW because noticed that I rounded it 2.666 to 3 but in the StarCraft 2 scenerio, I didn't bother to do so.
So instead of having a Total Amount of actions' calculation to be 3*4, I am going to use 2.0833333333 in the place of the 3 and 2.08333333333* 4 = 8.33333333333 total actions.
Therefore action necessary: 8.33333333333 actions/12.5 seconds = 0.666666666664 APS needed in BW w/o rounding.
Conclusion
On StarCraft 2's calculation for its actions needed to produce optimally as a Zerg, you need 0.39166666 APS
In BW, you need 0.6666666666664 APS to play as a Zerg.
You can drawn the inference from here.
EDIT: Added Re-rallying for StarCraft 2, changed the result.
EDIT2: Thanks to this post:
On September 21 2012 13:29 Myrddraal wrote:Umm am I missing something or is your whole calculation completely wrong due to an error early on. Show nested quote +
Okay so let's add the 0.06667 to the 0.1 of the Larvae Injects which makes it 1.06667 Larvae/1 Hatchery + 1 Queen.
This should be 0.16667 not 1.0667. Divide 0.16667 by 0.4 and you get 0.416675, that's a pretty big difference compared to 2.6667.
I've made changes to my numbers.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
So how does this prove that BW Zerg is harder than SC2 Zerg? Because you need more APM?
|
There's also the ability in sc2 to stockpile larvae whereas BW how many hatcheries is how many larvae you can have max.
I think its like 20 or 25 larvae per hatchery in sc2 to stock pile? thats hell of a lot of burst production sc2 is capable of over BW
I think that kind of replaces the lack of micro in sc2 zerg units by having the ability to burst armies until resource bank or larvae bank runs dry
However, given that game where Roro micro'd roaches against Squirtle's 2 base immortal sentry all in, during WCS
I agree with Jaedong that Zerg's potential is far from tapped in WoL
|
^If that's your interpretation.
@ Williammm, this analysis is based on the fact that both Games are played whereas the players don't stockpile excessive larvae and macroing at the most efficient way possible.
|
tons of hypothesis and simplification littering op that don't account for reality. I'll take JD's word over op's flawed analysis.
|
SC2 Zerg macro is harder but BW Zerg micro and mechanics are harder. Overall i'd say that BW Zerg is harder just because the mechanics are so demanding. Things that would take 15 actions in BW can be accomplished in a mere 2-3 actions in SC2.
|
well if you think sc2 is harder try it,
go to iccup and play a game of scbw (http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/)
and come back here ...
|
On September 21 2012 12:26 freakhill wrote:
tons of hypothesis and simplification littering op that don't account for reality. I'll take JD's word over op's flawed analysis.
Too bad that Jaedong didn't provide a coherent analysis to his claim and nor did I ever draw a conclusion from it. Plus you don't have a clue how to play both games optimally, so your words don't matter.
|
On September 21 2012 12:22 GenesisX wrote:
So how does this prove that BW Zerg is harder than SC2 Zerg? Because you need more APM?
It doesn't but BW zerg is more about surgically dismantling the enemy rather than swarming
Lurker placements, scourge wars, defiler dark swarms, muta harass, dare I say Queen micro (in some occasions)
These are all key aspects of BW zerg play that doesn't offer a lot of firepower but it controls the enemy from attacking or moving out effectively, whereas sc2 zerg is more about economy and how much army you can produce to bust down the enemy's army/bases. You could argue the infestor offers control, but it has largely taken on more of a heavy offensive unit these days.
So in a way, BW zerg is harder to play, not to mention theres a lack of roaches to tank hits effectively. BUT having nearly every unit micro capable (EVEN THE DRONE) makes zerg astounding to play but requires a LOT of skill
|
Lol wow, what a flawed approach in terms of comparing the games.
Really? I thought people had moved on beyond such shallow comparisons between the two games, after people had made it clear enough that a straight up comparison, especially of apm, is quite meaningless, and is only going to stir up the BW v SC2 debate, which I feel should pretty much settle down, now that pretty much everyone is playing SC2.
Sure, keep some Kespa v Gom competition going, as long as you don't always make it about the elephant, competition and rivalries are good, unhealthy and baseless comparisons, however, are not.
|
On September 21 2012 12:25 Xiphos wrote:
^If that's your interpretation.
@ Williammm, this analysis is based on the fact that both Games are played whereas the players don't stockpile excessive larvae and macroing at the most efficient way possible.
True, but zergs in sc2 these days tend to max out really quickly compared to other races, and thats where the stockpile begins. It's not bad macro or inefficient macro, its just that zergs in sc2 are heavily invested into eco compared to BW zergs
|
On September 21 2012 12:28 ONEofUS wrote:
well if you think sc2 is harder try it,
go to iccup and play a game of scbw (http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/)
and come back here ...
Hahaha, they have no idea 
|
On September 21 2012 12:33 PiPoGevy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:28 ONEofUS wrote:
well if you think sc2 is harder try it,
go to iccup and play a game of scbw (http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/)
and come back here ... Hahaha, they have no idea
It's so true. You can be masters in sc2, but won't break D- in iccup 
|
On September 21 2012 12:28 ONEofUS wrote:
well if you think sc2 is harder try it,
go to iccup and play a game of scbw (http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/)
and come back here ...
So Jaedong should go play a game on iccup and redo the interview? And besides, doing that would prove nothing because quite obviously someone who's never played BW would find playing a game of it harder than SC2 solely based on that fact. I have played a few games on iccup and it was definitely harder than SC2 for me. However, it had nothing to do with the mechanics and everything to do with the fact I had no idea what I was doing. Tbh, I did not actually find some of the mechanics that difficult, but I had no concept of a BO or strategy other than "people mech in TvP in this game". But that's just my opinion, just like the statement in the interview that sparked this is just Jaedong's opinion. I'll still take his opinion over a random TL poster's anyday, though.
|
Edited the OP with StarCraft 2 Hatchery's re-rallying. Numbers changed.
|
On September 21 2012 12:34 templar rage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:28 ONEofUS wrote:
well if you think sc2 is harder try it,
go to iccup and play a game of scbw (http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/)
and come back here ...
So Jaedong should go play a game on iccup and redo the interview? And besides, doing that would prove nothing because quite obviously someone who's never played BW would find playing a game of it harder than SC2 solely based on that fact. I have played a few games on iccup and it was definitely harder than SC2 for me. However, it had nothing to do with the mechanics and everything to do with the fact I had no idea what I was doing. Tbh, I did not actually find some of the mechanics that difficult, but I had no concept of a BO or strategy other than "people mech in TvP in this game". But that's just my opinion, just like the statement in the interview that sparked this is just Jaedong's opinion. I'll still take his opinion over a random TL poster's anyday, though.
But the poster is from BW! Obviously his opinion is superior to yours!!!!
|
Op forgot to factor in creep spreading... Perfect creep spread is very useful at all points of the game.
And BW zerg doesn't have to worry about a missed inject. From a stress point of view SC2 zerg is much more intensive. Getting distracted takes a lot out of macro. Missed injects/less creep spread = weaker zerg.
And SC2 has less micro options as mentioned to be able to make up for the lost macro. So Jaedong is probably pointing out that SC2 zerg is less forgiving than BW zerg, that there is more APM needed on a consistent basis than BW than total APM. That consistent apm is taken off all the other potential uses for your APM like microing an individual zergling or pack of mutas or infestors etc. BW zerg didn't have that problem.
|
On September 21 2012 12:34 Williammm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:33 PiPoGevy wrote:On September 21 2012 12:28 ONEofUS wrote:
well if you think sc2 is harder try it,
go to iccup and play a game of scbw (http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/)
and come back here ... Hahaha, they have no idea It's so true. You can be masters in sc2, but won't break D- in iccup
Lol, this is not true at all, as someone who played mainly just customs games in bw before I started with sc2, and then got masters in sc2 then went back to bw, i found it very easy to get to c-/c level on iccup. took around 70 1v1s.
|
On September 21 2012 12:38 Bobgrimly wrote:
Op forgot to factor in creep spreading... Perfect creep spread is very useful at all points of the game.
And BW zerg doesn't have to worry about a missed inject. From a stress point of view SC2 zerg is much more intensive. Getting distracted takes a lot out of macro. Missed injects/less creep spread = weaker zerg.
And SC2 has less micro options as mentioned to be able to make up for the lost macro. So Jaedong is probably pointing out that SC2 zerg is less forgiving than BW zerg, that there is more APM needed on a consistent basis than BW than total APM. That consistent apm is taken off all the other potential uses for your APM like microing an individual zergling or pack of mutas or infestors etc. BW zerg didn't have that problem.
Okay you need to check out the definition of Macro. Macro = Unit Production. Creep Spread is a strategical aspect of the game. Thus I didn't included it because why the fuck would anyone go off the tangent from the topic we are trying to related.
Last paragraph you wrote is a total blur.
|
On September 21 2012 12:38 Bobgrimly wrote:
Op forgot to factor in creep spreading... Perfect creep spread is very useful at all points of the game.
And BW zerg doesn't have to worry about a missed inject. From a stress point of view SC2 zerg is much more intensive. Getting distracted takes a lot out of macro. Missed injects/less creep spread = weaker zerg.
And SC2 has less micro options as mentioned to be able to make up for the lost macro. So Jaedong is probably pointing out that SC2 zerg is less forgiving than BW zerg, that there is more APM needed on a consistent basis than BW than total APM. That consistent apm is taken off all the other potential uses for your APM like microing an individual zergling or pack of mutas or infestors etc. BW zerg didn't have that problem.
yes, but with a hard cap of three larvae, there is less room for error in managing optimal macro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
