EPT[Spoiler] Ret's quote - Page 8
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Lavitage
United States71 Posts
| ||
|
frogmelter
United States971 Posts
On December 09 2010 06:37 Joementum wrote: Yeah, he must know nothing. I wonder how he got to GSL RO64 knowing nothing. Artosis never got into the GSL before... | ||
|
zerious
Canada3803 Posts
On December 09 2010 06:59 frogmelter wrote: Artosis never got into the GSL before... Wrong... | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
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? | ||
|
Neo.NEt
United States785 Posts
Seriously? | ||
|
numpkin
39 Posts
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? If a zerg stays on one hatchery, his production will fall behind of either terran or protoss, because both workers and units are from larvea, and the larvea spawn rate off 1 hatch just doesn't cut it against 3 rax or 4 gate early pressure. What ret was saying in OP is that zerg NEED 2 hatch, and since you need to place down a hatch anyway, might as well place it in your natural as long as you are capable of defending it. I agree with ret that it's much easier to try to fend off very early pressure with lings and drones, than try to stay on 1 hatch and try to catch up with T or P later in the game. | ||
|
pwnasaurus
Canada190 Posts
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? Pretty simple - zerg units are not cost effective, so you need more income to be able to win. | ||
|
FrostedMiniWeet
United States636 Posts
On December 09 2010 06:59 frogmelter wrote: Artosis never got into the GSL before... This video says otherwise: http://www.gomtv.net/2010gslopens1/vod/1038 | ||
|
FrostedMiniWeet
United States636 Posts
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. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On December 09 2010 07:28 numpkin wrote: If a zerg stays on one hatchery, his production will fall behind of either terran or protoss, because both workers and units are from larvea, and the larvea spawn rate off 1 hatch just doesn't cut it against 3 rax or 4 gate early pressure. What ret was saying in OP is that zerg NEED 2 hatch, and since you need to place down a hatch anyway, might as well place it in your natural as long as you are capable of defending it. I agree with ret that it's much easier to try to fend off very early pressure with lings and drones, than try to stay on 1 hatch and try to catch up with T or P later in the game. Eventually zerg need 2 hatch yes, but a queen can provide enough larvae for the first like 6 minutes of the game (unless you are going kyrix style hyper zergling). Did blizzard design the game so that zerg would always be up an expansion on their opponent and if so, why is a third base so difficult to get on all the maps in the pool? Idk, I kinda feel like the game is designed poorly if one race is completely Dependant on the map in order to get expansions. What if they upped the number of larvae on each base or on a queen. Protoss has to spend 750 minerals on gateways/cyber core on 1 base in order to produce for a 4 gate push, yet zerg only have to make a 200 mineral tech building and a 150 production thing (queen) in order to almost match the production capabilities of protoss or terran. Does anyone else think that the whole system is designed wrong? I know that there should be imbalances in the game to make it interesting and to make each race unique, but why does the map imbalance seem to affect zerg more significantly than protoss or terran? As for ret and idras quote, yeah i can see how 14 hatch can be considered the safest way of defending if you plan on expanding early, but is it always neccesary. Lately I've seen a lot of protoss do cannoning in of the zerg at the beginning of the game in order to prevent the zerg from expanding early, but this doesn't seem to stop them from staying even in production for most of the game. | ||
|
FrostedMiniWeet
United States636 Posts
On December 09 2010 07:40 darmousseh wrote: Eventually zerg need 2 hatch yes, but a queen can provide enough larvae for the first like 6 minutes of the game (unless you are going kyrix style hyper zergling). Did blizzard design the game so that zerg would always be up an expansion on their opponent and if so, why is a third base so difficult to get on all the maps in the pool? Idk, I kinda feel like the game is designed poorly if one race is completely Dependant on the map in order to get expansions. What if they upped the number of larvae on each base or on a queen. Protoss has to spend 750 minerals on gateways/cyber core on 1 base in order to produce for a 4 gate push, yet zerg only have to make a 200 mineral tech building and a 150 production thing (queen) in order to almost match the production capabilities of protoss or terran. Does anyone else think that the whole system is designed wrong? I know that there should be imbalances in the game to make it interesting and to make each race unique, but why does the map imbalance seem to affect zerg more significantly than protoss or terran? As for ret and idras quote, yeah i can see how 14 hatch can be considered the safest way of defending if you plan on expanding early, but is it always neccesary. Lately I've seen a lot of protoss do cannoning in of the zerg at the beginning of the game in order to prevent the zerg from expanding early, but this doesn't seem to stop them from staying even in production for most of the game. It's not an issue of larva, its an issue of minerals and more importantly gas, which Zerg need to make their game winning units. Without gas and the extra income from an expo, zerg is utterly screwed come mid game. And no this is not bad or wrong. Zerg are the SWARM, and they cannot SWARM if they have the same number bases as their enemies. Zerg is designed from the ground up to have more bases. Hatcheries are cheap, and needed for production of all units anyway. Zerg units are relatively weak with superior mobility (with the exception of the hydra), and Zerg has poor static defenses. Good mobility and poor static defense is built into the Zerg because they have so many bases. Terran on the other hand need the fewest bases, and thus have the most immobile army, and the best static defenses. This is how the game was designed. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On December 09 2010 07:40 FrostedMiniWeet wrote: 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. | ||
|
Neo.NEt
United States785 Posts
You guys say "I pool first all the time and I'm just fine". We're playing 1v1's against soccerfriend619, not against Foxer... | ||
|
FrostedMiniWeet
United States636 Posts
On December 09 2010 07:47 darmousseh wrote: 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. | ||
|
Neo.NEt
United States785 Posts
On December 09 2010 07:53 FrostedMiniWeet wrote: 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. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On December 09 2010 07:53 FrostedMiniWeet wrote: 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. 1700 diamond. In the midgame, zerg can make mid game units like infestors, corrupters, mutalisks, and hydras. Collosus are a tier 3 unit that costs a buttload (to get and to upgrade). Did catz make any tier 3 units to counter or did he stick with tier 1 stuff? Why don't we see zerg rushing to tier 3 on 2 base? but protoss and terran can do it? I'm not questioning the logic of getting more expansions, i'm questioning the design and philosophy of zerg as a whole. If protoss goes 6 gate it will lose badly to a rush to broodlords, and if protoss goes collosus it will beat a zerg t1/1.5 army. Teching is risky but pays big rewards, but it seems like zerg refuse to tech until they have to, whereas protoss tech to gain an advantage. This might explain why i like watching TLO play zerg, he likes to tech a lot faster than players like ret or idra, and huk loves to switch up his strategies (sometimes cannon rush, sometimes 4 gate, sometimes 1 gate expand). Is zerg so pinned down to a tiny tech tree that they have become predictable the entire game or are they simply playing the game the way they want to, instead of the most optimal way? | ||
|
FrostedMiniWeet
United States636 Posts
On December 09 2010 07:59 Neo.NEt wrote: 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. | ||
|
Ghad
Norway2551 Posts
On December 07 2010 17:08 TexSC wrote: 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.". Well would you rather have him never change his mind? | ||
|
FrostedMiniWeet
United States636 Posts
On December 09 2010 08:07 darmousseh wrote: 1700 diamond. In the midgame, zerg can make mid game units like infestors, corrupters, mutalisks, and hydras. Collosus are a tier 3 unit that costs a buttload (to get and to upgrade). Did catz make any tier 3 units to counter or did he stick with tier 1 stuff? Why don't we see zerg rushing to tier 3 on 2 base? but protoss and terran can do it? I'm not questioning the logic of getting more expansions, i'm questioning the design and philosophy of zerg as a whole. If protoss goes 6 gate it will lose badly to a rush to broodlords, and if protoss goes collosus it will beat a zerg t1/1.5 army. Teching is risky but pays big rewards, but it seems like zerg refuse to tech until they have to, whereas protoss tech to gain an advantage. This might explain why i like watching TLO play zerg, he likes to tech a lot faster than players like ret or idra, and huk loves to switch up his strategies (sometimes cannon rush, sometimes 4 gate, sometimes 1 gate expand). Is zerg so pinned down to a tiny tech tree that they have become predictable the entire game or are they simply playing the game the way they want to, instead of the most optimal way? Are you serious? If you really are 1700 diamond, which I don't believe btw due to the nature of your questions, then you would understand that Zerg don't have wallin or defensive abilities like Terran or Protoss, and teching too much is VERY dangerous, and suicidal vs a good opponent. Besides, as I said, zerg needs the GAS of at least 3 bases, preferably 4 before they can afford to go T3. T3 on 2 bases is lol, as you'll have like 2 ultra's when then come in with a massive army and roflstomp you. There is a reason why Zergs expand all over the place, and its not just because they think its fun or something, they absolutely need to in order to stay in the game. Zerg are designed to be a SWARM dude, and that means many bases. | ||
|
my0s
United States193 Posts
On December 09 2010 06:59 frogmelter wrote: If you didn't notice yet, Artosis doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Terrible caster. At least he's kinda funny though. On December 09 2010 05:05 ExoD wrote: Artosis never got into the GSL before... I love how I write a huge post on the detriment and overall degrading of content flaming and uninformed moronic trolling has on these threads. And the very next page is full of things like these posts. Maybe its just me being overtired from finals. But in my opinion a mod needs to sweep this thread hard with the ban hammer, because this stuff is just getting old. | ||
| ||
