EPT[D] Spore Cawlers vs. Turrets - Page 2
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
| ||
|
Uranium
United States1077 Posts
Add to that the fact that Spores cost 50 more minerals AND waste a larva AND have lower DPS than turrets... Mutalisks are much better, not because they allow us to actually damage the Terran, just for the sake of holding off the Banshees. | ||
|
Mortician
Bulgaria2332 Posts
On September 15 2010 12:34 Ace wrote: the short answer: people are terrible the long answer: people are lazy and misunderstand what Spores and static defense is used for. Spores, like Turrets are not meant to destroy Banshees and Mutas because they can't. It's impossible to build enough air defense to cover everything early in the game. However, with one 1-2 spores in the right place a banshee is going to have a hell of a time harassing your mineral line. The spore is there to buy time for any units in the area to be able to move back and kill it. In this situation that unit will most likely be the Queen. 1 spore + Queen is going to stop banshee harass. With Zergs double Queening now you can minimize the damage. Just like in BW where Terrans built turrets so that Mutas had to focus fire them to kill it for free reign on the base, the Terran was attempting to buy time for his Marine force to come back and kill the mutas. Same idea in SC2, just that some players never got the idea. This is correct, but I would like to add something. ZvT is pretty broken match-up, and zergs wantsto have every bit of economy, sacrificing 4 drones + more minerals is pretty bad in the current state of the game. Zergs just want to have every last bit of economy they can get, since Terran is a lot more cost-efficient. | ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
On September 15 2010 13:26 PrinceXizor wrote: everything but the hatch is a concern vs banshees. you just need MORE to defend against them. thats not to say it's imbalanced. I think spores would be more useful if they rooted in less time than it takes to kill them with a banshee. instead of the outrageously long 12 seconds. That being said spore crawlers have insane DPS and are pretty much rediculous in groups of 3. like spine crawlers are. But as I said above, a terran base is much more spread out. So you need less spores, and they cover more at the same time, e.g. more damage output in a smaller area against all air harass. And then queens on top of that. But one thing is right, the rooting time is ridiculous. As is the spine building time. And a little off topic: Healing for medivacs should be a researchable skill, and sensor towers should work with energy like cloak. | ||
|
fdsdfg
United States1251 Posts
On September 15 2010 13:40 Mortician wrote: This is correct, but I would like to add something. ZvT is pretty broken match-up, and zergs wantsto have every bit of economy, sacrificing 4 drones + more minerals is pretty bad in the current state of the game. Zergs just want to have every last bit of economy they can get, since Terran is a lot more cost-efficient. Spore crawlers cost more than Missile turrets. The larvae is a big thing - you have to rebuild that drone. That means every spore crawler is a unit you're NOT building - like a hydralisk. 150/0 vs 100/50 for a spore crawler vs a hydralisk. Most players would rather have the hydras. Saying 'all zerg are terrible and are wrong and should listen to me' is so egotistic I won't comment on it. | ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
On September 15 2010 13:33 Icx wrote: And why is that? I made the decision for myself. Are 1-2 spore per base worth it? Or worded in a different way, I spent let's say 300-400minerals on some spores, to get about even. So when banshee harass comes in, do I lose 300-400 mins worth of drones/tech/whatever that could justify the cost of the spore crawlers? No Be careful. I have been banned once for two weeks for getting numbers less wrong. | ||
|
Icx
Belgium853 Posts
I was giving an approximation of their cost. 4Spore crawlers = 4*(75+50) = 500 3 Spore crawlers = 3* (75+50) = 375 2 spore crawlers = 250 So if you put somewhere between 2 and 4 spore crawlers down, how is 400minerals a bad approximation in cost? Please tell me where I made a mistake then? 400 minerals approximatly in the case multiple banshees might come just to try to stall them when they switch bases while you have other means to deal with it that don't make you sink a ton of resources in static defense? How in any way is that good? | ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
On September 15 2010 13:42 fdsdfg wrote: Spore crawlers cost more than Missile turrets. The larvae is a big thing - you have to rebuild that drone. That means every spore crawler is a unit you're NOT building - like a hydralisk. 150/0 vs 100/50 for a spore crawler vs a hydralisk. Most players would rather have the hydras. Saying 'all zerg are terrible and are wrong and should listen to me' is so egotistic I won't comment on it. That might be the main reason. But it's a bad reason IMHO. But you shouldn't compare it to hydras. Because the issue is detection, not dealing damage. If only the damage dealing was the issue, you have queens in the base anyway. So you should compare it to having an idle overseer in each base. Is a lot more expensive, and a lot less helpful than a spore crawler. Even if you have lair already, you could have had a mutalisk more instead of an overseer when you use a spore crawler. A larva is no argument, since every detection option costs you a larva at one point. And losing a drone is also not really an argument, since that is remade in 17s. | ||
|
AzureD
United States320 Posts
Still it is not all that great as Banshee do not have to be used for harass. They are fantastic in the main army. 4 Banshee would kill 6 Hydra even without cloak. They are sick dps machines. 4 Banshee are almost an even fight with 6 Stalkers too. You simply can not cover every area with Spore Crawlers but they can be used if you want to defend one particular area where you do not want to move your army there. | ||
|
Roaming
United States239 Posts
| ||
|
Icx
Belgium853 Posts
On September 15 2010 13:56 imbecile wrote: So you should compare it to having an idle overseer in each base. Is a lot more expensive, and a lot less helpful than a spore crawler.. How are spore crawlers more usefull then a spore crawler? You are confined to their detection range, and as long as you don't have an overseer (because at any point you want to move out you will have to get an overseer anyway, on top of making those spore crawlers) When the banshee harass is over, what are you gonna do with your sporecrawlers? Absolutely nothing What are you gonna do with your overseer after the banshee harass? You can scout at a faster speed, you can drop changelings, and you can go contaminate stuff. hell even when the banshee harass is happening, what are you gonna do? Defend, defend and and defend untill you finally have an overseer flying around, or hope that the Terran is stupid enough to make a mistake and suicide them. What am I doing with my earlier overseer and no spores? I kill the banshee's And then in terms of cost. You have to get an overseer anyway, so the difference between us is 50mins/100 gas for the "extra overseer" and you putting down 2-4 turrets. Seeing my earlier post, wich one of the two is more cost-effective seeing what I wrote in this post? And I don't know about you, but in the early game I am actually bound by minerals untill I have a good drone-count up, and making spore crawlers even when banshee's are coming are a big investment. | ||
|
Melancholia
United States717 Posts
| ||
|
Altar
United States577 Posts
| ||
|
Reki
Philippines89 Posts
![[image loading]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v459/Reki/watt.gif) you guys are forgetting that zerg's turret has legs. If the early 1-2 banshees pokes something else outside of the spore's detection range while cloaked, just stand up and replant closer to the banshees. Yes I am aware that it takes until tomorrow for them to take root but I think a lot of people are not aware that the spore instantly gets detector even while "downrooting" is in progress. The crawlers move faster than overseers and banshees so long as they're on creep. Your 2+ queens are more than enough to chase them away until the 5 mutas come out (make that 6 mutas since you didn't buy an early overseer). Look ma! no gas to beat banshee rush! pic unrelated User was warned for this post | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On September 15 2010 13:42 imbecile wrote: But as I said above, a terran base is much more spread out. So you need less spores, and they cover more at the same time, e.g. more damage output in a smaller area against all air harass. And then queens on top of that. But one thing is right, the rooting time is ridiculous. As is the spine building time. And a little off topic: Healing for medivacs should be a researchable skill, and sensor towers should work with energy like cloak. The terran base only has to protect one small area dispite being spread out, zerg has to protect one slightly larger area. terran can easily build turrets around their base, zerg must first have creep there. turrets are range 7 (with upgrade) spores are range 5 i think? i'd rather make a 2nd queen, since they gives me the creep AND the attack vs air. but yeah spores are GOOD but it's just that you need 4 spores on most maps to protect your workers, both geysers, and your tech (if all packed tightly). There is no good reason to invest that much in static defenses, since most of the time banshees are hardly a threat because of units like the queen and infestor, except for gimmicky rushes that leave the terran weak anyway. unlike mutalisks which are a standard threat throughout the game. And then another post you claimed that spores are not for the damage (you state we have queens for that) but one of the main points of your argument is how terrans get turrets vs mutas all the time, they sure as hell are not making turrets to detect the mutas. | ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
You only really need 1-2 spores to cover all your base structures/workers in detection, if you cluster it all together and don't try to hide anything, for the whole period of time where cloaked banshee harass is a big concern. You have queens to cover it all with damage. So yes, I was talking about 1-2 spores. You about 2-4. But even so I'd consider it more cost effective for defensive detection than Overseers. Because overseers die a lot more and quicker to just one viking (and can be driven away and screw up your coverage). So you need to remake them a lot. | ||
|
DuneBug
United States668 Posts
On September 15 2010 13:35 Zelniq wrote: pretty simple, a single turret protects mineral line from several mutas while you need like 3 or 4 spores to protect each base from even 1 banshee, due to attack range Yup. You'll need 3 crawlers to protect a base sufficiently from banshees. 3 crawlers is 3 larva, 3 drones, and 300 minerals. or get an overseer + 3 queens which cost no larva, no drones, and 450 minerals. it might be worth getting 1 crawler just for detection, but you'd still need queens to kill it and the banshee will be able to find something else to shoot at, it just won't be your drones. Also we don't know if a banshee is actually coming, because it's impossible to scout a terran before lair tech. So overseer = scouting + detection. | ||
|
Tiaan
United States35 Posts
| ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
What are you gonna do when your overseer is in the enemy base or with your army and banshees come to harass? In the few seconds you need to get the overseer there, they will destroy more drones than all those crawlers have cost. And what if he has 1-2 vikings with him and intercepts? Now your overseer is worth shit. Every 2.5 seconds you can't see and attack just one attacking banshee you lose another drone. | ||
|
MangoTango
United States3670 Posts
On September 15 2010 13:27 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Turrets are basically free since Terran barely has a strain on minerals with MULEs and stuff; Zerg has to lose a Drone for each shitty piss-spraying thing that's useless beyond fending off 2 Banshees. Exactly this. Terrans don't need to worry about extra minerals, while Zergs are spending larvae and drones on this shit. Terrans can always afford moar Turrets (especially considering how good strong they are), because if the Turret means they don't have to scan, that's another 300 minerals they gain. | ||
| ||
