| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Neivler
Norway911 Posts
On January 12 2011 03:25 Antiproduct wrote: EXACTLY. Screw whining zergs. Worse than protoss whiners. You clearly do not understand. The t1 units of zerg cant match the P or T. Sure if they keep on pushing the zerg can hold, but any smart player would not do that. You need the hatch at the nat to get up spine crawlers to be able to hold off any hard pressure from the P and T. With an inbase hatch, that is impossible. | ||
|
Omni17
United States141 Posts
T2: Balance things out. T3: Roflstomp with Broodlords/Ultras. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
They also ignore the fact that 1 hatch + queen is 150 minerals more expensive than 1 Nexus* but even for additional hatches it still applies which either gives the Protoss a gateway or part of a 2nd nexus they can begin working towards producing from. Also for the 4 warp gate you should also add in probe production on the protoss side. It's not a fair comparison if you ignore the fact that the Protoss player can keep producing probes behind the 4 gates. Sure they can't chronoboost them, but they can still produce them. This is an important thing and can be seen strongly in ZvT 1 base hatch/queen vs 2 rax marine pressure means the zerg is making 0 drones to stay alive and can keep up in production this way, but falls behind as the Terran gets to keep making scvs as well as the marines. *150 vs 0 for initial hatch+queen vs nexus and 500 vs 400 for each additional pair. It's actually a little more than that because you need to factor in the population cost of the queen, roughly 25 minerals and .25 larva as well as the supply boost of the nexus. | ||
|
freetgy
1720 Posts
On January 12 2011 06:30 Neivler wrote: You clearly do not understand. The t1 units of zerg cant match the P or T. Sure if they keep on pushing the zerg can hold, but any smart player would not do that. You need the hatch at the nat to get up spine crawlers to be able to hold off any hard pressure from the P and T. With an inbase hatch, that is impossible. why should this be impossible, highground advantage is always good...Spinecrawlers are strong, if it can't be by passed. lings from the back, easy kill if the Protoss is stupid enough to come up. also speedlings actually own everything from protoss in the early (if you on wide space) you need quite a few zealots and forcefields to survive such a battle in your favor. (or +1 Weapons) | ||
|
thurst0n
United States611 Posts
Also as it's been mentioned before don't forget everytime I build a building (or spine crawler) or gas I must use a drone (ie larvae) further reducing the number of army units I can have. To be on topic here, the way I see it it all comes back to that "Balance" zerg has to find.. zerg doesn't want to be aggressive early game because it means they will be behind on probes/econ, since they've devoted so much larvae to army units. They would rather etablish an economical dominance before gearing up for an attack. Personally I think this is a HUGE mistake (although I'm very low levels) in terms of any matchup I believe the person being the aggresor has the advantage. This idea of strategy transcends starcraft, it works in poker, chess, everything. I think day[9] even eludes to it in a few dailies.. If you are the one pushing his base, you have options.. you can keep attacking if things are going well, you can back off and defend if things are going poorly, or you can just poke in and out trying to pick off units but still "pressuring" by being just outside his base. (I do realize the topic is about harassment not just attacking, but the idea is the same) In poker, if I bet/raise, there are 2 ways I can win.. you can fold, or I can end up having the better hand when you call or raise me. If all I do is call, call, call, well the only way I can win is if I have the best hand. You dont need the best hand in starcraft all the time, it's ok to bluff(push out of your base, feign an attack) just to make your opponent feel like he cannot attack you.. of course there is a balance here too, if you get in over your head you could get crushed, but in general it's better to be the one attacking than to be the one defending in a very very general sense, as far as harassment, any harassment at anytime is good because it keeps your opponent from being able to macro and which hopefully leads to other mistakes. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On January 12 2011 06:48 thurst0n wrote: I'm confused by those graphical charts. It seems that larvae production means nothing.. this was eluded to a bit earlier, but sure I can stay ahead with drones.. but if he attacks me I have nothing but drones? Also as it's been mentioned before don't forget everytime I build a building (or spine crawler) or gas I must use a drone (ie larvae) further reducing the number of army units I can have. To be on topic here, the way I see it it all comes back to that "Balance" zerg has to find.. zerg doesn't want to be aggressive early game because it means they will be behind on probes/econ, since they've devoted so much larvae to army units. They would rather etablish an economical dominance before gearing up for an attack. Personally I think this is a HUGE mistake (although I'm very low levels) in terms of any matchup I believe the person being the aggresor has the advantage. This idea of strategy transcends starcraft, it works in poker, chess, everything. I think day[9] even eludes to it in a few dailies.. If you are the one pushing his base, you have options.. you can keep attacking if things are going well, you can back off and defend if things are going poorly, or you can just poke in and out trying to pick off units but still "pressuring" by being just outside his base. (I do realize the topic is about harassment not just attacking, but the idea is the same) In poker, if I bet/raise, there are 2 ways I can win.. you can fold, or I can end up having the better hand when you call or raise me. If all I do is call, call, call, well the only way I can win is if I have the best hand. You dont need the best hand in starcraft all the time, it's ok to bluff(push out of your base, feign an attack) just to make your opponent feel like he cannot attack you.. of course there is a balance here too, if you get in over your head you could get crushed, but in general it's better to be the one attacking than to be the one defending in a very very general sense, as far as harassment, any harassment at anytime is good because it keeps your opponent from being able to macro and which hopefully leads to other mistakes. Well to be fair Zerg are a lot like a Jujutsu style of fighting in my opinion. You use the force of your opponent against them; be it being economical and staying alive vs their aggression, expanding vs their passivity, or being aggressive when they show weakness. I don't think it's entirely fair to call it a flat out worse style. | ||
|
hun13
55 Posts
+1 | ||
|
Hurkyl
304 Posts
On January 12 2011 05:21 -Xios wrote: Its always funny to see the "hardc0re science d00des" derail a thread. Seeing how such a simple OP question has somehow 3 pages later required friggin diagrams to explain some finickity obscure point thats not really anything directly to do with the original question makes me lol. Anyway. There is a lot of misinformation out there. Correcting it is a good thing. Threads wouldn't be derailed if anti-intellectuals didn't cling to their misinformation. :p On January 12 2011 04:48 Zerokaiser wrote: Lol... If your Protoss opponent is just warping in 4gate Stalkers (Warpgate cooldown on Stalkers is 32 seconds I believe...), we'll just round that to an even minute for 2 warpins since that's without chronoboost. 1000 minerals and 400 gas. Why would you do the math for one race and then not do the math for the other? Because "the math" for Protoss economy has no bearing on what a Hatchery can produce.  If we do the math, we note that Probes harvest exactly the same as Drones -- 19 Probes on Minerals and 5 Probes on gas can only get about 720 minerals and 180 gas per minute.... That can sustain what? 2 warpgates making Stalker, and half of a warpgate making Zealots? (And there is still idle time!) I realize it's not maintainable to warp in pure Stalker time after time, but Zerg also can't build more than 20 drones against an aggressive 4WG all-in so I don't really think that's so important. If you knew it was wrong, then why did you bring it up. Protoss can delay building units and save a lot of money, then catch up later by overbuilding Warpgates and taking advantage of the extra production cycle it gives you. (And overbuilding can cover gaps in your macro) But that has nothing to do with whether or not a Hatchery can provide enough larvae to spend your resources when one-basing. Also, I don't see what "Zerg can't build more than 20 Drones" has to do with the point you're objecting to -- if Zerg can't make enough Drones to keep one Hatchqueen, busy, then they definitely aren't going to get any production benefit out of a second Hatchery. :p If Zerg one-bases, they might manage to be par with Protoss and Terran for a little bit...But eventually they're going to fall behind and be forced to expand (or Protoss/Terran expands)! Now Zerg is in a lot of trouble because if they try to drone up now they're liable to get rolled over. Again... what does this have to do with whether or not a hatchqueen can give enough production when one-basing? If you're doing something like pumping Roaches off of 20 Drones, then two-basing doesn't boost your economy (you still only have 0-2 Drones per patch) nor does it boost your production (you don't have the money to use the Hatch's larvae) Economically speaking, you should delay the second Hatchery so that it finishes no earlier than when you start Droning again (or switch to massing Zerglings) -- and even then it might be better to delay, e.g. if you're teching at the same time. Of course, there are other reasons to build a second hatchery, such as to build Spine Colonies to entrench in your natural. But that has nothing to do with whether or not a single hatchqueen can produce enough larvae to spend your money. | ||
|
thurst0n
United States611 Posts
On January 12 2011 06:52 Logo wrote: Well to be fair Zerg are a lot like a Jujutsu style of fighting in my opinion. You use the force of your opponent against them; be it being economical and staying alive vs their aggression, expanding vs their passivity, or being aggressive when they show weakness. I don't think it's entirely fair to call it a flat out worse style. Hmm not sure if I said it was flat out worse or not, but definately didn't mean to. Im thinking at a very very high level that if you can be you'd like to be the aggresor. I definately agree and like the strategy of adapting to your opponent, but I believe you can adapt to your opponent at the same time as being aggressive. I guess more than anything if you CAN pressure you should, without losing units, if you have units sitting around that's generally not good, as zerg especially because that means you could have made drones. | ||
|
Arisen
United States2382 Posts
| ||
|
Hurkyl
304 Posts
On January 12 2011 06:33 Logo wrote:This is an important thing and can be seen strongly in ZvT 1 base hatch/queen vs 2 rax marine pressure means the zerg is making 0 drones to stay alive and can keep up in production this way, but falls behind as the Terran gets to keep making scvs as well as the marines. For completeness, I assume you are considering 1 base hatch/queen making pure Zerglings, as opposed to something else like massing Roaches or Banelings (or Spine Crawlers + tech)? Of course, in this comparison, Zerg is spending 500 minerals per minute making Zerglings while Terran is only spending 300 minerals per minute on his Marines.... | ||
|
Rowen
United States76 Posts
Anyone who has a more-than-rudimentary understanding of any strategy game will tell you that going all-in without a good reason is a poor choice. In poker, you should take an all-in if you feel like your chances of beating your opponent are better than your chances of beating him should you continue to play. Coin flips are bad if you're the better player, but if you're the worse player then you should take a coin flip every time because you know your opponent will outplay you in the long run. That's why proxy stargate -> VR, proxy pylon 4gate, proxy 3rax, and any number of other cheeses WORK below diamond and promote some people who don't deserve it: they're taking that coinflip that they will either WIN or LOSE because if the game hits the 20 minute mark they hardly have a chance to win anymore. As Zerg, when you make that choice to all-in early on, it has to be done thinking that you can't win in the mid- or late-game, because it's gonna be hard to come back if your all-in fails. However, most players will attest to Z being the strongest race after the 20-25 minute mark. As P and T are 3 basing on 200 food armies, Z is 5 or 6 basing using constantly replenished 200 food armies (coined as a "300 food army" by day[9]). This advantage only grows as the game goes later and later and P/T are forced to do damage to the now overwhelming Z. If Z commits to an early attack that will set him behind economically, he cannot reach this point. If P/T fail to harass to stop drone production, the game will ALWAYS reach this point. That's where the meta-game is right now. Maybe in a few months, we'll see P/T doing a 15 expo and being unable to stop Z's early attack, and getting extra production with Chrono and MULEs to match Z's early econ and there will be a flip. In another decade, we'll probably have seen every strategy matchup you can imagine. For now, the way that Protoss and Terran play require that Zerg choose to all-in early, or gear up for a late-midgame 300 food push. If you don't like it, shuck the midgame and play your own way and God speed, but there's a reason for it, and that's what shouldn't be ignored. tl;dr If you are aggressive early, you're behind in econ, so you can't survive to the lategame where Z really shines. | ||
|
XRoninKCG
7 Posts
I think this still goes along with the infectious attitude of the Zerg. Creep spreads slowly like a kind of cancer, is strong, but hard to kill. A rush is like a virus, if the defenses aren't right, zergs are fast, overwhelm the opposition, and kill everything. Problem with a virus is it can be countered with a single antibody, a cancer can mutate and overwhelm antibodies (and take lots of expos apparently). A rush is designed to shut down the immune system, macro is designed to eat the body. ...creeped myself out a little by this post. Maybe I should play terran for a while. | ||
|
Grapefruit
Germany439 Posts
On January 12 2011 07:12 Arisen wrote: I find it sad that this has turned into a balance discussion. I just wanted to post the very same thing, especially since there is not one "real" argument for imbalance. It all comes down to the simple fact that the 3 races play differently, oh boy, what a shock. | ||
|
freetgy
1720 Posts
On January 12 2011 07:31 Rowen wrote: The reason that Zerg must be defensive in early-game is, as stated before by many people, they must produce EITHER drones OR units. i really dont get that, Zerg can either Produce Drones or Units, Thats an Advantage not a burden. why shouldn't be Zerg be able to produce 1 Drone@ a time (+additional ones those lost on Buildings) like the other races to be even on drone count, and still produce enough units. The Overdrone Problem just occurs when macro Zerg plays to greedy. But again, why shouldn't Zerg not be able to Play like Terran or Protoss, sure it might need other timings, but there for you gain Safety in Early can be also Aggressiv and contain. while during that contain expand very safely. | ||
|
Victim
United States188 Posts
On January 12 2011 06:48 thurst0n wrote: I'm confused by those graphical charts. It seems that larvae production means nothing.. this was eluded to a bit earlier, but sure I can stay ahead with drones.. but if he attacks me I have nothing but drones? Also as it's been mentioned before don't forget everytime I build a building (or spine crawler) or gas I must use a drone (ie larvae) further reducing the number of army units I can have. To be on topic here, the way I see it it all comes back to that "Balance" zerg has to find.. zerg doesn't want to be aggressive early game because it means they will be behind on probes/econ, since they've devoted so much larvae to army units. They would rather etablish an economical dominance before gearing up for an attack. Personally I think this is a HUGE mistake (although I'm very low levels) in terms of any matchup I believe the person being the aggresor has the advantage. This idea of strategy transcends starcraft, it works in poker, chess, everything. I think day[9] even eludes to it in a few dailies.. If you are the one pushing his base, you have options.. you can keep attacking if things are going well, you can back off and defend if things are going poorly, or you can just poke in and out trying to pick off units but still "pressuring" by being just outside his base. (I do realize the topic is about harassment not just attacking, but the idea is the same) It makes sense in terms of pure economy. If you get drones then units, then you've been making money from those drones because they've been for longer. If you get units, and then drones, then your total income is reduced relative to the first strategy, so you end up with fewer overall units and drones. More units early means that you don't have the income to support greater unit production later. It's basic time value of money. If we each desire say X amount of drones, and Y units, then the player making the drones first, with as few units as he can get away with until the drones are done, will generally end up with everything faster than trying to do both or getting a lot of units first. Regarding the costs of expanding, an expansion doesn't do much good unless you can actually do something useful with the income it provides. Even running way under capacity at something like 2 rax per base, Terran costs 400 (CC)+300 (2 rax) per base. Plus mining time, turning the base into an OC (which quickly pays for itself and then some, but still takes up front cost and time). Zerg costs 350 for the hatch, gets less supply so we'll add another 75 for the 3/4ths of an overlord, and 150 for the queen. That's only 575. Yeah, Zerg probably doesn't want to match 2 rax with 1 hatch/queen worth of pure lings. But once they get past the early game, they don't have to - all the tech they've bought can already be produced at no additional cost. A more serious level of production with addons, factories, etc from the terran will cost a lot more, and generally take more time that it takes to get out a queen. Zerg can generally turn its expo into a net gain in production more quickly and cheaply than other races. Zerg 2 base aggression can be very scary precisely because of that - but at the same time, that can be all in against better players since it really hurts drone production. | ||
|
thurst0n
United States611 Posts
As to a few posters who are commenting that this has turned into a balance discussion, I think that's what it was all along. Each race plays differently therefor has a different balance with each other race, therefore has to be played differently etc, this can be said with different BUILDS as well and this is what this thread is about. Just how in general almost all the early Zerg builds will favor econ with barely enough to survive. Of course this will be about balance, if it wasn't we wouldn't be having the correct conversation. | ||
|
ipwnN00bz
United States42 Posts
On January 12 2011 06:33 Logo wrote: Without overlords the charts are kinda pointless. It's a 9% reduction in drone efficiency which is no small amount. Even worse, for 2 pop units its a 17% reduction in efficiency (6 larva for 5 units). They also ignore the fact that 1 hatch + queen is 150 minerals more expensive than 1 Nexus* but even for additional hatches it still applies which either gives the Protoss a gateway or part of a 2nd nexus they can begin working towards producing from. Also for the 4 warp gate you should also add in probe production on the protoss side. It's not a fair comparison if you ignore the fact that the Protoss player can keep producing probes behind the 4 gates. Sure they can't chronoboost them, but they can still produce them. This is an important thing and can be seen strongly in ZvT 1 base hatch/queen vs 2 rax marine pressure means the zerg is making 0 drones to stay alive and can keep up in production this way, but falls behind as the Terran gets to keep making scvs as well as the marines. *150 vs 0 for initial hatch+queen vs nexus and 500 vs 400 for each additional pair. It's actually a little more than that because you need to factor in the population cost of the queen, roughly 25 minerals and .25 larva as well as the supply boost of the nexus. 1) they were just to show production capabilities - not cost since this has way to many combinatorial possibilites because of different unit costs and supply requirements 2) showing probe production on top of unit production is way to complex because of all the combinatorial possibilities of when/what structure to chronoboost 3) they show the extremes of protoss production (chronoboosting either units or probes - zeaots were chosen because they have the fastest cooldown) and that zerg comes out on top or even with production. PROTOSS CAN NOT CHRONOBOOST THEIR NEXUS AND 4 GATEWAYS AT THE SAME TIME Therefore whatever approach they take falls somewhere between those two. Looking at it this way requires you to think critically to understand the implications - however it is the most simple way to show the claims that zerg is at some sort of economic or production disadvantage early game (and therefore cannot be aggressive) are false. Edit: One last note, its no coincidence those lines are right on top of each other - there was clearly a lot of work put in to ensure that one race was not at a disadvantage . | ||
|
Hurkyl
304 Posts
On January 12 2011 07:31 Rowen wrote: The reason that Zerg must be defensive in early-game is, as stated before by many people, they must produce EITHER drones OR units. P and T get to pump econ while making units, while Z may choose one or the other. You've mixed up the "must" and the "get to". It's pretty much always better to get units just as you need them, rather than building them incrementally over time. It's better to pump econ, then pump units, then pump econ again. (Of course, sometimes you build units anyways, as insurance when you don't know if you'll need them or not) Alas, P and T are forced to pump econ while making units because, except for the earliest rushes, it's simply too expensive for them to do anything else -- it would requires an in-base Nexus or CC. Zerg, on the other hand, get to pump their econ or units whenever they want. Alas, this flexibility allows Zerg players more exciting ways to shoot themselves in the foot -- either by overdroning and thus not being able to defend an attack, or by overbuilding units and falling behind in economy. But that is a fault of the player, not a fault of the Zerg design. | ||
|
fabioisonfire
United States81 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
OSC
Wardi Open
CranKy Ducklings
Safe House 2
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Safe House 2
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
|
|
|
EPT
