|
I'm talking about the defesive way they are played these days.
I mean are they supposed to be like that?
I've never really played SC1 or BW online, so I don't know if it was the same case in these games but I think the way Zerg is played doesn't really fit the race.
Isn't Zerg supposed to be the race that constantly pressures and attacks the enemy instead of constantly fending stuff off?
And don't get me wrong, this is not a complaint about balance in any way, I'd just like to hear what you guys think about it.
Were the Zerg designed to be defensive or is that just a consequence of the current meta-game?
|
They're designed to macro up, and rape mid-late game with overwhelming force, massive economy, and infinite reinforcements.
|
Due to the current meta-game and map size I think zerg is being played the right way.
|
Its a consequence of how well both protoss and terran can turtle on the current set of maps. Its virtually impossible for zerg to do any major attacks that cannot be just blocked by a wall/ramp/forcefield making it tough for zerg to put any major pressure on the opponent. Therefore instead of taking a risk and attacking a choke, its better for zerg to macro up and defend, letting the game go into the later stages.
|
Zerg are ment to slowly consume the map, and eventually overwhelm with pure numbers, and i think it fits there lore perfectly.
And yes they were designed this way, just look at there creep mechanic, and the way they are encouraged to expand (only 300 for hatch, and you need them for unit production)
|
Much of the races offensive capabilities were clipped in SC2 if you're doing a direct comparision to SCBW. Zerglings took a nerf, Hydralisk are beyond terrible as offensive units and since SC2 is more counter-focused than SC1 was Zerg has to play responsive or they'll be left with a ton of units that will simply instantly evaporate.
In short, no.
|
Kyrix had a good amount of success with playing Zerg aggressively. NesTea plays PvZ really aggressively as well, and he has had a ton of success with that.
Like others have noted, Zerg has the fastest growing economy. It makes sense to use that.
|
I think many Zerg players would like to play aggressively, but that there is a problem. Protoss and Terran, accompanied by a selection of maps featuring ramp choke points, have an incredibly easy and strong way of walling off their base and not having to worry about early aggression much.
1 hold position Zealot can hold off 6 Zerglings.
1 Sentry can delay any push by lots of crucial time.
Marines standing safely behind buildings can shoot freely at the short range tier 1 Zerg units.
I believe it is simply a combination of Zerg having very short range tier 1 and the maps all having easy to fortify choke points. Notice how ZvZ is mainly Ling/Bling rushes? It's because Zerg can't wall everything off and have ranged units sitting behind 1000 hp buildings. Baneling Busts and 7RR are hardly viable against P or T due to their ease in predictability/scouting and counters.
If Zerg had either:
1. A cliff walking early game unit
2. A longer ranged tier 1 unit (ex. Hydra)
3. Maps with no ridiculous ramp choke points
Then they could maybe harass instead of always being the one harassed.
|
@the oldy:
think about the cost of an Exp:
Terra cost 400 gives aditional 11 Supply thats under 300
Zerg cost 300 + drone = 350 + 2 supply
Protoss 400 Cost 10 Supply thats also just 300 +the cost of a pylon
so its the zerg exp is the expensiv one
|
Zerg units are obviously less cost effective than a majority of Terran and Protoss units, but I feel one of their main strength is supposed to be their mobility. Fast units like Mutas and Lings, along with stuff like Overlord Doom drops and Nydus Worms mean they can anywhere they want in theory. The problem is that many current maps don't cater to this kind of play until very very late game. If a Terran or Protoss is two basing, there will only a couple spots he'll need to check if he hears a Nydus go up on map and his army can easily shift between his bases if drops come in.
Compare this to SC:BW where 3 bases (which is considered entering well into late game) was mid game, and it was the norm for each player to have 4 to even 6 expansions spread across huge expansive maps, I have a feeling that Zerg in larger macro maps will become much more aggressive at denying expansions with good mobility play.
We very well might see this in action in the new GSL maps. Zerg will have to worry less about dying to early pressure, and as a result will macro up much harder and force their opponents to expand more as well. Larger maps mean it will be much harder for the Terran/Toss deathball to effectively control the safety of multiple expansions, and quick surgical strikes with nydus worms and overlords might become very very effective.
|
There's still a lot of Zergs out there that are really aggressive and have that kind of play style.. I don't think you have to strictly be macro Zerg, but I do think it's the strongest style out there right now.
|
On January 12 2011 00:13 Tumor wrote:
@the oldy:
think about the cost of an Exp:
Terra cost 400 gives aditional 11 Supply thats under 300
Zerg cost 300 + drone = 350 + 2 supply
Protoss 400 Cost 10 Supply thats also just 300 +the cost of a pylon
so its the zerg exp is the expensiv one
I, as a zerg player, don't think this is a fair way to put it. The hatch also generates creep and serves a unit producing structure.
|
On January 12 2011 00:13 Sajuuk7 wrote:
I think many Zerg players would like to play aggressively, but that there is a problem. Protoss and Terran, accompanied by a selection of maps featuring ramp choke points, have an incredibly easy and strong way of walling off their base and not having to worry about early aggression much.
1 hold position Zealot can hold off 6 Zerglings.
1 Sentry can delay any push by lots of crucial time.
Marines standing safely behind buildings can shoot freely at the short range tier 1 Zerg units.
I believe it is simply a combination of Zerg having very short range tier 1 and the maps all having easy to fortify choke points. Notice how ZvZ is mainly Ling/Bling rushes? It's because Zerg can't wall everything off and have ranged units sitting behind 1000 hp buildings. Baneling Busts and 7RR are hardly viable against P or T due to their ease in predictability/scouting and counters.
If Zerg had either:
1. A cliff walking early game unit
2. A longer ranged tier 1 unit (ex. Hydra)
3. Maps with no ridiculous ramp choke points
Then they could maybe harass instead of always being the one harassed.
I'm sorry but zerg has no reason to complain about the choke points. There are plenty of ways to harass as zerg. Learn to micro and actually use your units effectively. Use drops. Prevent expansions (zerglings or mutalisks are perfect for this), and spread creep. If you spread creep, harass will not be a problem. Not to mention zerg's constant unit reinforcement. Protoss can barely harass zerg at all. They can't even harass Terran. Protoss have powerful units, yes, but the only unit that is good for harass is a blink stalker. I really do not see why you complain about this.
|
I've never really thought of zerg as the race that's supposed to be constantly pressuring and losing units to turtling players.
Instead, they're more like a growing infestation which will eventually overrun the entire map and inevitably, the opponent unable to prevent this. Like any disease or infection, until it has replicated enough, it is more likely to be wiped out. I guess it's subject to interpretation, but I see zerg as the race most forced to defend within the limitations of the creep, vs attacking the opponent's home turf and throwing away the economic advantage by losing all their units in the blink of an eye.
Everything is situational, though. If your protoss is opponent goes forge FE and you're on pool first with gas, then, yea... perhaps you want to make something happen.
|
On January 12 2011 00:26 dUTtrOACh wrote:
I've never really thought of zerg as the race that's supposed to be constantly pressuring and losing units to turtling players.
Instead, they're more like a growing infestation which will eventually overrun the entire map and inevitably, the opponent unable to prevent this. Like any disease or infection, until it has replicated enough, it is more likely to be wiped out. I guess it's subject to interpretation, but I see zerg as the race most forced to defend within the limitations of the creep, vs attacking the opponent's home turf and throwing away the economic advantage by losing all their units in the blink of an eye.
Everything is situational, though. If your protoss is opponent goes forge FE and you're on pool first with gas, then, yea... perhaps you want to make something happen.
This.
|
@Grapefruit:
yes thats true, its a producing structure, but he was just thinking about the cost. for the use as a single expansion for Money its more expensive. the rising in production is another big thing. but u need a queen and inject larva to get the full range of advantage of an expansion. or another hatch. Just a hatch with a larva every 17 sec is often not enouth.
|
it's just hard to make it happen now...
in bw you can micro muta to actually kill marines, try to be aggressive (in a "i'm gonna kill you" way, not in a "i'm gonna harass you" way) with mutas in sc2 you find yourself losing right away.
Same with the creeps. The creeps is a great new addition but it really prevents mobility of zerg. Think of creep as a LIMITATION rather than an advantage. Suppose blizzard never implemented creep, or only implemented creep to have units increased regeneration, then hydra would HAVE to move faster and baneling would HAVE to be able to chase down marines with rolling upgrade. Then zerg will be able to be offensive. But alas no.
|
With the map pool the way it is right now i think that zerg is being played the right way. A larger map pool (SHAKURAS IS BACK) would benefit different parts of the zerg race. A longer rush distance will do wonders for zerg in every aspect of play... First off a longer rush distance means more time to prepare for rushes, thus the zerg can be more economy focused. A longer rush distance also means that high speed units like the muta and speedlings for counterattacks will me more effective and will allow more time to get those units back if they are needed to defend. last off as maps grow in size, so do epansion distances. The farther expansions are from eachother and the main the better for zerg. Blizzard has to be careful because they way the nydas is right now it will become borderline overpowered if it takes more that 20 ingame seconds to get from base to base.
How i see it all in all right now, Zerg is played correctly but they sit around too much. They are supposed to be economy focused but the zerg is always waiting for that push to come, theres so many other options that just sitting around with your army. In defence of all zergs playing the "current" style it does take so much concentration just macroing well so harass and small attacks are very difficult to pull off. As skill increases across the board zerg will use their rediclous macro skills that they have obtained in conjunction with drops and the nydas worm that they will become unstoppable and will feel like terran with their constant harass back in the beta.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On January 12 2011 00:04 Tenks wrote:
Much of the races offensive capabilities were clipped in SC2 if you're doing a direct comparision to SCBW. Zerglings took a nerf, Hydralisk are beyond terrible as offensive units and since SC2 is more counter-focused than SC1 was Zerg has to play responsive or they'll be left with a ton of units that will simply instantly evaporate.
In short, no.
I agree with this, on top of this the ''Zerg'' way of swarming units took a hit in supply aswell
Roaches are 2 supply, and so are hydra's (1 supply in BW) so mass production of units is limited by this factor(aswell as queens). Zerg armies are less massive.
However, to win yes zergs are being played the correct way, you still outmacro your opponent most of the times.
|
On January 12 2011 00:18 Grapefruit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 00:13 Tumor wrote:
@the oldy:
think about the cost of an Exp:
Terra cost 400 gives aditional 11 Supply thats under 300
Zerg cost 300 + drone = 350 + 2 supply
Protoss 400 Cost 10 Supply thats also just 300 +the cost of a pylon
so its the zerg exp is the expensiv one I, as a zerg player, don't think this is a fair way to put it. The hatch also generates creep and serves a unit producing structure.
But you can also say a CC provides extra production for scv's, can turn into an indestrutable PF or a cash cow orbital with free supply and vision. The Nexus provides an extra crono for double prob production and faster research. So the creep and the 7 larva a minute with a queen is still meh in terms of what terran can make of his.
|
well if Zergs actually played a little like the other races, viewing their hatches as Unitproduction structures.
keep constantly building 1 Drone per Hatch (+ Additional ones for Buildings) like the other races, it gives them a superior unit production ability actually.
each Hatch grants then 2 Unit Slots + extra 4 per larva inject
and saying (Speed)-Zerglings or Roaches are not cost efficient, is far from the truth.
unlike the other races, Zerg saves so much Money since they don't have to build any production buildings. (besides Tech)
Of course Macro Zerg abuses the ability,of exponential incme growth and Larva stacking ability.
But then don't whine when the enemy pressures early and stops you right there.
There has to be a Playstyle between 6-Pool/All-Ins, and Hatch First.
|
Everyone's currently familiar with the really defensive style of zerg atm, but as the game evolves, I'm positive you'll see really aggro zergs who are in your face all the time, noones discovered a good way to do it yet.
You'll then see 2 kinds of zergs, the really aggro Jaedong/July style zergs who are in your face all the time, and you'll see players like IdrA and Fruitdealer continue to play that defensive/management style of a savior/gorush.
Never let anyone tell you that there's one way you should be playing, especially when the game is so young. If you want to be all aggro all the time, go ahead and do it, and find a way to make it better.
|
On January 12 2011 00:13 Tumor wrote:
@the oldy:
think about the cost of an Exp:
Terra cost 400 gives aditional 11 Supply thats under 300
Zerg cost 300 + drone = 350 + 2 supply
Protoss 400 Cost 10 Supply thats also just 300 +the cost of a pylon
so its the zerg exp is the expensiv one
I wish my command center or nexus could produce every unit for my race too, then.
|
On January 12 2011 00:03 THE_oldy wrote:
Zerg are ment to slowly consume the map, and eventually overwhelm with pure numbers, and i think it fits there lore perfectly.
And yes they were designed this way, just look at there creep mechanic, and the way they are encouraged to expand (only 300 for hatch, and you need them for unit production)
A hatch costs 350.
|
TLO plays pretty offensive with zerg also. He use overlords drop alot. 
|
stop arguing about the relative cost of hatcheries etc. its off topic
|
On January 11 2011 23:59 Grapefruit wrote:
I'm talking about the defesive way they are played these days.
I mean are they supposed to be like that?
I've never really played SC1 or BW online, so I don't know if it was the same case in these games but I think the way Zerg is played doesn't really fit the race.
Isn't Zerg supposed to be the race that constantly pressures and attacks the enemy instead of constantly fending stuff off?
And don't get me wrong, this is not a complaint about balance in any way, I'd just like to hear what you guys think about it.
Were the Zerg designed to be defensive or is that just a consequence of the current meta-game?
The waves of attack thing tends to happen in lategame ZvT when the terran goes mech. Check them out.
However, zerg needs to build up a ravenous economy before that can happen, and usually the protoss and terrans try to stop that with more mobile less cost efficient armies. That's why z macro's up as much as possible and defends the constant attacks. Late game you might have more of the starship troopers play that you want to see. There has to be a reason for attacking.
|
I am personally really opening up with mass lings (with possible blings or roaches thrown in) vs protoss and zerg in the early game. Makes me feel all cool and shit when I don't have to sit back for 10 minutes and macro in order to have a threatening force.
Vs Terran though, its still macro or die. The only unit that can successfully do any sort of prodding against a turtling terran is mutalisks, and they take 10+ minutes to get to safely. Lings, blings, and roaches all do way too little to Ts econ that they're not worth investing heavily into through the early game, there just doesn't seem to be any way around it.
|
On January 12 2011 00:42 freetgy wrote:
well if Zergs actually played a little like the other races, viewing their hatches as Unitproduction structures.
keep constantly building 1 Drone per Hatch (+ Additional ones for Buildings) like the other races, it gives them a superior unit production ability actually.
each Hatch grants then 2 Unit Slots + extra 4 per larva inject
and saying (Speed)-Zerglings or Roaches are not cost efficient, is far from the truth.
unlike the other races, Zerg saves so much Money since they don't have to build any production buildings. (besides Tech)
Of course Macro Zerg abuses the ability,of exponential incme growth and Larva stacking ability.
But then don't whine when the enemy pressures early and stops you right there.
There has to be a Playstyle between 6-Pool/All-Ins, and Hatch First.
Wow. This post is so far from the truth that it is almost mind boggling.
Do you even play zerg? Do you know how the zerg larvae mechanic works?
So a zerg will just make 1 drone per hatch every once in awhile while pumping lings every 2 larva against a FE toss..... The toss is playing defensive, using the map, cannon placement and buildings to his advantage. And you have a bunch of useless lings sitting around while you have no timings or aren't powering drones all at the same time the toss is getting way more and more ahead economically. Sure, I'll do that. Great plan.
"well if Zergs actually played a little like the other races, viewing their hatches as Unitproduction structures."
Are you kidding me? The whole idea behind the zerg race in SC2, and in BW, for a fact is the fine balance between finding when to drone and when to build attacking units. How do you play a race like another race that is FUNDAMENTALLY DESIGNED differently? That's like saying 'I'll just fly a plane like how I drive a car because, ya know, they both get me from point A to point B.'
In terms of how zerg is played, I think generally this is how zerg should be played. But perhaps, we are a little too defensive until mid-late game. There are really no timings at all until we get saturation in our main and expansion. The cost-benefit factor of pumping early lings in hope of doing damage is way off balance. What I mean is it is way riskier to do that than to just drone up heavily and rely on scouting to deflect timing attacks.
Would a zerg rather make lings early or make drones early? Most choose to drone heavy because the chances are that droning (with good scouting) is a lot higher to 'win' the game (because zergs strength is macro). However, I do think because of the new maps (longer rush distances and easier third bases) T/P will be forced to play with less agressive rushing styles which will cause Zerg to be more agressive and abuse their mobility because T/P will play a lot more passively (macro oriented).
|
After watching the day9 where you were not allowed to build queens a believe zergs have some effective techniques to rush the opponent. If you skip the first queen production you can produce 5 mutas about a minute faster than if you made the queen. Also the early in base hatchery seems to work just as well as a queen and allows for better production late game. On top of that you can always produce a queen from that in base hatch or after the lair upgrade.
|
Its because of the slow movement of zerg units outside creep i think, so zergs tend to atk only when they have larger creep spread...
|
On January 12 2011 01:16 P0ckets wrote:
After watching the day9 where you were not allowed to build queens a believe zergs have some effective techniques to rush the opponent. If you skip the first queen production you can produce 5 mutas about a minute faster than if you made the queen. Also the early in base hatchery seems to work just as well as a queen and allows for better production late game. On top of that you can always produce a queen from that in base hatch or after the lair upgrade.
Yes, but you wouldn't be able to do much after.
SC2 zerg mechanics is fundamentally different from the likes of bw. The Queen makes it so zergs don't have to have so many hatches. Larva was a precious, precious commodity back in the day. That's why losing even 1 drone early game was big.
|
I am not expert by any means (2200 Diamond). One of many thoughts why zerg cannot be aggressive as you suggest:
"ZERG HAS TO TAKE NATURAL ASAP IN EARLY GAME".
When zerg does not do that then P or T can easily turtle and 1 base vs 1 base zerg losses. P can chronoboost probes and T can use mules.
If you accept the premise that zerg has to take natural in early game you will come to conclusion that zerg must defend in beginning.
|
If any one watched day9 daily last night they will see that early aggression isn't really that easy but you can do some pretty sweet shit with nydus worms.
|
It would seem that zerg were designed to be defensive.
Zerg has almost zero early-game harassment options.
their longest-range t1 unit is the roach, which has 4 range, less than marines & stalkers. On top of that, roach has a t1 speed of 2.25, slower than stimmed marines & stalkers. banelings die when used, so you HAVE to do damage with them if you want to use them to harass (unlike hellions or banshees for example, which can force your opponent to build certain units and can contain even if they don't actually kill anything).
The only t1 unit zerg can use to effectively harass is the zergling, but only with speed upgrade. Even then, it's a melee unit, and can't do anything against a terran wall or force field.
The first real harass unit zerg can get is the mutalisk, which requires at least 1000 gas of mutas to be effective. Even after THAT, muta harass is not nearly as effective at killing units as it was in bw, and basically just serves to contain terran/toss while taking a 3rd and droning up.
Some zerg units are very slow off-creep, such as the hydralisk, making it impossible to harass with these units.
On top of this, zerg's only mobile t1 AA unit is the queen, definitely NOT a harass unit. If terran walls and makes 2 banshees, what are you gonna to do harass him? NOTHING until you get t2 units.
Because of all of this, and because zerg has no way to wall off their ramp effectively, zerg 1 base openers are generally not good at all, and are basically limited to 5/7RR and baneling bust, both of which can be easily stopped if they are scouted, and a 1 base baneling bust is basically all-in. Therefore, zerg always wants to expand as soon as possible, because they can't really do much with 1 base.
Lastly, zerg's macro mechanic favors drone massing more than any other race.
|
On January 12 2011 01:22 Kudo wrote:
Yes, but you wouldn't be able to do much after.
SC2 zerg mechanics is fundamentally different from the likes of bw. The Queen makes it so zergs don't have to have so many hatches. Larva was a precious, precious commodity back in the day. That's why losing even 1 drone early game was big.
If the mutas get shut down without damaging their economy, production, or cause them to delay an attack you are in a bad position. But if you can force them to delay long enough you can get your second up easily, with a good amount of drones. I like to build an in base at the top of the ramp with 2-3 spine crawlers next or behind it. I like to focus on minimal amount of zerglings and most produce drones and over saturate my main in preparation for expansion. I also like to drop a queen at after lair pop or when in base pops, but sometimes queen spawns in a bad position from in base since it at the ramp. Once Mutas are being produced you move the Overlords to reposition the crawlers for proper expansion defense and drop the expo at next 300 and maynard a ton of drones.
I find that the spine crawler, hatchery block makes many people fear to push or doing a wtf and pull back. If they continue and the push is significant I try to drop more crawlers. I have yet to be Banshee rushed with this but with the early lair I think you could get an earlier overseer if you’re scouting properly. With proper scouting I feel it isn’t to terrible and is good enough to get you a win here and there.
|
On January 12 2011 00:41 aka_star wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 00:18 Grapefruit wrote:On January 12 2011 00:13 Tumor wrote:
@the oldy:
think about the cost of an Exp:
Terra cost 400 gives aditional 11 Supply thats under 300
Zerg cost 300 + drone = 350 + 2 supply
Protoss 400 Cost 10 Supply thats also just 300 +the cost of a pylon
so its the zerg exp is the expensiv one I, as a zerg player, don't think this is a fair way to put it. The hatch also generates creep and serves a unit producing structure. But you can also say a CC provides extra production for scv's, can turn into an indestrutable PF or a cash cow orbital with free supply and vision. The Nexus provides an extra crono for double prob production and faster research. So the creep and the 7 larva a minute with a queen is still meh in terms of what terran can make of his.
Zerg can produce military units from a hatchery - therefore expanding as zerg is actually being aggressive. A 14 hatch would be the equivalent of a terran going 2-3 rax before getting gas or a second depot.
As for the cost - yes absolute cost is roughly the same/more expensive than the other races when considering supply. However, early in the game the limiting factor is cashflow as opposed to absolute cost - and it is easier (and faster) to get 300 minerals than it is to get 400 - especially when doing so with the other races would mean forgoing unit producing structures like barraks or gateways (therfore making expanding w/ the other races a non-aggressive strategy).
Conclusion: expanding as zerg is paying zerg aggressively.
|
no, inbase hatch would be playing agressiv.
i mean i can understand, that if you can defend the hatch first at your natural it is superior, than any other build, but that is the same for i.e. Nexus First
still you don't see any protoss whining because they can't go Nexus first all the game.
Why does Zerg? Ling/Roach is a fine Core Unit and are far from beeing cost inefficient.
i mean it's not like Zerg is gonna fall back in Economy in 1 vs. 1 Base, the rise of economy would just been delayed a little due inbase hatch, but still the hatch is also a unit production structure so putting down 1 or 2 isn't that much of a deal at all.
and ofcourse an inbase hatch opening is easier to defend against early pressure than a natural first.
i mean you can still take your natural early enough, the exponential economy gain is still there, you just don't die early your enemy has the ability to Canon/Bunker-Rush you.
I rather deal with Zerg Hatch First than Pool First because it delays speedlings, giving me mapcontrol for a longer time and opens timings that would be there to exploit if they didn't
|
On January 12 2011 02:59 freetgy wrote:
no inbase hatch would be playing agressiv.
i mean i can understand, that if you can defend the hatch first it is superior, than any other build, but that is the same for i.e. Nexus First
still you don't see any protoss whining because they can't go Nexus first all the game.
Why does Zerg?
i mean it's not like Zerg is gonna fall back in Economy, the rise of economy would just been delayed a little due inbase hatch, but still the hatch is also a unit production structure so putting down 1 or 2 isn't that much of a deal at all.
and ofcourse an inbase hatch opening is easier to defend against early pressure than a natural first.
i mean you can still take your natural early enough, the exponential economy gain is still there, you just don't die early your enemy has the ability to Canon/Bunker-Rush you.
economy is exactly why zerg has to FE every game.
I used to try and justify things like you do, but Zerg doesn't have the unit-production capabilities to keep up with chronoboost and MULEs in the early game.
It doesn't make a lot of sense when you're reading it in a post, but open up any ZvX replay and look at worker counts through the first 10 minutes. Due to losing a drone every time he builds a building, the Zerg player is 2-3 workers behind his Protoss opponent and is 1-2 workers ahead of his Terran opponent, but then T has MULEs.
In order to have a competitive economy in that 20-40 worker range, Zerg has to expand to make their drones mine faster because they can't actually have more workers than the other races.
|
I think it's mostly because of myths such as:
1. On January 12 2011 00:13 Sajuuk7 wrote:
1 hold position Zealot can hold off 6 Zerglings.
2. On January 12 2011 01:49 kalaz wrote:
"ZERG HAS TO TAKE NATURAL ASAP IN EARLY GAME".
When zerg does not do that then P or T can easily turtle and 1 base vs 1 base zerg losses. P can chronoboost probes and T can use mules.
If you accept the premise that zerg has to take natural in early game you will come to conclusion that zerg must defend in beginning.
and last, but not least
3. On January 12 2011 00:16 VonBlucher wrote:
Zerg units are obviously less cost effective than a majority of Terran and Protoss units,
but also because of the playstyles of pros, since they take a huge part in shaping the metagame.
Regarding the myths:
1. I have 6 zerglings, and you have a gateway+cyber+zealot walloff. If I tried attacking your zealot 1 ling would survive, but I'm inteligent, so I wont. What will you do if I attack a cybercore instead? If you move out with your zealot, Ill either runby, or kill him with 5 lings remaining. If you won't you'll lose your cyber delaying your tech by quite a bit(or at least forcing you to plant another one somewhere). Seems like succesfull harassment to me. Of course, as all harassments it only works at specific timing - 4:20.
2. P will chronoboost probes? So what? Thanks to zerg macromechanics you can produce drones even faster than chronoboosting P. You can also produce drones just as fast as P and match his unit production(but it makes no sense to do so, since it gives you no advantage), or produce a lot of units at once to gain a momentary army advantage(7 RR for example). Tosses chrono can speed up their probe or army production, but not as much as Zerg larvae-mechanic does. Instead it can also speed up tosses research.
T on the other hand will get more from a single base - that's the strength of their macromechanic.
3. Really... Speedlings are pretty much always cost effective, unless you attack at bad positions(watch out for FFs though). Roaches rape all Gateway units and are at least decent against everything else. Banelings are cost effective vs everything, but mass Collosi/Siege Tanks.
Obviously less cost effective?
The real problem is, Zerg doesn't have anything that can deal wih collosi+FFs and siegetanks well. At least, untill Brood Lords come into play, but since both P and T have direct counters to them with decent ranges(VRs and Vikings) they only really work once.
|
The real concept behind zerg is not a really a race that constantly pressure and attack as you say, that's only the cool looking part we see in videos and shit because apparently terran and protoss discover zerg when they are on 85 bases or something. The strengh of zerg relies on huge armies to out number their opponent, in which case hey can apply pressure and attack a lot as you say. But to get there you need insane economy, for that you need drones, more drones = less units at the start, automaticaly making other races look like the ones that apply pressure and attack.
Once zerg is able to survive and stand strong, it can make a big army and do what zerg is supposed o do. In short, yah it's played the right way considering the game mechanics, it's not representative of lore I suppose but what can we do about it? 
|
On January 12 2011 00:03 THE_oldy wrote:
Zerg are ment to slowly consume the map, and eventually overwhelm with pure numbers, and i think it fits there lore perfectly.
And yes they were designed this way, just look at there creep mechanic, and the way they are encouraged to expand (only 300 for hatch, and you need them for unit production)
actually, it is 350 you lose a drone
|
On January 12 2011 03:03 Jermstuddog wrote:
economy is exactly why zerg has to FE every game.
true but what you guys don't understand, is that Hatch beeing the production facility and a Worker Producing facility.
so keeping the balance is always gonna be a problem.
the solution is of course get more hatches.
But that as it is set is still not a disatvantage at all.
It is the core advantage of Zerg that they don't have to build a separate worker & unit producting building.
they will still saturate faster than both terran/protoss, and keep up in unit production.
then you can still take your natural and quickly saturate it with that production power in the back.
the difference is, an inbase Hatch could be something aggressiv, or economy orientated, i am kept in the dark, while hatch first certainly is not gonna allow you to pressure me.
the other races still can only produce 1 worker at a time, depite their mechanics.
but you won't see them drop a Nexus/CC inbase for worker production.
zerg could afford that since it is a unit build structure.
i.e. Protoss/Terran has to invest at least 150 into each gateway/Rax,core/Fax and so on.
this is the minerals you have to invest into hatches at the same amount.
|
On January 12 2011 03:16 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 03:03 Jermstuddog wrote:
economy is exactly why zerg has to FE every game.
true but what you guys don't understand, is that Hatch beeing the production facility and a Worker Producing facility. so keeping the balance is always gonna be a problem. the solution is of course get more hatches. But that as it is set is still not a disatvantage at all. It is the core advantage of Zerg that they don't have to build a worker/unit producting building at a mineral line. they will still saturate faster than both terran/protoss, and keep up in unit production. then you can still take your natural and quickly saturate it with that production power in the back. the difference is, an inbase Hatch could be something aggressiv, or economy orientated, i am kept in the dark, while hatch first certainly is not gonna allow you to pressure me. the other races still can only produce 1 worker at a time, depite their mechanics. but you won't see them drop a Nexus/CC inbase for worker production. zerg could afford that since it is a unit build structure. i.e. Protoss/Terran has to invest at least 150 into each gateway/Rax,core/Fax and so on. this is the minerals you have to invest into hatches at the same amount.
EXACTLY. Screw whining zergs. Worse than protoss whiners.
|
On January 12 2011 03:06 FlayedOne wrote:I think it's mostly because of myths such as: 1. Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 00:13 Sajuuk7 wrote:
1 hold position Zealot can hold off 6 Zerglings. 2. Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 01:49 kalaz wrote:
"ZERG HAS TO TAKE NATURAL ASAP IN EARLY GAME".
When zerg does not do that then P or T can easily turtle and 1 base vs 1 base zerg losses. P can chronoboost probes and T can use mules.
If you accept the premise that zerg has to take natural in early game you will come to conclusion that zerg must defend in beginning.
and last, but not least 3. Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 00:16 VonBlucher wrote:
Zerg units are obviously less cost effective than a majority of Terran and Protoss units, but also because of the playstyles of pros, since they take a huge part in shaping the metagame. Regarding the myths: 1. I have 6 zerglings, and you have a gateway+cyber+zealot walloff. If I tried attacking your zealot 1 ling would survive, but I'm inteligent, so I wont. What will you do if I attack a cybercore instead? If you move out with your zealot, Ill either runby, or kill him with 5 lings remaining. If you won't you'll lose your cyber delaying your tech by quite a bit(or at least forcing you to plant another one somewhere). Seems like succesfull harassment to me. Of course, as all harassments it only works at specific timing - 4:20. 2. P will chronoboost probes? So what? Thanks to zerg macromechanics you can produce drones even faster than chronoboosting P. You can also produce drones just as fast as P and match his unit production(but it makes no sense to do so, since it gives you no advantage), or produce a lot of units at once to gain a momentary army advantage(7 RR for example). Tosses chrono can speed up their probe or army production, but not as much as Zerg larvae-mechanic does. Instead it can also speed up tosses research. T on the other hand will get more from a single base - that's the strength of their macromechanic. 3. Really... Speedlings are pretty much always cost effective, unless you attack at bad positions(watch out for FFs though). Roaches rape all Gateway units and are at least decent against everything else. Banelings are cost effective vs everything, but mass Collosi/Siege Tanks. Obviously less cost effective? The real problem is, Zerg doesn't have anything that can deal wih collosi+FFs and siegetanks well. At least, untill Brood Lords come into play, but since both P and T have direct counters to them with decent ranges(VRs and Vikings) they only really work once.
I think you're not correct in your points either.
1) It's possible to harass with 6 lings, but they never ever manage to take a cyber core down. As soon as the protoss has 2 units (no matter which) he can scare them away. Sure, it might put him in a defensive mindset, but is that worth the huge economic loss you have by going a low economic build?
2) If you watch replays closely, you'll realise that even in hatch first builds a protoss will have an even (to start with higher) worker count as the zerg for a very long time. If a protoss does a fairly fast expand aswell, this trend reaches far into the mid game. A very early hatch is imperative for zerg, simply because they need the extra larvae to spend their money. And in most cases there is no reason not to take the hatch at the natural, so zergs just tend to FE whenever they can.
If you don't believe me, try comparing a 4 gating Protoss with a 1 basing zerg. The zerg will have no way the same production capabilities in eco/army as the protoss.
3) I agree with you here, speedlings are awesome with good positioning. I just think that banelings are very overrated, esp vs tanks/marines. A terran with good micro will target the advancing banelings and split his marines, so while the few banelings that actually make contact are indeed very cost effective, the loads that got sniped before they got there make banelings rather cost ineffective on average imo.
|
On January 12 2011 03:50 mathemagician1986 wrote:
If you don't believe me, try comparing a 4 gating Protoss with a 1 basing zerg. The zerg will have no way the same production capabilities in eco/army as the protoss.
not if the zerg builds a additional Hatch, inbase.
That zerg can not spend all his money is proof that you need additional production buildings.
The question is, is it better if it is always the natural first?
if i watch replays, hatch first always puts Zerg behind Protoss in economy.
cause he hasn't even satured one base, he catches up soon sure, but a 1 basing protoss can keep up with that for a good time if he wants too.
if it works, it of course allows for a strong midgame, but you take the risk in early.
so why instead of:
Hatch First + Inbase Hatch later,
not the other way around?
inbase hatch is still safer against everything, economy wise it does easily keep up with 1 Basing Terran/Protoss. Also remember Zerg units are cheaper than those of the other races.
sure if opponent goes for early expansions, your free to take your natural also.
the rule: zerg needs to be 1 base ahead comes from this.
they don't need to be ahead because of economy but because of unit production.
so 2 satured bases can feed 3 Hatches
so 1 base can support 1,5 hatches
or 1 base can support 3 Gateways
while keeping economy up.
(unless your all-in and cut eco for an 4 Gateway, 2 Hatch All-in)
|
Pretty much the only ways one hatchqueen can be insufficient larvae for one-basing is if you're making cheap units or you miss injects. Even just one hatchqueen Roaches consumes 720 minerals and 180 gas per minute, which takes something like 19 Drones on minerals and 5 Drones on gas to keep up -- and even that's assuming you build nothing but Roaches and Overlords.
|
Seriously, it's not that hard. Zerg units don't have the necessary range to harass. Roaches are too slow in the early game, and the basic units of protoss and zerg outrange them. Hydras are too slow, and it is impossible to have creep where you harass.
|
On January 12 2011 03:50 mathemagician1986 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 03:06 FlayedOne wrote:I think it's mostly because of myths such as: 1. On January 12 2011 00:13 Sajuuk7 wrote:
1 hold position Zealot can hold off 6 Zerglings. 2. On January 12 2011 01:49 kalaz wrote:
"ZERG HAS TO TAKE NATURAL ASAP IN EARLY GAME".
When zerg does not do that then P or T can easily turtle and 1 base vs 1 base zerg losses. P can chronoboost probes and T can use mules.
If you accept the premise that zerg has to take natural in early game you will come to conclusion that zerg must defend in beginning.
and last, but not least 3. On January 12 2011 00:16 VonBlucher wrote:
Zerg units are obviously less cost effective than a majority of Terran and Protoss units, but also because of the playstyles of pros, since they take a huge part in shaping the metagame. Regarding the myths: 1. I have 6 zerglings, and you have a gateway+cyber+zealot walloff. If I tried attacking your zealot 1 ling would survive, but I'm inteligent, so I wont. What will you do if I attack a cybercore instead? If you move out with your zealot, Ill either runby, or kill him with 5 lings remaining. If you won't you'll lose your cyber delaying your tech by quite a bit(or at least forcing you to plant another one somewhere). Seems like succesfull harassment to me. Of course, as all harassments it only works at specific timing - 4:20. 2. P will chronoboost probes? So what? Thanks to zerg macromechanics you can produce drones even faster than chronoboosting P. You can also produce drones just as fast as P and match his unit production(but it makes no sense to do so, since it gives you no advantage), or produce a lot of units at once to gain a momentary army advantage(7 RR for example). Tosses chrono can speed up their probe or army production, but not as much as Zerg larvae-mechanic does. Instead it can also speed up tosses research. T on the other hand will get more from a single base - that's the strength of their macromechanic. 3. Really... Speedlings are pretty much always cost effective, unless you attack at bad positions(watch out for FFs though). Roaches rape all Gateway units and are at least decent against everything else. Banelings are cost effective vs everything, but mass Collosi/Siege Tanks. Obviously less cost effective? The real problem is, Zerg doesn't have anything that can deal wih collosi+FFs and siegetanks well. At least, untill Brood Lords come into play, but since both P and T have direct counters to them with decent ranges(VRs and Vikings) they only really work once. I think you're not correct in your points either. 1) It's possible to harass with 6 lings, but they never ever manage to take a cyber core down. As soon as the protoss has 2 units (no matter which) he can scare them away. Sure, it might put him in a defensive mindset, but is that worth the huge economic loss you have by going a low economic build? 2) If you watch replays closely, you'll realise that even in hatch first builds a protoss will have an even (to start with higher) worker count as the zerg for a very long time. If a protoss does a fairly fast expand aswell, this trend reaches far into the mid game. A very early hatch is imperative for zerg, simply because they need the extra larvae to spend their money. And in most cases there is no reason not to take the hatch at the natural, so zergs just tend to FE whenever they can. If you don't believe me, try comparing a 4 gating Protoss with a 1 basing zerg. The zerg will have no way the same production capabilities in eco/army as the protoss. 3) I agree with you here, speedlings are awesome with good positioning. I just think that banelings are very overrated, esp vs tanks/marines. A terran with good micro will target the advancing banelings and split his marines, so while the few banelings that actually make contact are indeed very cost effective, the loads that got sniped before they got there make banelings rather cost ineffective on average imo.
You should check your numbers mathamagician.
1) 1 hatch with no queens can keep up with a protoss continuously chronoboosting probes.
![[image loading]](http://lh5.ggpht.com/_D5IrsgS2_l4/TSywEfaPqaI/AAAAAAAAAaY/yf6sUYzkx-c/zvp%20workers.png)
2) 1 hatch with a queen can produce as many larva as protoss can produce zealots from 4 constantly chronoboosted gateways
![[image loading]](http://lh6.ggpht.com/_D5IrsgS2_l4/TSyyiD5xuFI/AAAAAAAAAag/FvZXudViJrk/zvp%20production.png)
-keep in mind that protoss can not chronoboost their nexus and 4 warpgates off 1 base as well.
|
one of the most interesting threads i've read in a while
|
On January 12 2011 04:29 Hurkyl wrote:
Pretty much the only ways one hatchqueen can be insufficient larvae for one-basing is if you're making cheap units or you miss injects. Even just one hatchqueen Roaches consumes 720 minerals and 180 gas per minute, which takes something like 19 Drones on minerals and 5 Drones on gas to keep up -- and even that's assuming you build nothing but Roaches and Overlords.
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?
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 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.
|
On January 12 2011 03:06 FlayedOne wrote:
Regarding the myths:
1. I have 6 zerglings, and you have a gateway+cyber+zealot walloff. If I tried attacking your zealot 1 ling would survive, but I'm inteligent, so I wont. What will you do if I attack a cybercore instead? If you move out with your zealot, Ill either runby, or kill him with 5 lings remaining. If you won't you'll lose your cyber delaying your tech by quite a bit(or at least forcing you to plant another one somewhere). Seems like succesfull harassment to me. Of course, as all harassments it only works at specific timing - 4:20.
2. P will chronoboost probes? So what? Thanks to zerg macromechanics you can produce drones even faster than chronoboosting P. You can also produce drones just as fast as P and match his unit production(but it makes no sense to do so, since it gives you no advantage), or produce a lot of units at once to gain a momentary army advantage(7 RR for example). Tosses chrono can speed up their probe or army production, but not as much as Zerg larvae-mechanic does. Instead it can also speed up tosses research.
T on the other hand will get more from a single base - that's the strength of their macromechanic.
3. Really... Speedlings are pretty much always cost effective, unless you attack at bad positions(watch out for FFs though). Roaches rape all Gateway units and are at least decent against everything else. Banelings are cost effective vs everything, but mass Collosi/Siege Tanks.
Obviously less cost effective?
The real problem is, Zerg doesn't have anything that can deal wih collosi+FFs and siegetanks well. At least, untill Brood Lords come into play, but since both P and T have direct counters to them with decent ranges(VRs and Vikings) they only really work once.
1. What good is that going to do? You get the cybercore's shield almost down and a second unit pops out. Harassment over.
2. Protoss is not significantly behind in workers for quite some time, and no, you can't match his unit production (especially if you make drones as well). There's not really any room for argument with the unit production thing...you just can't. I don't know what you're talking about.
3. Again, Speedlings are pretty cost effective against solitary units and units that suck against speedlings (Stalkers). As soon as there is a second zealot the cost-efficiency plummits (Speedlings are also terribly larvae-inefficient. I don't know why you would argue Zerg can maintain production against Protoss and then suggest speedlings.
If you think banelings are cost effective against Protoss...I don't know, you're just bad at math? It takes 5 banelings to kill a zealot, 250/125, and Zealots tend to spread decently in a Protoss army compared to a marine or something. Even if we say you avoided FF and the like and killed an awesome-case-scenario 4 Zealots, that's still 250/125 versus 400. It's 25 resources more, but it's 125 GAS. That is fucking important stuff for Zerg (and any race).
It's also pretty obvious you've never tried killing a Stalker with banelings.
|
On January 12 2011 04:46 ipwnN00bz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 03:50 mathemagician1986 wrote:On January 12 2011 03:06 FlayedOne wrote:I think it's mostly because of myths such as: 1. On January 12 2011 00:13 Sajuuk7 wrote:
1 hold position Zealot can hold off 6 Zerglings. 2. On January 12 2011 01:49 kalaz wrote:
"ZERG HAS TO TAKE NATURAL ASAP IN EARLY GAME".
When zerg does not do that then P or T can easily turtle and 1 base vs 1 base zerg losses. P can chronoboost probes and T can use mules.
If you accept the premise that zerg has to take natural in early game you will come to conclusion that zerg must defend in beginning.
and last, but not least 3. On January 12 2011 00:16 VonBlucher wrote:
Zerg units are obviously less cost effective than a majority of Terran and Protoss units, but also because of the playstyles of pros, since they take a huge part in shaping the metagame. Regarding the myths: 1. I have 6 zerglings, and you have a gateway+cyber+zealot walloff. If I tried attacking your zealot 1 ling would survive, but I'm inteligent, so I wont. What will you do if I attack a cybercore instead? If you move out with your zealot, Ill either runby, or kill him with 5 lings remaining. If you won't you'll lose your cyber delaying your tech by quite a bit(or at least forcing you to plant another one somewhere). Seems like succesfull harassment to me. Of course, as all harassments it only works at specific timing - 4:20. 2. P will chronoboost probes? So what? Thanks to zerg macromechanics you can produce drones even faster than chronoboosting P. You can also produce drones just as fast as P and match his unit production(but it makes no sense to do so, since it gives you no advantage), or produce a lot of units at once to gain a momentary army advantage(7 RR for example). Tosses chrono can speed up their probe or army production, but not as much as Zerg larvae-mechanic does. Instead it can also speed up tosses research. T on the other hand will get more from a single base - that's the strength of their macromechanic. 3. Really... Speedlings are pretty much always cost effective, unless you attack at bad positions(watch out for FFs though). Roaches rape all Gateway units and are at least decent against everything else. Banelings are cost effective vs everything, but mass Collosi/Siege Tanks. Obviously less cost effective? The real problem is, Zerg doesn't have anything that can deal wih collosi+FFs and siegetanks well. At least, untill Brood Lords come into play, but since both P and T have direct counters to them with decent ranges(VRs and Vikings) they only really work once. I think you're not correct in your points either. 1) It's possible to harass with 6 lings, but they never ever manage to take a cyber core down. As soon as the protoss has 2 units (no matter which) he can scare them away. Sure, it might put him in a defensive mindset, but is that worth the huge economic loss you have by going a low economic build? 2) If you watch replays closely, you'll realise that even in hatch first builds a protoss will have an even (to start with higher) worker count as the zerg for a very long time. If a protoss does a fairly fast expand aswell, this trend reaches far into the mid game. A very early hatch is imperative for zerg, simply because they need the extra larvae to spend their money. And in most cases there is no reason not to take the hatch at the natural, so zergs just tend to FE whenever they can. If you don't believe me, try comparing a 4 gating Protoss with a 1 basing zerg. The zerg will have no way the same production capabilities in eco/army as the protoss. 3) I agree with you here, speedlings are awesome with good positioning. I just think that banelings are very overrated, esp vs tanks/marines. A terran with good micro will target the advancing banelings and split his marines, so while the few banelings that actually make contact are indeed very cost effective, the loads that got sniped before they got there make banelings rather cost ineffective on average imo. You should check your numbers mathamagician. 1) 1 hatch with no queens can keep up with a protoss continuously chronoboosting probes. 2) 1 hatch with a queen can produce as many larva as protoss can produce zealots from 4 constantly chronoboosted gateways -keep in mind that protoss can not chronoboost their nexus and 4 warpgates off 1 base as well.
It's important to remember that Zerg can't make any drones to match the Zealots as far as "battle-larvae".
It's equally important to remember that each of those larvae is worth considerably less against Zealots if you're making lings (worse than 2:1, and that worsens the higher the numbers get).
If protoss is committing to a serious attack, you won't have enough drones to maintain the income required to produce roaches with all those larvae. If you made enough drones, you're dead.
|
hard to compare to bw because all the attacking units from bw (ling,hydra,muta) disregarding the ultralisk are significantly weaker imo. zerg are ment to be the mobile race, which translates into harassment if used properly. Typically I think of harassment as somewhere on the enemy base where his units aren't (typically the front door) mutas are great for that. Honestly I think it is a flaw with map design more than anything. I think it is a common rule of thumb that a zerg player will want more bases than a protoss or terran due to basic mechanics of the race. However, with maps like: Steps of War, Jungle Basin, Scrap Station it is very hard to get that extra base (3rd in this case). Aside from the issue of expanding the maps dont seem open enough (to me), trying to fight a protoss on jungle basin for example is impossible because you can't get a flank/surround and your army will just die.
|
|
|
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.
Its always been my opinion that the zerg 'style' is that of an infection that is spreading across the map (re: galaxy). Like any virus, the initial incubation period is always fraught with possible annihilation. I see each 'match' as an arbitrary scenario where either Protoss or terran have come to try and 'cleanse' this area of local space from a newly found zerg infection. They land, and have to set up operations.
While at the same time the zerg virus is growing. The overmind is consuming evermore...
There comes a point in said scenario where the zerg infection reaches critical mass and pours into the 'antibodies' (terran or protoss) to try and complete the infection of the area.
So imo the current way the zerg is played is exactly how it is intended to be played and fits perfectly in with the lore.
|
On January 12 2011 00:20 Antiproduct wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 00:13 Sajuuk7 wrote:
I think many Zerg players would like to play aggressively, but that there is a problem. Protoss and Terran, accompanied by a selection of maps featuring ramp choke points, have an incredibly easy and strong way of walling off their base and not having to worry about early aggression much.
1 hold position Zealot can hold off 6 Zerglings.
1 Sentry can delay any push by lots of crucial time.
Marines standing safely behind buildings can shoot freely at the short range tier 1 Zerg units.
I believe it is simply a combination of Zerg having very short range tier 1 and the maps all having easy to fortify choke points. Notice how ZvZ is mainly Ling/Bling rushes? It's because Zerg can't wall everything off and have ranged units sitting behind 1000 hp buildings. Baneling Busts and 7RR are hardly viable against P or T due to their ease in predictability/scouting and counters.
If Zerg had either:
1. A cliff walking early game unit
2. A longer ranged tier 1 unit (ex. Hydra)
3. Maps with no ridiculous ramp choke points
Then they could maybe harass instead of always being the one harassed. I'm sorry but zerg has no reason to complain about the choke points. There are plenty of ways to harass as zerg. Learn to micro and actually use your units effectively. Use drops. Prevent expansions (zerglings or mutalisks are perfect for this), and spread creep. If you spread creep, harass will not be a problem. Not to mention zerg's constant unit reinforcement. Protoss can barely harass zerg at all. They can't even harass Terran. Protoss have powerful units, yes, but the only unit that is good for harass is a blink stalker. I really do not see why you complain about this.
Protoss is the best at harassing Zerg if you time it right. I've won every single game I've played against zerg since I discovered this.
The easiest thing to do is to open with 2 gate zealot against a 15 hatch, 14 pool. cripple z's economy while expanding. Then get a stargate and go for a couple of void rays, while also bolstering gateway numbers. This forces a tech switch from Zerg, who most likely is getting roaches and speedlings to deal with gateway units. The tech switch to hydra weakens Zerg's army, giving you a nice opportunity to completely crush him with something like 5 gateways and 1 stargate's worth of units. I've found that it's Super effective, much better than a Forge FE.
EDIT:
or against basically anything after 10 pool. if you see an early pool just keep the zealot to use as a wall while you get to 4 gate, and then you win anyway.
|
On January 12 2011 04:46 ipwnN00bz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 03:50 mathemagician1986 wrote:On January 12 2011 03:06 FlayedOne wrote:I think it's mostly because of myths such as: 1. On January 12 2011 00:13 Sajuuk7 wrote:
1 hold position Zealot can hold off 6 Zerglings. 2. On January 12 2011 01:49 kalaz wrote:
"ZERG HAS TO TAKE NATURAL ASAP IN EARLY GAME".
When zerg does not do that then P or T can easily turtle and 1 base vs 1 base zerg losses. P can chronoboost probes and T can use mules.
If you accept the premise that zerg has to take natural in early game you will come to conclusion that zerg must defend in beginning.
and last, but not least 3. On January 12 2011 00:16 VonBlucher wrote:
Zerg units are obviously less cost effective than a majority of Terran and Protoss units, but also because of the playstyles of pros, since they take a huge part in shaping the metagame. Regarding the myths: 1. I have 6 zerglings, and you have a gateway+cyber+zealot walloff. If I tried attacking your zealot 1 ling would survive, but I'm inteligent, so I wont. What will you do if I attack a cybercore instead? If you move out with your zealot, Ill either runby, or kill him with 5 lings remaining. If you won't you'll lose your cyber delaying your tech by quite a bit(or at least forcing you to plant another one somewhere). Seems like succesfull harassment to me. Of course, as all harassments it only works at specific timing - 4:20. 2. P will chronoboost probes? So what? Thanks to zerg macromechanics you can produce drones even faster than chronoboosting P. You can also produce drones just as fast as P and match his unit production(but it makes no sense to do so, since it gives you no advantage), or produce a lot of units at once to gain a momentary army advantage(7 RR for example). Tosses chrono can speed up their probe or army production, but not as much as Zerg larvae-mechanic does. Instead it can also speed up tosses research. T on the other hand will get more from a single base - that's the strength of their macromechanic. 3. Really... Speedlings are pretty much always cost effective, unless you attack at bad positions(watch out for FFs though). Roaches rape all Gateway units and are at least decent against everything else. Banelings are cost effective vs everything, but mass Collosi/Siege Tanks. Obviously less cost effective? The real problem is, Zerg doesn't have anything that can deal wih collosi+FFs and siegetanks well. At least, untill Brood Lords come into play, but since both P and T have direct counters to them with decent ranges(VRs and Vikings) they only really work once. I think you're not correct in your points either. 1) It's possible to harass with 6 lings, but they never ever manage to take a cyber core down. As soon as the protoss has 2 units (no matter which) he can scare them away. Sure, it might put him in a defensive mindset, but is that worth the huge economic loss you have by going a low economic build? 2) If you watch replays closely, you'll realise that even in hatch first builds a protoss will have an even (to start with higher) worker count as the zerg for a very long time. If a protoss does a fairly fast expand aswell, this trend reaches far into the mid game. A very early hatch is imperative for zerg, simply because they need the extra larvae to spend their money. And in most cases there is no reason not to take the hatch at the natural, so zergs just tend to FE whenever they can. If you don't believe me, try comparing a 4 gating Protoss with a 1 basing zerg. The zerg will have no way the same production capabilities in eco/army as the protoss. 3) I agree with you here, speedlings are awesome with good positioning. I just think that banelings are very overrated, esp vs tanks/marines. A terran with good micro will target the advancing banelings and split his marines, so while the few banelings that actually make contact are indeed very cost effective, the loads that got sniped before they got there make banelings rather cost ineffective on average imo. You should check your numbers mathamagician. 1) 1 hatch with no queens can keep up with a protoss continuously chronoboosting probes. 2) 1 hatch with a queen can produce as many larva as protoss can produce zealots from 4 constantly chronoboosted gateways -keep in mind that protoss can not chronoboost their nexus and 4 warpgates off 1 base as well.
Just to check: do those graphs factor in overlord production?
|
On January 12 2011 05:48 Umpteen wrote:
Just to check: do those graphs factor in overlord production?
No, just pure larva. They also assume perfect macro (ie no larva lost).
It is difficult to see on the above graph, but if you look closely zerg actually pulls ahead slightly at some instances- this would appear to be how the balance accounts for overlords. Also Im not sure (i dont play toss), but i dont think that chronoboosts on 4 warpgates is sustainable.
Here is what it looks like w/o chronoboost. (I know the title says chronoboost, i forgot to change it).
![[image loading]](http://lh5.ggpht.com/_D5IrsgS2_l4/TSzERjDWPMI/AAAAAAAAAao/JqganuCY3jE/zvp%20production2.png)
On January 12 2011 05:08 Zerokaiser wrote:
It's important to remember that Zerg can't make any drones to match the Zealots as far as "battle-larvae".
It's equally important to remember that each of those larvae is worth considerably less against Zealots if you're making lings (worse than 2:1, and that worsens the higher the numbers get).
If protoss is committing to a serious attack, you won't have enough drones to maintain the income required to produce roaches with all those larvae. If you made enough drones, you're dead.
There is one problem w/ your point - Protoss do not instantly start out with 4 warpgates and chronoboost. Zerg has enough time to pump drones. If protoss boosts zealots zerg pulls ahead with drones, if protoss boosts drones zerg pulls ahead with units.
There is absolutely no reason (as far as production and economy are concerned) zerg can not be aggressive on 1 base.
So why isnt zerg played aggressively?
1)Creep
- Unit speed is what allows zerg to hold toe to toe with the other races units, they are at a significant disadvantage off creep
2) Poor macro
Like i mentioned earlier, this assumes no lost larva due to bad macro. If P misses a chronoboost, their units are delayed- if Z misses a larva, their unit is lost. Most Zs probably require the extra hatch due to imperfections in macro.
|
oxie United States. January 12 2011 00:01
Due to the current meta-game and map size I think zerg is being played the right way.
i like how this is said in a matter-of-fact way! xD
yes, me too miss the way how zerg can really push it hard fast and early
instead of mothering the base against all sorts of harass.
just imagine someone as aggressive as JAEDONG playing zerg in sc2...
|
On January 12 2011 03:25 Antiproduct wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 03:16 freetgy wrote:On January 12 2011 03:03 Jermstuddog wrote:
economy is exactly why zerg has to FE every game.
true but what you guys don't understand, is that Hatch beeing the production facility and a Worker Producing facility. so keeping the balance is always gonna be a problem. the solution is of course get more hatches. But that as it is set is still not a disatvantage at all. It is the core advantage of Zerg that they don't have to build a worker/unit producting building at a mineral line. they will still saturate faster than both terran/protoss, and keep up in unit production. then you can still take your natural and quickly saturate it with that production power in the back. the difference is, an inbase Hatch could be something aggressiv, or economy orientated, i am kept in the dark, while hatch first certainly is not gonna allow you to pressure me. the other races still can only produce 1 worker at a time, depite their mechanics. but you won't see them drop a Nexus/CC inbase for worker production. zerg could afford that since it is a unit build structure. i.e. Protoss/Terran has to invest at least 150 into each gateway/Rax,core/Fax and so on. this is the minerals you have to invest into hatches at the same amount. 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.
|
T1: Survive attacks.
T2: Balance things out.
T3: Roflstomp with Broodlords/Ultras.
|
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.
|
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)
|
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.
|
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.
|
On January 12 2011 00:30 Antiproduct wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 00:26 dUTtrOACh wrote:
I've never really thought of zerg as the race that's supposed to be constantly pressuring and losing units to turtling players.
Instead, they're more like a growing infestation which will eventually overrun the entire map and inevitably, the opponent unable to prevent this. Like any disease or infection, until it has replicated enough, it is more likely to be wiped out. I guess it's subject to interpretation, but I see zerg as the race most forced to defend within the limitations of the creep, vs attacking the opponent's home turf and throwing away the economic advantage by losing all their units in the blink of an eye.
Everything is situational, though. If your protoss is opponent goes forge FE and you're on pool first with gas, then, yea... perhaps you want to make something happen. This.
+1
|
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:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 04:29 Hurkyl wrote:
Pretty much the only ways one hatchqueen can be insufficient larvae for one-basing is if you're making cheap units or you miss injects. Even just one hatchqueen Roaches consumes 720 minerals and 180 gas per minute, which takes something like 19 Drones on minerals and 5 Drones on gas to keep up -- and even that's assuming you build nothing but Roaches and Overlords. 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.
|
On January 12 2011 06:52 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
I find it sad that this has turned into a balance discussion.
|
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....
|
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. If Z decides to make units instead of drones, it's an all-in because either A) they win their early attack with more units than their opponent expects or B) they lose the early attack and can't keep up with their opponent's economy advantage. VERY rarely is there a C) they lose the early attack but have done enough damage to bridge the gap between the players.
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.
|
Another factor is how good a player is at taking out the wall. I found that a roach speedling rush at around 7 minutes takes out most p-toss players, a speedling/bane rush can take out most z-players, and an all roach rush might take out a walled terran. But if they survive that strong push, especially with minerals intact, the game is over.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
What I find the most interesting through all this conversation is how the game is so balanced even with all these truly different mechanics of each race (zerg is especially different).
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.
|
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 .
|
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.
|
I play Zerg very aggressively, and I'm in the top spot on my Diamond division with 2.5K points- I think it's all personal preference.
|
The problem is the small maps in the map pool and the speed of zerg units off of creep. The fact that the expos are relatively close to the main means that even in the mid game an all in 2 base P or T is not vulnerable to an attack with mobility. So the only way you can live is to cut larve (=drones/economy) in order to survive this attack. Yes zerg can be aggressive late game but before that they will get crushed because their economy will fall behind due to lack of drones.
|
On January 12 2011 03:50 mathemagician1986 wrote:
I think you're not correct in your points either.
1) It's possible to harass with 6 lings, but they never ever manage to take a cyber core down. As soon as the protoss has 2 units (no matter which) he can scare them away. Sure, it might put him in a defensive mindset, but is that worth the huge economic loss you have by going a low economic build?
2) If you watch replays closely, you'll realise that even in hatch first builds a protoss will have an even (to start with higher) worker count as the zerg for a very long time. If a protoss does a fairly fast expand aswell, this trend reaches far into the mid game. A very early hatch is imperative for zerg, simply because they need the extra larvae to spend their money. And in most cases there is no reason not to take the hatch at the natural, so zergs just tend to FE whenever they can.
If you don't believe me, try comparing a 4 gating Protoss with a 1 basing zerg. The zerg will have no way the same production capabilities in eco/army as the protoss.
3) I agree with you here, speedlings are awesome with good positioning. I just think that banelings are very overrated, esp vs tanks/marines. A terran with good micro will target the advancing banelings and split his marines, so while the few banelings that actually make contact are indeed very cost effective, the loads that got sniped before they got there make banelings rather cost ineffective on average imo.
Okey, since we already broke it down:
1) Do I need to go "low economic build"? 11 pool is still more economic than Protoss not cutting probes constantly chronoing nexus... 2 zealots still cant leave the choke or they risk a runby. 2 Lots cost 200 to 150 cost of 6 lings = more minerals for drones - Zerg still comes out at the top.
2) When zerg goes hatch first he uses 300 minerals on a hatchery early on... it's pretty obsious why he's behind in drones compared to 1 basing protoss, right?
One basing zerg reaches saturation faster than 1 basing protoss, and once they both reach it, he gets equal unit production(income is the restricting factor). Since roaches > gateway units, one basing roach pumping zerg>4 gates. There is no contest. Tosses only can win, because zergs expand, or attack before saturation.
Try this.
3) Banelings are not overrated, people just tend to not use them in right amounts.a ball of banelings woth equall minerals+gas rolls over through everything without massed splash/FFs with some leftovers if the armies are big enough. People just tend to use them as an addition to mass lings. I rolled over 2x200 supply armies of standart compositions in 2v2s with 200 supply army of banelings that was worth less money than either of them more than once. Their effectivness kicks in when there is a lot of units though. In small amouns slings are great, so it evens out.
On January 12 2011 05:04 Zerokaiser wrote:
1. What good is that going to do? You get the cybercore's shield almost down and a second unit pops out. Harassment over.
2. Protoss is not significantly behind in workers for quite some time, and no, you can't match his unit production (especially if you make drones as well). There's not really any room for argument with the unit production thing...you just can't. I don't know what you're talking about.
3. Again, Speedlings are pretty cost effective against solitary units and units that suck against speedlings (Stalkers). As soon as there is a second zealot the cost-efficiency plummits (Speedlings are also terribly larvae-inefficient. I don't know why you would argue Zerg can maintain production against Protoss and then suggest speedlings.
If you think banelings are cost effective against Protoss...I don't know, you're just bad at math? It takes 5 banelings to kill a zealot, 250/125, and Zealots tend to spread decently in a Protoss army compared to a marine or something. Even if we say you avoided FF and the like and killed an awesome-case-scenario 4 Zealots, that's still 250/125 versus 400. It's 25 resources more, but it's 125 GAS. That is fucking important stuff for Zerg (and any race).
It's also pretty obvious you've never tried killing a Stalker with banelings.
1) You'd be surprised how quickly 6 lings can tear a cybercore down. Imagine 12 speedlings? Yes, zerg can get them and not be behind in drones compared to tosses probes. No, I don't know why they don't do it. Or maybe I do... Forge + Cannons renders those lings useless.
2) Ok, define 'unit production'. To me it's an ability to spend cash on army. To spend all of minerals of a saturated base on speedlings a zerg needs 2 hatches + 1 queen(550/100). That's fine. It's still less minerals spent on unit producing structures than a toss needs. A Toss goes 4 warpgates? Fine, he needs 800 mis+50 gas spent on gateways and cybercore + warpgate tech, while zerg needs to spend 500 on queen+roach warren+spawning pool. Throw in 100/100 for ling speed or 150/100 on lair and zerg is still ahead. Thanks to faster saturation zerg can also afford roach speed. Than a zerg can make 7 roaches every ~45 seconds which puts him equal or a bit better than 4 warpgating toss. Thanks to cost effectiveness of speed roaches against 4 warpgates, they're gonna own.
I honestly dont get the "matching unit production" bullshit. If you can spend resources with BETTER flexibility than your opponent(and zerg CAN! they can make all drones or all units for gods sake), and have a similar or better income(and zerg HAVE! they saturate faster!) Why would you supposedly be "unable to match others unit production"?
3) no, speedlings rape everything that doesn't have mass splash, or isn't in tight space. Zealots? They are NOT cost effecient against lings(another myth) unless you have upgrade advantage. Even big balls of lots lose to equall cost balls of lings. Speedlings may be larvae inefficient, but it's still only 1 hatch more needed(without queens) per saturated base. 4 hatches+queens is enough for 3x18 drones mining for pure speedling production, and when do you have more than 3 saturated bases? You'd lose because of lack of army supply(too much on drones). I wouldn't say "terribly". You can afford pure speedling + expand in a similar fashion to 3 warpgate expand. Do you call 3 warpgates inefficient because you can't spend all resources on units? Everything depends on what you're gonna do with the extras.
Banelings are great against all balls. It's not about "1 vs 1" math. It's about "try and attack one side of a protoss ball with speedlings, watch them use their FFs up, and then run from the other one with banes. Watch the ball evaporate. Rinse and repeat." Honestly. A Ball of stalkers loses to a ball of banes of equall cost by FAR. Same with marauders. The only things that can save them are long range splash and obstacles(natural and FFs).
You're right. I've never tried to kill 1 stalker with banelings - it's pointless. I did however run over a sentryless ball of stalkers, zealots and collosi with a ball of banelings many times.
|
The Zerg early game (Queen, Speedling, Roaches, Banelings, Hatcheries that expand AND add production) is pretty amazing. I feel like it's actually Lair tech that lets them down, and I think that happens because most Zerg players aren't diligent enough with creep spreading (tumor AND overlord) or Contaminate. They're almost free to use (you'll need Overseers for detection, you really need Overlord Speed for scouting, and an extra Queen or two is great for combat) but take a lot of effort and discipline.
With proper creep, Queens are amazing combat units. Sick durability, ground attack similar to a roach (same DPS against armorless targets), 7 range air attack, 50-energy heal spell.
|
you know whats fun about zerg
not being able to scout. You have to be playing clue and have a list of possibilities in which you cross off every time your opponent makes a mistake and allows you to gain any shred of intel. It's pretty fun having two overlords sitting just out of range of patrolling stalkers knowing that if you try to move in you wont see anything and will just be down 200 minerals and supply.
so since you can't actually scout and know things for sure, this makes playing defensive that much more ridiculous. The other two races can choose one of many 1 basing pushes.
and then any unit composition involving mech actually has no obvious answer... do you go roaches or do you go lings? armies of lings fall to every tank shot, but roaches end the same if you actually try to move forward and attack.
as a mediocre 2100 zerg my opinions are obviously incorrect at some level, but holy crap I just don't see how zerg is even with the other races at all. Most of my wins involve incredibly close, long games, where I have 15k more resources score. Mostly due to the part where zerg can't actually finish other races when they're massively ahead thanks to mass killers/ranged units and chokes.
Gotta wait for them to push out themselves and hope they quit/don't kill you with it.
|
On January 12 2011 10:47 Let it Raine wrote:
you know whats fun about zerg
not being able to scout. You have to be playing clue and have a list of possibilities in which you cross off every time your opponent makes a mistake and allows you to gain any shred of intel. It's pretty fun having two overlords sitting just out of range of patrolling stalkers knowing that if you try to move in you wont see anything and will just be down 200 minerals and supply.
so since you can't actually scout and know things for sure, this makes playing defensive that much more ridiculous. The other two races can choose one of many 1 basing pushes.
and then any unit composition involving mech actually has no obvious answer... do you go roaches or do you go lings? armies of lings fall to every tank shot, but roaches end the same if you actually try to move forward and attack.
as a mediocre 2100 zerg my opinions are obviously incorrect at some level, but holy crap I just don't see how zerg is even with the other races at all. Most of my wins involve incredibly close, long games, where I have 15k more resources score. Mostly due to the part where zerg can't actually finish other races when they're massively ahead thanks to mass killers/ranged units and chokes.
Gotta wait for them to push out themselves and hope they quit/don't kill you with it.
This. Too few aggressive options and too much stuff to defend.
|
zerg has to be played macro-based as you dont have anything for a good pressure early and the other civs strong defences and all your units besides speedlings are very slow off creep and you cannot spread creep fast enough
they also cannot tech as there is nothing that is strong in low numbers like banshees or voidrays - zerg needs mass
|
On January 12 2011 10:47 Let it Raine wrote:
you know whats fun about zerg
not being able to scout.
What?
Zerg has Speedlings. Zerg has air faster than the other races. Zerg has creep tumors. Zerg has a 100/100 upgrade that allows Zerg ground units to watch an area invisibly. Zerg has a second 100/100 upgrade that turns ever Zerg farm into a legit flying scout, or a very fast 50/100 upgrade that turns just one into a flying detector. Zerg isn't hurting for scouts.
Yes, Terran gets to scout inside a base unpreventably at a much lower tech level, via floating buildings or comscan. But Protoss doesn't. And Terran makes up for it by having much slower air units than the Mutalisk or Phoenix.
Now, obviously if you're powering two base late Lair, you're relying on a large economy/military instead of tech, so you'll have less information. If you want more information, you'll have to accept a smaller economy or military to get your spotters out faster.
On January 12 2011 11:07 Alphasquad wrote:
they also cannot tech as there is nothing that is strong in low numbers like banshees or voidrays - zerg needs mass
Infestors.
|
Interesting OP but I must say that with the wall off ability i really makes it difficult and somewhat all in to really commit to early pressure as zerg since you fall so far behind economically because of the fact that you can't make drones and units at the same time. Maybe Zerg players could start experimenting with commiting to heavier mid game pressure builds something a long the lines of attacking with a roach bane mix while getting your third or some type of fast ov drop play. Also it's kind of ridiculous that people are trying to make the case that as zerg its perfectly viable to drop an extra in base hatch prior to taking your natural. I bet you could'nt find 1 pro gamer who plays zerg or any race for that matter to agree with that statement. If you create one drone at a time and use the rest of your larva for units and ovies you would fall so far behind economically that any player decent at this game would crush whatever pressure you came with. Zerglings arent meant to walk over to your opponents base and win the game on their own and a 1 base roach build against anyone higher than silver should never work based on the fact that your opponent knows what scouting is. The game isn't terribly imbalanced but to say you can play zerg just like terran or protoss is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. And if you think that one base zerg could beat a 1 base terran or toss then you obviously don't play or watch the game to often.
|
[/QUOTE]
2) Poor macro
Like i mentioned earlier, this assumes no lost larva due to bad macro. If P misses a chronoboost, their units are delayed- if Z misses a larva, their unit is lost. Most Zs probably require the extra hatch due to imperfections in macro.
[/QUOTE]
ok first to the guy who posted tihs crap. zerg players everywhere dont unanimously decide they are all gonna take early expansions because they have crap macro. if you truly believe this shit you posted your an idiot. zergs get the fast extra hatch because they NEEEEEED that larva. and they NEEEED that extra economy to hold off any 1 base timing attack such as 4 gate or an mmm timing push. the only time they DONT need that larva and eco is when they plan to end the game BEFOR that big one base timing attack. IE baneling bust.
god people are dense. OF COURSE you can be aggressive with zerg on one base. only thing is its nearly impossible to break a wall due to zealots pwning lings in a choke, forcefields, cannons tanks marines in bunkers and barracks walls.
however if the terran or toss expands super early you might be able to apply pressure if you catch on early enough and might even be able to win the game right there. however even in this situation your going pretty allin because if you dont do enough damage your gonna be on one base against 2 base and thus, you get fucked.
|
On January 12 2011 09:27 FlayedOne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 03:50 mathemagician1986 wrote:
I think you're not correct in your points either.
1) It's possible to harass with 6 lings, but they never ever manage to take a cyber core down. As soon as the protoss has 2 units (no matter which) he can scare them away. Sure, it might put him in a defensive mindset, but is that worth the huge economic loss you have by going a low economic build?
2) If you watch replays closely, you'll realise that even in hatch first builds a protoss will have an even (to start with higher) worker count as the zerg for a very long time. If a protoss does a fairly fast expand aswell, this trend reaches far into the mid game. A very early hatch is imperative for zerg, simply because they need the extra larvae to spend their money. And in most cases there is no reason not to take the hatch at the natural, so zergs just tend to FE whenever they can.
If you don't believe me, try comparing a 4 gating Protoss with a 1 basing zerg. The zerg will have no way the same production capabilities in eco/army as the protoss.
3) I agree with you here, speedlings are awesome with good positioning. I just think that banelings are very overrated, esp vs tanks/marines. A terran with good micro will target the advancing banelings and split his marines, so while the few banelings that actually make contact are indeed very cost effective, the loads that got sniped before they got there make banelings rather cost ineffective on average imo. Okey, since we already broke it down: 1) Do I need to go "low economic build"? 11 pool is still more economic than Protoss not cutting probes constantly chronoing nexus... 2 zealots still cant leave the choke or they risk a runby. 2 Lots cost 200 to 150 cost of 6 lings = more minerals for drones - Zerg still comes out at the top. 2) When zerg goes hatch first he uses 300 minerals on a hatchery early on... it's pretty obsious why he's behind in drones compared to 1 basing protoss, right? One basing zerg reaches saturation faster than 1 basing protoss, and once they both reach it, he gets equal unit production(income is the restricting factor). Since roaches > gateway units, one basing roach pumping zerg>4 gates. There is no contest. Tosses only can win, because zergs expand, or attack before saturation. Try this. 3) Banelings are not overrated, people just tend to not use them in right amounts.a ball of banelings woth equall minerals+gas rolls over through everything without massed splash/FFs with some leftovers if the armies are big enough. People just tend to use them as an addition to mass lings. I rolled over 2x200 supply armies of standart compositions in 2v2s with 200 supply army of banelings that was worth less money than either of them more than once. Their effectivness kicks in when there is a lot of units though. In small amouns slings are great, so it evens out. Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 05:04 Zerokaiser wrote:
1. What good is that going to do? You get the cybercore's shield almost down and a second unit pops out. Harassment over.
2. Protoss is not significantly behind in workers for quite some time, and no, you can't match his unit production (especially if you make drones as well). There's not really any room for argument with the unit production thing...you just can't. I don't know what you're talking about.
3. Again, Speedlings are pretty cost effective against solitary units and units that suck against speedlings (Stalkers). As soon as there is a second zealot the cost-efficiency plummits (Speedlings are also terribly larvae-inefficient. I don't know why you would argue Zerg can maintain production against Protoss and then suggest speedlings.
If you think banelings are cost effective against Protoss...I don't know, you're just bad at math? It takes 5 banelings to kill a zealot, 250/125, and Zealots tend to spread decently in a Protoss army compared to a marine or something. Even if we say you avoided FF and the like and killed an awesome-case-scenario 4 Zealots, that's still 250/125 versus 400. It's 25 resources more, but it's 125 GAS. That is fucking important stuff for Zerg (and any race).
It's also pretty obvious you've never tried killing a Stalker with banelings. 1) You'd be surprised how quickly 6 lings can tear a cybercore down. Imagine 12 speedlings? Yes, zerg can get them and not be behind in drones compared to tosses probes. No, I don't know why they don't do it. Or maybe I do... Forge + Cannons renders those lings useless. 2) Ok, define 'unit production'. To me it's an ability to spend cash on army. To spend all of minerals of a saturated base on speedlings a zerg needs 2 hatches + 1 queen(550/100). That's fine. It's still less minerals spent on unit producing structures than a toss needs. A Toss goes 4 warpgates? Fine, he needs 800 mis+50 gas spent on gateways and cybercore + warpgate tech, while zerg needs to spend 500 on queen+roach warren+spawning pool. Throw in 100/100 for ling speed or 150/100 on lair and zerg is still ahead. Thanks to faster saturation zerg can also afford roach speed. Than a zerg can make 7 roaches every ~45 seconds which puts him equal or a bit better than 4 warpgating toss. Thanks to cost effectiveness of speed roaches against 4 warpgates, they're gonna own. I honestly dont get the "matching unit production" bullshit. If you can spend resources with BETTER flexibility than your opponent(and zerg CAN! they can make all drones or all units for gods sake), and have a similar or better income(and zerg HAVE! they saturate faster!) Why would you supposedly be "unable to match others unit production"? 3) no, speedlings rape everything that doesn't have mass splash, or isn't in tight space. Zealots? They are NOT cost effecient against lings(another myth) unless you have upgrade advantage. Even big balls of lots lose to equall cost balls of lings. Speedlings may be larvae inefficient, but it's still only 1 hatch more needed(without queens) per saturated base. 4 hatches+queens is enough for 3x18 drones mining for pure speedling production, and when do you have more than 3 saturated bases? You'd lose because of lack of army supply(too much on drones). I wouldn't say "terribly". You can afford pure speedling + expand in a similar fashion to 3 warpgate expand. Do you call 3 warpgates inefficient because you can't spend all resources on units? Everything depends on what you're gonna do with the extras. Banelings are great against all balls. It's not about "1 vs 1" math. It's about "try and attack one side of a protoss ball with speedlings, watch them use their FFs up, and then run from the other one with banes. Watch the ball evaporate. Rinse and repeat." Honestly. A Ball of stalkers loses to a ball of banes of equall cost by FAR. Same with marauders. The only things that can save them are long range splash and obstacles(natural and FFs). You're right. I've never tried to kill 1 stalker with banelings - it's pointless. I did however run over a sentryless ball of stalkers, zealots and collosi with a ball of banelings many times.
dude you are tripping balls and playing noobs if they let you take out thier 200/200 army of toss metal with pure banelings. ALSO how the fuck did you afford this. did they just let you expand 20 times befor they moved out with there 200 army. did they micro????
|
Banelings are actually the most expensive per Supply in SC2. For supply, they're insanely powerful.
|
Yes, zerg are being played the right way. In some matchups (mostly ZvT) zerg can't be that aggressive without being all-in. However, you can definitely aggress in ZvP, though generally the protoss player gets the first round of aggression. It often breaks down like this:
Protoss pressures with gateway units
Zerg pressures with speed roaches
Protoss pressures with gateway units + immortals
Zerg pressures with roaches + hydras
Protoss pressures with gateway units + immortals + collosi
Zerg pressures with roaches + hydras + corruptors
etc.
|
On January 12 2011 12:10 charlie420247 wrote:
2) Poor macro
Like i mentioned earlier, this assumes no lost larva due to bad macro. If P misses a chronoboost, their units are delayed- if Z misses a larva, their unit is lost. Most Zs probably require the extra hatch due to imperfections in macro.
[/QUOTE]
ok first to the guy who posted tihs crap. zerg players everywhere dont unanimously decide they are all gonna take early expansions because they have crap macro. if you truly believe this shit you posted your an idiot. zergs get the fast extra hatch because they NEEEEEED that larva. and they NEEEED that extra economy to hold off any 1 base timing attack such as 4 gate or an mmm timing push. the only time they DONT need that larva and eco is when they plan to end the game BEFOR that big one base timing attack. IE baneling bust.
god people are dense. OF COURSE you can be aggressive with zerg on one base. only thing is its nearly impossible to break a wall due to zealots pwning lings in a choke, forcefields, cannons tanks marines in bunkers and barracks walls.
however if the terran or toss expands super early you might be able to apply pressure if you catch on early enough and might even be able to win the game right there. however even in this situation your going pretty allin because if you dont do enough damage your gonna be on one base against 2 base and thus, you get fucked.
[/QUOTE]
You obviously didnt read the post - the point was 1 hatch with a queen can match 4 gateways (or 4 raxes for that matter) in terms of larva - so if you NNEEEEEEDD the larva in the early game then there are other issues at play - the most likely being you arent getting 100% of the potential larva because of macro.
|
Zerg always defending the early game becomes boring I think. It seems like I either loose to some early pressure or I win because I held it.
I'm not really sure what else Z can do. 1 base zerg timing attack into expand? I don't know, maybe it can be done, but it does strike me as very all-in.
|
On January 12 2011 13:04 Sablar wrote:
Zerg always defending the early game becomes boring I think. It seems like I either loose to some early pressure or I win because I held it.
I'm not really sure what else Z can do. 1 base zerg timing attack into expand? I don't know, maybe it can be done, but it does strike me as very all-in.
thats because typically that pressure is a one base all in or some sort of banshee rush cheese. if you hold it they are one base with crap production and eco while you are on two about to take a third. IE youve won.
also to ipwnnoobs, you may be able to match production of a 4 gate with one base as zerg but if they wait to attack or just expand and contain you, there units are more cost efficient than yours. its inanely hard to win in a strait up fight like that, also you need 2 bases to support tech that will keep you from dieing to void rays, tanks, and other big juicy units that lings and roaches simply cant tackle.
again ill repeat. the only reason you would ever wanna stay on one base as zerg is if you wanted to take advantage of some super weak point. this is called a timing attack, and you would definately need it to hit befor there army got to critical mass. lings can tackle stalkers in small numbers, in large numbers lings become completely inefective.
|
More burrowed blings v Terran to force raven is the only glaring change that should be made imo. That and going drops.
Zergs are behind if they don't expand and t or p turtle that's just life; but don't try and say one base zerg can win on its own merits its nearly impossible without huge errors from your opponent
|
On January 12 2011 10:47 Let it Raine wrote:
you know whats fun about zerg
not being able to scout. You have to be playing clue and have a list of possibilities in which you cross off every time your opponent makes a mistake and allows you to gain any shred of intel. It's pretty fun having two overlords sitting just out of range of patrolling stalkers knowing that if you try to move in you wont see anything and will just be down 200 minerals and supply.
so since you can't actually scout and know things for sure, this makes playing defensive that much more ridiculous. The other two races can choose one of many 1 basing pushes.
and then any unit composition involving mech actually has no obvious answer... do you go roaches or do you go lings? armies of lings fall to every tank shot, but roaches end the same if you actually try to move forward and attack.
as a mediocre 2100 zerg my opinions are obviously incorrect at some level, but holy crap I just don't see how zerg is even with the other races at all. Most of my wins involve incredibly close, long games, where I have 15k more resources score. Mostly due to the part where zerg can't actually finish other races when they're massively ahead thanks to mass killers/ranged units and chokes.
Gotta wait for them to push out themselves and hope they quit/don't kill you with it.
In my opinion, a lot of mid-to-low level Zerg don't have competent knowledge of Zerg's timings in certain matchups. In all matchups, Ling Speed is the first critical timing, and all players should be aware of that. In ZvP, the next critical timing should be burrow (for your roaches) followed by Hydra range and then your spire. Knowing all of those timings, if executed properly, are large windows for aggression, your oppurtunities for aggression become pretty apparent.
In ZvT, after ling speed, your baneling nest finishing is the next obvious timing, followed by either Baneling speed, Roach Warren/Speed or a Spire. After that, it should be your Pathogen glands finishing, followed by your Greater Spire completing. The obvious potential timings for aggression here are pretty obvious, try to frame your ZvT around those timings and you'll have a better idea of the weaknesses and transition timings of your builds are, and they should also help you know what to look for when you scout.
ZvZ is pretty grab bag, but any Zerg player wishing to be considered knowledgable should know the timings to +1 speedlings, Speed/Banelings, Speed Roach w/+1 (and potentially burrow), and fast Muta.
As far as Overseers, in ZvP I spend that on the next 100 gas I get after Burrow and Speed are purchased for my roaches, provided I'm not getting pressured immensely at my front. Diligence is making an overseer has one me many games from the Hydra+1 range timing of my build simply because I could delay collosus so effectively or keep his stalkers inside his base well enough that he didn't feel like expanding was an option.
What I'm saying is think critically of the timings in your build and everything else should seem obvious.
|
I'm actually going to be super excited to see Zerg playstyles evolve over time.
It will actually be like Zerg has different broods. IICR, each brood in BW lore had it's own way of doing things, based on the cerebrate controlling it.
Although, I guess cerebrates don't really exist anymore.
But as of now, I think the way the majority of Zergs play (macro/defensive) is the right reaction to the current style of play from P and T.
|
well as a medium-high diamond protoss player i decided to give zerg a little try some days ago and after like 5-6 matches i soon found out that i would not be able to play zerg at the same level as i did with Protoss, if i did 1 scouting mistake in the start failing to analyze what was coming i would lose. if i droned up a little to much i would lose.
1 gas 4 gate hitting around 5.50-6.00 are unbeatable without spinecrawlers. 3gate blinkstalkers are worse.
my apm almost doubled when playing zerg and still i couldnt get my creep spread-larva injecting-zergeling runaround and overlord scouting perfect.
i am not saying zerg is underpowered. but i just get so many undeserved victorys against zergs on the ladder when playing protoss. i think the main problem with zerg is their early game they have to expand. and you dont get alot of units to defend it with.
i would like to see Spinecrawler building time decreased and either giving queen a stronger anti air attack maybe letting them being able to beat a voidray-banshee 1v1 or making the spore crawler only require a spawning pool. well probably this is bad suggestions but it would help their early game without making their middle-late game better which is now fine.
sorry my bad english
|
On January 12 2011 13:04 Sablar wrote:
Zerg always defending the early game becomes boring I think. It seems like I either loose to some early pressure or I win because I held it.
I'm not really sure what else Z can do. 1 base zerg timing attack into expand? I don't know, maybe it can be done, but it does strike me as very all-in.
It would help not to fix on a specific plan at the start of the game.
Practice the timing attack a lot to be good at it and learn what it's good against -- and more importantly how to recognize early on what your attack is good against.
Then once you have that experience, choose a build that lets you transition into your timing attack when it would work, but lets you do other things against other builds.
|
On January 12 2011 00:20 Antiproduct wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 00:13 Sajuuk7 wrote:
I think many Zerg players would like to play aggressively, but that there is a problem. Protoss and Terran, accompanied by a selection of maps featuring ramp choke points, have an incredibly easy and strong way of walling off their base and not having to worry about early aggression much.
1 hold position Zealot can hold off 6 Zerglings.
1 Sentry can delay any push by lots of crucial time.
Marines standing safely behind buildings can shoot freely at the short range tier 1 Zerg units.
I believe it is simply a combination of Zerg having very short range tier 1 and the maps all having easy to fortify choke points. Notice how ZvZ is mainly Ling/Bling rushes? It's because Zerg can't wall everything off and have ranged units sitting behind 1000 hp buildings. Baneling Busts and 7RR are hardly viable against P or T due to their ease in predictability/scouting and counters.
If Zerg had either:
1. A cliff walking early game unit
2. A longer ranged tier 1 unit (ex. Hydra)
3. Maps with no ridiculous ramp choke points
Then they could maybe harass instead of always being the one harassed. I'm sorry but zerg has no reason to complain about the choke points. There are plenty of ways to harass as zerg. Learn to micro and actually use your units effectively. Use drops. Prevent expansions (zerglings or mutalisks are perfect for this), and spread creep. If you spread creep, harass will not be a problem. Not to mention zerg's constant unit reinforcement. Protoss can barely harass zerg at all. They can't even harass Terran. Protoss have powerful units, yes, but the only unit that is good for harass is a blink stalker. I really do not see why you complain about this.
Are you joking Sajuuk7 summed it up perfectly. Protoss can barely harass zerg at all?
ARE YOU JOKING???
Here are a few
10 gateway zealot rush
cannon rush
pylon ramp block into cannons
4 gate
list goes on...
|
On January 12 2011 12:40 ipwnN00bz wrote:
You obviously didnt read the post - the point was 1 hatch with a queen can match 4 gateways (or 4 raxes for that matter) in terms of larva - so if you NNEEEEEEDD the larva in the early game then there are other issues at play - the most likely being you arent getting 100% of the potential larva because of macro.
Hi I've been reading this argument going back and forth and I think both sides are missing the point somewhat. The Zerg's need for two bases is more complex than just a raw comparison of larva production versus gateways, and the issue of early game aggression is also more subtle. It's about the choices Zerg has to make, the timings of those choices and the nature of its units.
Imagine you're Zerg and I'm Terran, and we're both one-basing. If we both build up an army, where do you want the fight between those armies to happen? Correct: out in the open, or within range of your excellent spine crawlers. Certainly not at my ramp. Straight away, there's a motive for Zerg to play defensively: unless your army is very much larger, aggression is unlikely to pay for itself. So you don't want to be aggressive if I'm building an army; you want to get on more bases and make a bigger army.
So ok: let's assume your one-base Zerg army is very much larger. Under what circumstances would that be true? Well, T and P physically can't overdrone, so we're talking tech or fast expansion. What kind of tech? If it's air units, like void rays or banshees - whoops! The only unit you have that can shoot those is back in your base. I guess you don't want to risk playing aggressively if I'm teching, either: you need to stay at home and - literally - cover all your bases by getting queens and teching to lair. And since you can't do both at the same time with one hatchery, you need an expansion.
That leaves fast-expanding as a reason for my T/P army being smaller and vulnerable to your Z army. And sure enough, forge FE is vulnerable to a well-timed two-base roach push (note the 'two') - so long as you're quite certain I'm not teching to air behind the expansion. If I'm Terran it's even more complicated: I like to expand off the back of early Marine aggression, which forces you to delay tech, cut drones and build precisely the kind of units that are a) most larva-intensive and b) least useful for subsequent aggression against my bunkered-up expansion.
Notice how everything points away from aggressive play and towards Zerg needing two bases, be it for larvae (mass zerglings), queens and lair (versus fast tech), gas for mutalisks and upgrades, economy so as to get ahead and have a chance of punishing a fast expansion... there're very few scenarios in which one base aggression is the clever choice as Zerg.
|
I hope there is some way around it to make Zerg more offensive in early game. Some good strategy, or at the very least some new units in heart of the swarm.
Maybe it's possible to go like 25 exp with macro hatch in main, and still get a decent economy. But in games where my economy isn't ahead, it's usually a loss. Feels a bit hopeless :p I think day[9] tried to get some good nydus strategies going, but.. it's not really that hard to scout it and so expensive. Will probably keep praying that my 14-16 hatch stays alive and that I can hold the 4-warp gate.
But maybe it makes sense like people say, an infestation growing at an exponential rate. Even so I can't help but think that the current Zerg strategies (more money) is simply a result of them being weaker, at least in early game. If they are weaker it's not nessecarily wrong, but it is a bit tedious.
|
That's funny every nonzerg player saying "that's cauz zerg don't know how to play", "that's cauz zerg believe in myth such as unit are not cost effective" etc.
But, as someone said in another thread, ZvZ is one of the most agressive match up, so it's not because zerg don't know how to play agressiv, it has more to do with terran & protoss defensive capacities.
|
I think if zerg was being played wrong someone would have cracked the code so to say and started being extremely succesfull with his newfound ace strategy concept by now, so it would quickly become standard.
As a zerg player, who thinks zerg is in fact being played right, i think our reactionary/ passive attitude in the early game is a sum of these factors, and more i have overlooked, feel free to add.
-Ability to expand relatively easy in the early game
-lack of mobile low tier anti-air unit
-early game map controll using fast and cheap lings for xel naga towers and to patrol enemy ramp
-early game map controll tends to lead towards expanding
-significant creep spread only possible in meta- game
-other races wall in
-...
|
On January 13 2011 00:04 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 12:40 ipwnN00bz wrote:
You obviously didnt read the post - the point was 1 hatch with a queen can match 4 gateways (or 4 raxes for that matter) in terms of larva - so if you NNEEEEEEDD the larva in the early game then there are other issues at play - the most likely being you arent getting 100% of the potential larva because of macro.
Hi I've been reading this argument going back and forth and I think both sides are missing the point somewhat. The Zerg's need for two bases is more complex than just a raw comparison of larva production versus gateways, and the issue of early game aggression is also more subtle. It's about the choices Zerg has to make, the timings of those choices and the nature of its units.
To be fair there are many points. One of the ones I'm interested in is having facts and knowing reasons for doing things.
If a person thinks "you need two bases because one hatchery doesn't have enough production for one-basing", that person is pretty much trapped -- that one piece of misinformation makes it very, very difficult to even conceive the notion of effective one-base play.
However, once someone can strike this misinformation from their head, they have a chance to learn correct reasons that favor two-base play, making it more likely they can do so effectively. (Okay, they could learn correct reasons along with flawed reasons, but....)
It also gives them the chance to understand one-base play better if they ever decide to experiment with it, or are otherwise forced into it by game considerations. With the bit of misinformation in their head, they become desperate to get up an expansion, or at least sink a lot of money into an in-base Hatchery. But with the knowledge corrected, they have a chance to do something else when it might be appropriate -- such going heavy Banelings, heavy Roaches, or spending the money on rapid tech followed by massing Mutalisks or Hydralisks.
|
Honestly, I'm convinced zerg can be played more aggressively if terran and protoss had more motivations to FE as well. What's the point of expanding instead of going for a 1 base army when your 1 base army is stronger than your opponents 1 base army, thus forcing him to expand and defend to avoid a 1 base vs. 1 base battle? Imagine you didn't have forcefields or your marauders didn't have slow, that's exactly how a 1 base zerg army feels to me. Maybe the units are cost-efficient, but they don't have any special abilities which could really kill your opponents army if they are not careful. You didn't pull your roaches/lings away in time? Enjoy getting raped by forcefields and slow.
But, if 1 base play was less viable, by - let's say - better maps, terran and protoss had to decide whether they want to get workers, tech or go for a low tech army as well, leaving zerg open with more aggressive potential.
|
I think it might be interesting to see what would happen if queen production could be overlapped with lair research. That way gas/pool/lair wouldn't be utterly starved for larvae, and it might be possible to hit some nice timings with burrow, contamination or overlord speed for scouting.
|
On January 12 2011 20:52 FluidTek wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 00:20 Antiproduct wrote:On January 12 2011 00:13 Sajuuk7 wrote:
I think many Zerg players would like to play aggressively, but that there is a problem. Protoss and Terran, accompanied by a selection of maps featuring ramp choke points, have an incredibly easy and strong way of walling off their base and not having to worry about early aggression much.
1 hold position Zealot can hold off 6 Zerglings.
1 Sentry can delay any push by lots of crucial time.
Marines standing safely behind buildings can shoot freely at the short range tier 1 Zerg units.
I believe it is simply a combination of Zerg having very short range tier 1 and the maps all having easy to fortify choke points. Notice how ZvZ is mainly Ling/Bling rushes? It's because Zerg can't wall everything off and have ranged units sitting behind 1000 hp buildings. Baneling Busts and 7RR are hardly viable against P or T due to their ease in predictability/scouting and counters.
If Zerg had either:
1. A cliff walking early game unit
2. A longer ranged tier 1 unit (ex. Hydra)
3. Maps with no ridiculous ramp choke points
Then they could maybe harass instead of always being the one harassed. I'm sorry but zerg has no reason to complain about the choke points. There are plenty of ways to harass as zerg. Learn to micro and actually use your units effectively. Use drops. Prevent expansions (zerglings or mutalisks are perfect for this), and spread creep. If you spread creep, harass will not be a problem. Not to mention zerg's constant unit reinforcement. Protoss can barely harass zerg at all. They can't even harass Terran. Protoss have powerful units, yes, but the only unit that is good for harass is a blink stalker. I really do not see why you complain about this. Are you joking Sajuuk7 summed it up perfectly. Protoss can barely harass zerg at all? ARE YOU JOKING??? Here are a few 10 gateway zealot rush cannon rush pylon ramp block into cannons 4 gate list goes on...
Dude... those are all-in/cheese, not really "Harassment". Harassment is applied pressure to force an opponent into a defensive mind-set that usually triggers very specific tech without committing much of your own resources to trigger it and without damaging yourself to the point where the strategy would have to win or score huge economic damage to your opponent or risk being overwhelmed quickly by your opponent's macro in the long run. Muta Harass often keeps Terran and Protoss players in their own base while committing sizable quantities of resources to constructing turrets or Photon Cannons often with just a commitment of 600 Minerals and 600 Gas on your part that you can continue to use around the map vs the static defenses that counter them. Reapers typically force a player to leave a number of moderately expensive units on defense. Protoss can drop a Darkshrine in the mid game without being "All In-ish" and force a terran player to pool Orbital energy for scans rather than spending it all on Mules. Phoenix Openings force a player to commit minerals and larva to Spore Crawlers or tech to Hydras and commit substantial quantities of gas to making hydras early in the game.
Anyways, more on-topic, the reason zerg play defensively is due to Protoss/Terran Wall-in capability and Zerg's almost complete reliance on one specific tech to break these walls in the early-mid game and the suicidal nature of the units involved. Aggressive Zerg plays are primarily focused around denying expansions while building up their own expos.
|
On January 12 2011 00:03 THE_oldy wrote:
Zerg are ment to slowly consume the map, and eventually overwhelm with pure numbers, and i think it fits there lore perfectly.
And yes they were designed this way, just look at there creep mechanic, and the way they are encouraged to expand (only 300 for hatch, and you need them for unit production) It's actually not "only" 300. With the drone it's 350. Then the Nexus and CC costs 400, but also give 11 or 10 supply while the hatch provides just 2 supply. The remaining 8 (or even 9) supply costs another 100 (or 112.5)
This means, that the hatch costs, included the drone and the overlord to get +10 supply comined, 450 minerals and thus is more expensive than a Nexus or CC. Then again, the hatch also functions as production building, so you save the minerals for a lot of raxes or gates.
Protoss however has both chronoboost as well as warp-in, the terran has access to a reactor for some units to accelerate production.
|
On January 13 2011 23:36 Conrose wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 20:52 FluidTek wrote:On January 12 2011 00:20 Antiproduct wrote:On January 12 2011 00:13 Sajuuk7 wrote:
I think many Zerg players would like to play aggressively, but that there is a problem. Protoss and Terran, accompanied by a selection of maps featuring ramp choke points, have an incredibly easy and strong way of walling off their base and not having to worry about early aggression much.
1 hold position Zealot can hold off 6 Zerglings.
1 Sentry can delay any push by lots of crucial time.
Marines standing safely behind buildings can shoot freely at the short range tier 1 Zerg units.
I believe it is simply a combination of Zerg having very short range tier 1 and the maps all having easy to fortify choke points. Notice how ZvZ is mainly Ling/Bling rushes? It's because Zerg can't wall everything off and have ranged units sitting behind 1000 hp buildings. Baneling Busts and 7RR are hardly viable against P or T due to their ease in predictability/scouting and counters.
If Zerg had either:
1. A cliff walking early game unit
2. A longer ranged tier 1 unit (ex. Hydra)
3. Maps with no ridiculous ramp choke points
Then they could maybe harass instead of always being the one harassed. I'm sorry but zerg has no reason to complain about the choke points. There are plenty of ways to harass as zerg. Learn to micro and actually use your units effectively. Use drops. Prevent expansions (zerglings or mutalisks are perfect for this), and spread creep. If you spread creep, harass will not be a problem. Not to mention zerg's constant unit reinforcement. Protoss can barely harass zerg at all. They can't even harass Terran. Protoss have powerful units, yes, but the only unit that is good for harass is a blink stalker. I really do not see why you complain about this. Are you joking Sajuuk7 summed it up perfectly. Protoss can barely harass zerg at all? ARE YOU JOKING??? Here are a few 10 gateway zealot rush cannon rush pylon ramp block into cannons 4 gate list goes on... Dude... those are all-in/cheese, not really "Harassment". Harassment is applied pressure to force an opponent into a defensive mind-set that usually triggers very specific tech without committing much of your own resources to trigger it and without damaging yourself to the point where the strategy would have to win or score huge economic damage to your opponent or risk being overwhelmed quickly by your opponent's macro in the long run. Muta Harass often keeps Terran and Protoss players in their own base while committing sizable quantities of resources to constructing turrets or Photon Cannons often with just a commitment of 600 Minerals and 600 Gas on your part that you can continue to use around the map vs the static defenses that counter them. Reapers typically force a player to leave a number of moderately expensive units on defense. Protoss can drop a Darkshrine in the mid game without being "All In-ish" and force a terran player to pool Orbital energy for scans rather than spending it all on Mules. Phoenix Openings force a player to commit minerals and larva to Spore Crawlers or tech to Hydras and commit substantial quantities of gas to making hydras early in the game. Anyways, more on-topic, the reason zerg play defensively is due to Protoss/Terran Wall-in capability and Zerg's almost complete reliance on one specific tech to break these walls in the early-mid game and the suicidal nature of the units involved. Aggressive Zerg plays are primarily focused around denying expansions while building up their own expos.
Let me quote you:
"Harassment is applied pressure to force an opponent into a defensive mind-set that usually triggers very specific tech without committing much of your own resources to trigger it and without damaging yourself to the point where the strategy would have to win or score huge economic damage to your opponent or risk being overwhelmed quickly by your opponent's macro in the long run."
So what do you call a pylon/cannon contain? Thats cheap as hell and puts the zerg in a 1 base defensive contain which forces the zerg to either spine+ creep spread or banelings or roaches. Or double 12 gate pressure with a few zealots. In both situations the toss forces the zerg into a defensive position and they have to overcommit otherwise they risk loosing the game instantly, where the toss can then freely fast expand and the game isn't look to bright for the zerg.
|
Yes, and mostly because the only harass that consistently is mutalisk harass, but sometimes roach/hydra is better due to map/positioning/etc. and wasting gas is never good. So, if you don't go muta/ling/bling, you need to simply get the biggest econ advantage anyway so that you can produce the units AND the reinforcements (flimsy lings) that you need in order to take the game. There are other reasons, like if you look at Zerg buildings and mechanics, the reward for FE or expanding in general is two-fold compared to Terran or Protoss, you get more potential income, and more production, plus as a bonus, it is cheaper by 100 minerals. Sure they are weak on the defense, but only because you need to get the econ advantage by droning so hard. The only reason Zerg might not need more production is if you can kill the Terran/Protoss army out right, and by then either you're one-basing, they're doin' it wrong, or you've already taken a good chunk of the map. In SC1 however, yes they did harass frequently, but in SC2, Terran is the one built to harass (reapers, hellions, cloak-able banshees, AND healing drop ships, I mean what more could there be), and often they will and try to PREVENT the Zerg from gaining an econ advantage. Protoss, on the other hand, has few harass units (even counting the gimmicky DT), and so they try to macro harder than the Zerg, attempting to keep a probe advantage, while not letting the Zerg pressure them, but they can make workers and military at the same time, so they usually can even pressure the Zerg. Notice a trend, not "defend the Zerg's harass," but "harass the Zerg."
*gasp* Wow, I feel like I just ranted more than explained, but meh.
TL;DR Terran harasses Zerg, and Protoss keeps pressure with units while "droning" hardish, and Zerg can expand for cheaper than other races, and needs money for reinforcements, so Zerg needs to replace drones (if lost), and Expo a lot, so they drone/macro more than other races. Well, usually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
