|
|
|
Or Zerglings needs reaper jetpacks IMO
|
Zerglings need seige mode.
|
To me it just seems like you're damned if you do damned if you don't. If you go pool first, maybe in base hatch, it becomes pretty easy for the terran to just fast expand and get ahead economically. If you hatch first, you become more susceptible to early pressure. Which one is worse? Really depends on the map and the opponent ultimately.
|
On December 09 2010 08:10 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 07:59 Neo.NEt wrote:On December 09 2010 07:53 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On December 09 2010 07:47 darmousseh wrote:On December 09 2010 07:40 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On December 09 2010 07:13 darmousseh wrote:
I don't understand why 1 basing is so bad for zerg. If you get bunker contained can you not just make a spine crawler to kill it? I thought this game was designed such that if players have the same number of expansions that they could be even with each other on the same number of bases.
For example, on 1 base, with a queen and 2 hatcheries you can produce units non-stop (unless you are going like zergling only). This is an investment of 450 minerals (150 for queen 300 for hatch). Whereas protoss needs 4 gateways on one base = 600 minerals while terran needs 4 rax (2 with tech labs) which is 700 minerals 50 gas.
Who decided that zerg need more expansions? I know this is true in scbw because of how the game worked, but is it neccesarily true in sc2? In sc2, you get minerals so quickly and expansions are worth so much (each base is like 2 bases in bw) that is it really neccesary to FE every time as zerg?
Have the designers ever said anything about zerg early expanding? I'm not saying FE is bad, but I am questioning if it is completely necessary. I've seen a lot of zerg play with a midish expansion (at around 28-30 food) who do very well. Are zerg units so bad that they always need to be ahead in supply in the entire game?
Now i know many players will be like "Economics dude, zerg need production and more minerals", but I want to know if the gains of getting an early expansion as opposed to a normal expansion outweigh the possible risks.
I guess another way of looking at it is, should protoss and terran always go 14 cc or 14 nexus as well? It doesn't matter how the game was designed, as anybody who is experienced and can play the game with half-decent macro will find out that Zerg will lose on equal bases as their units are simply not cost efficient enough to handle the likes of the more efficient mid-late game units of Protoss and Terran. What the designers intended or didn't intend makes absolutely no difference because even if they did "intend" that Zerg only need equal bases the reality of the matter determined via experience is that they need at least 1 more. The only people that ever suggest this are people that are unable to play the game with decent macro, so 2 hatch in base or at expo doesn't really make much of a difference as their macro is horrible anyway. Well, i obviously know from experience and watching plenty of games (and playing plenty of games) that this is mostly true, but i've seen many times where zerg on 1 base (2 hatches 1 queen) can easily beat a protoss FE or terran FE. Also we've seen how cost effective roaches are (especially against protoss early game) so I don't really buy the whole idea that zerg starts with a huge unit handicap. As it stands, terran has the best maco mechanics (able to gather minerals faster than any other race) so it would seem that terran should be the one that early expands to get a huge macro advantage. Idk, I think zerg is a very bizarre race that depends too much on map balance. What league are you in? Zerg can hold on 1 base for the early game no problem, its the mid-late game where they get absolutely raped by the cost efficient units like collosus, mass marine/tank/thor etc. In order to combat these units Zerg NEED a lot of gas for things like banelings/corruptor/muta. Just because a Zerg has won on 1 base doesn't mean its viable, as this was certainly due to the failures of his opponent. If the Terran or Protoss plays optimally, zerg will lose, period. I watched a game yesterday CatZ vs Huk, where Catz had his main and TWO GOLD BASES against Huk who was mined out at his main, and only had his nat. It a 3 bases vs 1 base (and two of those were Gold's for CatZ) and he still lost due to the massive cost effectiveness of the collosus, despite all the corruptors that CatZ made. If a Zerg wins on equal bases its because the Terran/Toss messed up hardcore, or went all-in and failed. I'm pretty sure you are really drama queening that game up. First of all, why is Huk's main mined out and Catz' main has enough minerals left for you to call it a full base? And if that actually happened that doesn't mean Zerg is bad, it means Catz played horribly or there is more to the game than you are describing here. There's no way a one basing toss is beating a zerg with 3 bases, 2 of them being golds.... please. Unless you are hiding tons of details like catz never had more than 12 drones or was playing with his feet. Lol, Zerg always mine out the main slower than either Terran or protoss, but in this case, his main had fewer drones because he wanted his gold bases saturated first instead of his main, so he transferred the majority of his drones to his golds, which is the optimal thing to do. There is nothing spectacular or out of the ordinary about this game. Huk's defense was simply too cost efficient, he nearly lost like 100 times, but held on by the skin of his teeth until CatZ mined out his first gold, and simply couldn't keep up production after that. Huk took a 3rd, got a ball of collosus and CatZ lost his entire army taking out the collosus, leaving a ball of gateway units to clean up his expo's before he could re-inforce. Yes, CatZ was out-played, and a superior Zerg player like Idra most likely would have won that game in CatZ position, but CatZ is a top 200 Zerg, and I mention this game to demonstrate just how cost inefficient Zerg armies are, and the absolute requirement that Zerg have more bases. As soon as Catz had equal bases he was toast, and Huk's ball was simply too cost efficient. There is no point arguing that Zerg need more bases, its a simple fact.
Where did I ever say Zerg didn't need more bases? If a 3 base (2 of them gold) Zerg can't beat a 1 basing Toss than either:
1) this game is horribly broken (which it isn't)
2) the Zerg played the absolute worst game of his life
|
What about hatch first in main ?
|
The vast misconception I can notice in this thread is that people tend to consider that Starcraft 2 is somehow meant to be plaid like Starcraft 1.
In other words they think that the optimal way of playing it is macro-wise, which would only be true if the races were balanced in the late stage of the game and that a safe way to get there existed, something that no one has any evidences of. So they label as noobs people who all-in and so on...
Right now the game is just so far from being balanced imo. The huge balance issues have just been constantly swept under the carpet by Blizzard.
Instead of fixing Zerg macro they force us to play on ridiculously small maps so that Terran and Protoss can make some blind successful all-in out of 1-2 bases. Instead of fixing Zealot/Stalker to allow Protoss to defeat early all-in, they force them to make sentries and camp at their bases while anxiously waiting to cast a forcefield. Great game-design.
Not to mention that the most cool units/abilities of the game have been nerfed into oblivion by Blizzard (reapers/HSM/motership) for really strange reasons.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that the community should balance the game themselves.
I know this might seems strange for a lot of you, because it doesn't correspond to the Starcraft 1 mentality, but like I said before, the Starcraft 1 mentality corresponds to a precise game : STARCRAFT 1. And like it or not, there are no evidences that Starcraft 2 in its current state will end up being very similar to it.
tldr : It just pisses me off to notice that some people are dumb enough to believe that so many pro Zerg players "happen" to have a better macro, or that pro Terrans "happen" to be so good at all-ining cheesing a lot... whatever...
Statistics folks, it's not the players, it's the race.
|
On December 10 2010 01:47 iD.NicKy wrote:
What about hatch first in main ?
your still going to get bunker blocked. sept its easy because no creep is blocking it off so that theyc ant
|
United States2082 Posts
In base hatch doesn't cut it because zerg needs the extra gas as much as they need the extra larva. As the game drags on two geysers is not enough to hold back the more cost effective protoss and terran units.
|
On December 10 2010 04:11 Treemonkeys wrote:
In base hatch doesn't cut it because zerg needs the extra gas as much as they need the extra larva. As the game drags on two geysers is not enough to hold back the more cost effective protoss and terran units.
you can go from hatchery into a roughly fast expand still. no reason you have to stay on 1 base just cause you have two hatches in it.
I favor an inbase against zerg and sometimes terran just because its unexpected and they're not used to dealing with all that extra larva. my 3rd hatch no matter what ALWAYS goes into my main just cause its easier to defend then ill expand when the opportunity presents itself
|
Bumping this thread to talk about the trends in GSL4 where alot of zergs seem to be going pool first against terran. The post below is edited in the OP:
LASTEST EDIT: I'm now noticing a trend in GSL4 where alot of zerg's seem to be going pool first against terran (for example, Jinro vs Idra, Cliiiide vs Idra). Has the thinking shifted? Do more zergs prefer pool first now?
|
Patch 1.2 has shifted nothing about the early TvZ metagame and hatch first is still the proper play vs 2 rax.
I've done extensive testing on every single zerg opening and of course any hatch first is better than any pool first aside from chz pools. If you go pool first you basically cannot expand vs 2 rax because if you do you'll never have enough lings to hold an allin, and you'll never have a crawler up in time (actually more likely than not the hatch isn't even finished by the time the allin hits). This forces you into an allin by definition, and if T either double gasses and turtles up while going 2 port banshee, or expands and holds with a lot of bunkers, you lose. Zerg 1 base allins are really really bad.
Now as for the timing of hatch first, obviously the earlier, the better, since your spine is up faster and that's far more important than lings.
It's a pretty dumb metagame and tbh I don't think T should lose on any short rush distance map ever. Longer rush distances are still plenty viable, it's just harder to allin, but T can just expo as well and maintain very strong economic presence in midgame.
Now I don't main T anymore, I just explored this to help my friend who plays Z, but the evidence is pretty conclusive - hatch first is still the only way to stop this.
|
On December 07 2010 17:34 IronInko wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 17:08 TexSC wrote:On December 07 2010 17:01 Gotmog wrote:
Jinro agrees as well.
And i think Artosis would agree now as well, even though he was against it at the start of GSL (so was idra i believe) It is quite amazing how quickly Artosis went from "If you went hatch first and they want to kill it, they can" to "if you place a spine crawler or two, with good ling control, you can fend it off every time." But yes, I agree, hatch first is what zergs have to do. They are a macro race, period. I just want to point out, that isn't the kind of thing you can criticize. If someone is able to criticize something because it seems wrong, but realize that they made an error in judgment and take back that criticism, isn't that a good thing?
But its infinitely cooler to pretend Artosis is wrong apparently...
|
I feel like the fact that more zergs are opening pool first has more of a psychological effect on the terrans, as opposed to being better against 2 fax. The aggression that the much earlier ling speed allows is effective at delaying the terran expo and generally causing the terran a bit of hurt, or at least so it seems. This in turn may be the reason we are seeing relatively fewer 2 rax all ins than in he previous two seasons.
I think it's fair to assume that the TvZ openings will oscillate between hatch first vs 2 and pool first versus more tech/harrass based builds.
That's my opinion anyway ^^
|
On January 17 2011 02:52 mprs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 17:34 IronInko wrote:On December 07 2010 17:08 TexSC wrote:On December 07 2010 17:01 Gotmog wrote:
Jinro agrees as well.
And i think Artosis would agree now as well, even though he was against it at the start of GSL (so was idra i believe) It is quite amazing how quickly Artosis went from "If you went hatch first and they want to kill it, they can" to "if you place a spine crawler or two, with good ling control, you can fend it off every time." But yes, I agree, hatch first is what zergs have to do. They are a macro race, period. I just want to point out, that isn't the kind of thing you can criticize. If someone is able to criticize something because it seems wrong, but realize that they made an error in judgment and take back that criticism, isn't that a good thing? But its infinitely cooler to pretend Artosis is wrong apparently...
If Artosis is alone in the forest, and he speaks, is he still wrong?
|
On December 07 2010 18:03 aebriol wrote:
I just don't believe this to be true.
Another post has shown that 11 overpool is better for economy than any other build. It would also get you spinecrawler earlier - which can be moved afterwards.
Personally I think that 14 gas, 14 pool, speedling into baneling (bust if bustable - and that hits right before hellions can be out with 2 rax opening, and beats marines off 2 rax) is the correct counter to this non-stimmed, non-upgraded, marinepush with SCV's.
One thing is if you don't know it's coming (the push) - then it's almost an all-in gamble (even though you can recover, well, you can't really unless you do serious damage with it), but in the final match, everyone knew it was coming, including, I am sure, the players.
First, I don't think you spent a week testing it, so no offense but I'm definitely going to believe IdrA and Ret over you. Secondly, if you go with 14 gas 14 pool you simply do not have enough larvae to fend it off. Terran can throw down 2 more barracks and crush you because you won't have an expansion built, or they can throw down a CC and double gas and tech up and you'll still be behind.
Yes banelings are good but you won't have them out by the time the 2 rax comes initially, and if it gets scouted then bunkers go up and they're nullified and you're even more behind.
I really think the best thing to do is get up spines as quickly as possible, but on some maps positioning can certainly make even spines not work so well (Caverns for example).
|
I was gonna cry and swear that we seriously needed some angelic member of the community to come down and actually tell us what the highest level players all know, then I saw Ret's post.
I've gotta say, it's awesome that the really TOP players would take the time to explain what's what. We should listen more often, and hope that it happens more often 
|
On December 10 2010 01:13 BuuGhost wrote:
Zerg needs a forcefield.
They do, it's called fungal growth. Except it take twice as long to get and the units that cast them cost twice as much.
|
On December 10 2010 01:44 Neo.NEt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 08:10 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On December 09 2010 07:59 Neo.NEt wrote:On December 09 2010 07:53 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On December 09 2010 07:47 darmousseh wrote:On December 09 2010 07:40 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:On December 09 2010 07:13 darmousseh wrote:
I don't understand why 1 basing is so bad for zerg. If you get bunker contained can you not just make a spine crawler to kill it? I thought this game was designed such that if players have the same number of expansions that they could be even with each other on the same number of bases.
For example, on 1 base, with a queen and 2 hatcheries you can produce units non-stop (unless you are going like zergling only). This is an investment of 450 minerals (150 for queen 300 for hatch). Whereas protoss needs 4 gateways on one base = 600 minerals while terran needs 4 rax (2 with tech labs) which is 700 minerals 50 gas.
Who decided that zerg need more expansions? I know this is true in scbw because of how the game worked, but is it neccesarily true in sc2? In sc2, you get minerals so quickly and expansions are worth so much (each base is like 2 bases in bw) that is it really neccesary to FE every time as zerg?
Have the designers ever said anything about zerg early expanding? I'm not saying FE is bad, but I am questioning if it is completely necessary. I've seen a lot of zerg play with a midish expansion (at around 28-30 food) who do very well. Are zerg units so bad that they always need to be ahead in supply in the entire game?
Now i know many players will be like "Economics dude, zerg need production and more minerals", but I want to know if the gains of getting an early expansion as opposed to a normal expansion outweigh the possible risks.
I guess another way of looking at it is, should protoss and terran always go 14 cc or 14 nexus as well? It doesn't matter how the game was designed, as anybody who is experienced and can play the game with half-decent macro will find out that Zerg will lose on equal bases as their units are simply not cost efficient enough to handle the likes of the more efficient mid-late game units of Protoss and Terran. What the designers intended or didn't intend makes absolutely no difference because even if they did "intend" that Zerg only need equal bases the reality of the matter determined via experience is that they need at least 1 more. The only people that ever suggest this are people that are unable to play the game with decent macro, so 2 hatch in base or at expo doesn't really make much of a difference as their macro is horrible anyway. Well, i obviously know from experience and watching plenty of games (and playing plenty of games) that this is mostly true, but i've seen many times where zerg on 1 base (2 hatches 1 queen) can easily beat a protoss FE or terran FE. Also we've seen how cost effective roaches are (especially against protoss early game) so I don't really buy the whole idea that zerg starts with a huge unit handicap. As it stands, terran has the best maco mechanics (able to gather minerals faster than any other race) so it would seem that terran should be the one that early expands to get a huge macro advantage. Idk, I think zerg is a very bizarre race that depends too much on map balance. What league are you in? Zerg can hold on 1 base for the early game no problem, its the mid-late game where they get absolutely raped by the cost efficient units like collosus, mass marine/tank/thor etc. In order to combat these units Zerg NEED a lot of gas for things like banelings/corruptor/muta. Just because a Zerg has won on 1 base doesn't mean its viable, as this was certainly due to the failures of his opponent. If the Terran or Protoss plays optimally, zerg will lose, period. I watched a game yesterday CatZ vs Huk, where Catz had his main and TWO GOLD BASES against Huk who was mined out at his main, and only had his nat. It a 3 bases vs 1 base (and two of those were Gold's for CatZ) and he still lost due to the massive cost effectiveness of the collosus, despite all the corruptors that CatZ made. If a Zerg wins on equal bases its because the Terran/Toss messed up hardcore, or went all-in and failed. I'm pretty sure you are really drama queening that game up. First of all, why is Huk's main mined out and Catz' main has enough minerals left for you to call it a full base? And if that actually happened that doesn't mean Zerg is bad, it means Catz played horribly or there is more to the game than you are describing here. There's no way a one basing toss is beating a zerg with 3 bases, 2 of them being golds.... please. Unless you are hiding tons of details like catz never had more than 12 drones or was playing with his feet. Lol, Zerg always mine out the main slower than either Terran or protoss, but in this case, his main had fewer drones because he wanted his gold bases saturated first instead of his main, so he transferred the majority of his drones to his golds, which is the optimal thing to do. There is nothing spectacular or out of the ordinary about this game. Huk's defense was simply too cost efficient, he nearly lost like 100 times, but held on by the skin of his teeth until CatZ mined out his first gold, and simply couldn't keep up production after that. Huk took a 3rd, got a ball of collosus and CatZ lost his entire army taking out the collosus, leaving a ball of gateway units to clean up his expo's before he could re-inforce. Yes, CatZ was out-played, and a superior Zerg player like Idra most likely would have won that game in CatZ position, but CatZ is a top 200 Zerg, and I mention this game to demonstrate just how cost inefficient Zerg armies are, and the absolute requirement that Zerg have more bases. As soon as Catz had equal bases he was toast, and Huk's ball was simply too cost efficient. There is no point arguing that Zerg need more bases, its a simple fact. Where did I ever say Zerg didn't need more bases? If a 3 base (2 of them gold) Zerg can't beat a 1 basing Toss than either: 1) this game is horribly broken (which it isn't) 2) the Zerg played the absolute worst game of his life
Why anyone would cite CatZ sticking to ling/baneling for 25 minutes straight against force fields and colossus as evidence that 3 base zerg against 2 base protoss in imba is beyond me. Stop making balance comments if you're a platinum player who doesn't understand the games being cited as evidence.
|
For those people seeing top zerg's going 14 14 instead of hatch first it isn't because hatch first isn't the best vs 2 rax, it's that they either don't anticipate 2 rax or that they anticipate their hatch being blocked by an E-bay.
As we saw at the EG master's cup QXC vs Idra, Idra laid down the hatch at the ramp expecting 2 rax.
14 14 is a great build because you NEED speed as fast as possible, it just lacks the larva necessary to defend a 2rax. And if the terran is teching or expanding then you want speed to pressure the FE, or gas to begin your own tech.
I think possibly more than that is that even if going hatch first can be best vs 2rax ideally, it could incur more losses if you defend incorrectly, so they may be using the theoretically worse build which has more consistent losses. That's a convoluted explanation, easier to say if you go hatch first, the range of drone losses is 1-5, but speed has a range of 2-3(these numbers are made up BTW)
Or it could be that with the ghost worker patch they feel that with speedlings and drones they can defend effectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
