|
On February 18 2011 03:15 parn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2011 02:58 DjayEl wrote:
@ parn : Absolutely not. If you let a Terran build 3-4 Command centers and only SCV with almost no army at all during 20 minutes, letting him unpunished (== not kill him, but at least force him to waste ressources to defend, therefore making his expanding slower) and missing 10-12 opportunities to gain control of the game, then yes, you can't win anymore.
Is it 10 or 12 opportunities? Total dishonest post. You all know that if the Terran had lose the game, came here to ask why, you would all answer: "you were to passive, don't let the Zerg expand, etc ...". Both players went for a macro game, the Zerg did better, the Zerg lost, it's as simple as that. This is not why he loses the game.
He asked for a way to beat a terran who doesn't attack. The specific one in the replay he linked is a macro terran, who seems to have holes in his early game. Tell me, which is the easier option;
A: Figuring out a unit combination/positioning to defeat him on 6 bases when he has 5
B: Killing the shit out of him in the early game
My vote is on B, personally!
|
On February 18 2011 03:15 parn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2011 02:58 DjayEl wrote:
@ parn : Absolutely not. If you let a Terran build 3-4 Command centers and only SCV with almost no army at all during 20 minutes, letting him unpunished (== not kill him, but at least force him to waste ressources to defend, therefore making his expanding slower) and missing 10-12 opportunities to gain control of the game, then yes, you can't win anymore.
Is it 10 or 12 opportunities? Total dishonest post. You all know that if the Terran had lose the game, came here to ask why, you would all answer: "you were to passive, don't let the Zerg expand, etc ...". Both players went for a macro game, the Zerg did better, the Zerg lost, it's as simple as that. This is not why he loses the game.
That statement is complete false.
Also the one you quote is correct. He lost the game because of no pressure. He let the terran expand freely, and did next to nothing to stop it.
|
@ parn : dont treat me as dishonnest. We both know what you are trying to do there. I already listed these opportunities in my first post, and later. Count them if you want.
And please stop with this macro thing : Zerg had better economy, not better macro. Macro is economy + spending all of your ressources in time at key moments, the last is the harder part.
If you just want to argue, then let me say you are right and discussion is over. Otherwise, try to understand my explanations. You keep saying Im wrong but cant say yourself exactly why the Terran won. What others can do.
And peace, I did not meant to hurt you man...
|
On February 18 2011 00:28 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2011 00:21 Sm3agol wrote:On February 17 2011 23:29 Geo.Rion wrote:On February 17 2011 23:22 Sm3agol wrote:
Another one of these.......
Guys, you're not playing Sim City. Your goal is to kill your opponent, not out macro him. If you scout him doing crap like only having 92 farking supply at 20 minutes in, HE SHOULD BE DEAD ALREADY. I doesn't matter what happened after that really. You passed the point of good play. You basically let him eco cheese for 25 minutes, and then expected to just win because you had "better macro". No, better macro is more and better units than him. You had no such thing. 2 more bases is not better macro if you're not using them for anything that directly results in KILLING HIM. If anything, all his PFs means he had more like a 300/200 army, because they can fight too, so he outmacroed you to a 300/200 army.
You're making up your own rules for the game, and then wondering why the game isn't balanced for those rules. It takes a T a lot longer to reach Z in macro...and yet you let him do that without even attempting to punish him. You bank thousands of minerals before you even try to fight him......WTF? At that point you're not ahead any more. If the solution to your problem is merely spending 1k of those minerals on speedlings at the 15 minutes mark.......and just walking in and raping his base.....then you're doing something wrong. If you can easily punish him for incredibly greedy play, and don't, you aren't playing the game correctly, end of story. again why are you so agressive, and why do you make me look like i complain about balance? I seek help for dealing with this kind of situations, regardless if i could have ended this one earlier or not ........Once again, you'll never get into a situation like this unless you screw up. So wanting a cost efficient 100% effective way to deal with it is just being ignorant. I'll repeat, this is not sim city. The object of the game is to kill your opponent. If you pass up multiple ridiculously easy ways to kill your opponent, then whatever happens afterwards is irrelevant. This kind of conversation is the equivalent of wanting a cost efficient way to kill 3/3 200/200 thors. The answer is, there isn't, the problem is letting him get there in the first place. okey man, taht is totally cool, your answer is Not let it happen, if it happens, you die. It's ok, taht's a valid opinion, i'm wondering if there are others who think that situation still can occur on normal basis, and they know a way to deal with it, there were a couple who made suggestions, which im thankful for, once again @ Antisocialmunky I've seen the game, Broodlords back then had +50 health, +1 armor, and +5 demage, as well as ultras had slightly bigger cleave, with those units i believ ei would have been able to break him this game too Show nested quote +On February 17 2011 23:38 Toxi78 wrote:
rename this topic to "Zerg which never attacks."
20 mins into the game, your sitting on 200/200 and have 6k minerals 2k gas, and dont attack. what are you afraid of ?
nevermind, 25 mins, 12k minerals, still not attacking.
lol that's right i was afraid of attacking, because i lost many games like that, attacking into a passive terran. I genuinly think in every eco based RTS if one player commits 100% into defence the other player s respound should not be commit 100% into attack. I committed to eco and tech, which might not have been the correct choise but again, it happened, and i ended up in a situation, which some of you consider canot happen in a normal game, i consider it can, and i d love to hear different ways of approaching that, as mine was clearly not the best one
I'll give my two cents. I apologize in advance if someone has already mentioned what I am about to say.
First off, many of your attacks were half-hearted, and only consisted of about half of your army. I believe that these attacks would have been much more successful had you committed your entire army, instead of leaving behind many of your units to idle. Your economy earlier on was much more powerful, so you would have been able to rebuild much faster than him.
Many of your attacks were also disorganized. You allowed your armies to be split, to attack a variety of targets which weren't priorities (such as turrets) and be baited into killing grounds filled with PFs and sieged tanks when there were plenty of unprotected targets nearby.
I feel that you used drop too much. It has its uses, but you lost a good number of pricey units just by getting your overlords sniped by the large number of vikings. Sticking with nydus worms would have been a better idea, if you absolutely felt the need to be sneaky.
Your upgrades were considerably behind the Terran's in the mid to mid-late game. This was devastating, and should not happen.
I wont repeat what people have said about the early to early-mid game, since you've already heard what you had to hear countless times.
TL; DR:
a) Once you're maxed and are floating a considerable amount of money, commit yourself to one alleyway of attack and commit all of your forces there. Don't attack with only half of your forces. He won't be able to resist against the multiple armies you'll have due to your booming economy.
b) Don't go drop tech when nydus is working, if not better.
c) Upgrades.
|
I'm not a zerg player but here are my suggestions based no first hand experience.
Try using your banelings earlier, they sat around for half an hour.
Prioritize units with your banelings. (as opposed to buildings)
Set baneling mines outside the base you choose to attack and bait units into them when your roach force seemingly retreats.
Next time you wanna sac drones with that kind of economy try making mass spine crawlers out of them, then pushing a lane with the crawlers to fall back behind. (I know you're thinking siege/thor army beat crawlers, but with unit support they'll do decent)
Alternatively you could try mass spore crawlers and use broodlords over them, the broodlings will tie up the ground units, and you can fall back if the vikings swing in.
try mass Corruptor, some Broodlords, and a few Infestors to fungal his viking if they try to pull back?
But these wont single handedly win you the game, which is the type response you're looking for. You're just going to have to keep playing him over and over until you find something that works for you.
|
Sorry Geo.Rion, but how did you expect this to go?
You post a replay of a game you lost versus a macro Terran and ask advice on how you could've won that game. As such, people are going to look at your replay and pick apart your play bit by bit till they come to a conclusion.
It wasn't even one of those "WTF just happened?" games, the reasons you lost were quite obvious and numerous. If you're not going to accept people's analysis of your game, why would you even waste our time with it? People take the time to watch a rather bad 30 minute game and comment on it step by step, and you respond to them by implying they haven't watched the replay/ that they're silly/ that they're wrong and seeing things black and white?
Wake up man, you're too caught up in the notion of an attack being inherently all-in and immoral. Do you actually think any top Zerg would let his Terran opponent get three bases and dual reactor starports of off 2 marines and 2 hellions before the 8 minute mark? Do you think any pro Zerg will look at your replay and say "I particularly liked your gameplan revolving around floating 12k minerals and 5k gas whilst not confronting the Terran with your maxed army for 10 minutes so he could take his half of the map with his 90 food army and construct it into a 200 food 3/3 death-ball and roll you ... I think you really got into his head".
Really, everyone in the thread is coming to the same conclusions and it's not because we're all being unreasonable or unknowledgeable. Maybe you should actually consider that your playstyle is less than optimal and work on that. If you're still doubting I'm very willing to PM Dark_Force on whether he wants to comment on your replay.
|
I dont even have to watch the replay to tell you that you force a lot of vikings with broods...then you go ultras.
|
I saw the replay and ... stopped at 22:18 and HAD ENOUGH. Worst spent 15 minutes of my life.
0. U ARE A FUCKHEAD - STOP WHINING AND ANALIZE YOUR PLAY !
1.  First of all - at a "given" time - i see u with 200/200 supply ( 4500 - 1500 resources) vs 100/200 supply ( he was taking his 4th). U HAD 109 DRONES vs 50 scvs !!!
2. BOTH OF U WERE PASSIVE ! Except - 2-3 battles ( 8 vikings vs 14 mutas, biggest of all around 25 mutas vs 15 vikings and a zergling "harras" in his main - u sent 14-18 lings vs 1 thor).
3. U had sooo many resources and no army at all except mutas and u persevered in loosing 2 controls of mutas vs his thor / missle turets mix WITH NO BACKUP ARMY !!! All he had was 3 TANKS ALL THE TIME and 2 hellion and 1-2 thors later.
4. U LET HIM MACRO UP soooo easy ... u saw double STARPORT with reactor - and he was pumping ONLY VIKINGS at 7-8 minutes mark into the game. HE HAD NO ... i mean no - i mean 0 defence. EXCUSE ME !!! 1 RHINE FOR DEFENCEEEE ! How the heck is that possible ?
5. With the risk of repeating myself - U NEVER ATTACKED HIM - all u've done is HARRAS with mutas vs turrets ... how do u expect he will not expand . FOR EXAMPLE : at 9:15 u are taking your 3rd ; after you scout u see all he makes are 4 vikings at a time ; his army IS composed of : 2 rhines , 1 hellion .... NO BUNKER, NO ANYTHING !!!
PS : how can u all other zerg player be as FUCKHEADS and all whine - withouth seeing the reply - or even by seeing it - can t see that OBVIOUS ... shitty play ?!
PS 2 : sorry for flamming , but how the heck can i not ?! In the 1st page - all are talking - yep, imba ... and i wonder myself - WOW - not i can really beat zerg - let's see and learn ... and all zerg does is let terran expand and play muta harras.
PLZ ATTACH A REPLAY WITH U AND YOUR FRIEND of BIG GAME HUNTERS !!! I think it will be no difference!
PS3 : ALL I VE LEARNT is ... u can HOLD zerg at 9 minute mark - with 1 rhine , 2 hellion , no bunker ! I will try this , just so i can loose.
PS 4 : now i see ... 114 drones vs 49 scv-s ... CONTACT BLIZZARD ! THIS GAME IS REALY IMBAAAA !!! O_o Call for your money back !!!
GL HF !
User was temp banned for this post.
|
0. U ARE A FUCKHEAD - STOP WHINING AND ANALIZE YOUR PLAY !
wow, could we please keep stuff like this in the battle.net forums?
edit: on topic, I just did something similar to this on a TvZ on LT. PFs get kind of ridiculous in the late game. You can completely defend one half of the map exclusively with PFs, turrets (both remarkably cost-effective at 550/150 and 100/0), and Vikings and whatever else you decide to throw in there. If you let the Terran get his turtle secured then it's very hard to stop since terran units are ridiculously cost-effective. Ravens with their upgrades become stupid in the late game.
|
If he's committing super hard to turtling, why are you bothering to break him at all? Deny extra bases and snipe tanks/etc.Be in an adventageous spot when he does move out to deal allot of damage to his army. It's pointless to run into a giant defense of seige/turret, just don't let him get any bigger.
I'd recommended watching old BW games of really good ZvT mech and figure out what the zerg did to win the game. Obviously, some things aren't completely the same, but luckily, Dark Swarm wasn't the linchpin of ZvT mech. Certain things are analogous, like thors and Goliaths, or broods and guardians, etc.
|
IMO, you should have been able to win with around 200 banelings and 8 ultras. That is around 150 food so you might have to sac some surplus drones(you had 12 supply in queens, I find that too much). Then remax on roach and head for his main. What I could see you had the economy and larvae for this.
When you tried out Ultra-Bane combo in the game, you had around 50 banes only, but if you would have added 150 banelings more, I am pretty sure the outcome would have been different. You remaxed on ultra after that battle, but if you instead remaxed with 70 roaches would have been better.
|
If we cut the slack of most of the posts, most seem to agree that a Zerg can't hope to win against a Terran who maxed out, got upgrades and secured (PF, sieged tanks, vikings nearby) his expansions. This comes from the usually accepted fact that Zerg units aren't cost efficient. They aren't made to attack into fortified positions unless they are absurdly higher in supply counts (or tech). This however leads to the conclusion that, if both players can secure their half of the map relatively freely, it's the Zerg who gets in a more and more disadvantageous position. (This is by no means different in BW. A winning Zerg was ahead in bases by 2-3.).
Long story short: If a Zerg player and his non-Zerg opponent can both take their 50% of the map freely, Zerg is behind. He can try to circumvent the defense if possible (mutas, drops, nydus, zergling runbies), but if Terran prevents that, Zerg has a hard time. This is how the game is designed.
So imo you have two possibilities: a) deny his expansions and starve him or b) "go fucking KILL him" (as Day9 would state it). That's the counter to greed.
To point b): You saw that yourself (I read the thread). But what I also took from your posts is that you want the fact to be true that a Zerg who outmacroes his opponent must win. I think this is a misconception of the saying that "Zerg is a reactionary race" which I consider being true.
But it does not mean that surviving till the end of time will get you the win. SC2 is not space invaders. It just means you have to react what your opponent does. And I know, we as Zergs are used to aggressive opponents because other races excel at aggression more than we do, but that does not mean there aren't times when it's the right thing to do to actually win.
I hope I didn't forget anything. Have a nice day (despite the heat in this threat).
|
If he has 4-5 bases, he can't be defending all at the same time. If you got tons of resources, Nydus away or do drops, you can afford it, and just wreak havoc somewhere where he is not. He CANNOT defend 4-5 bases well with mech. Just chip away a little at a time.
Suicide 20ish blings into one of his PF's which he is not defending.
|
when you maxed out at ~20 minutes I think you needed to start using your advantage somehow. but you only start trying to attack/nydus/drop/whatever much later... when you do nydus around 10 minutes later it's always half-hearted... where's the rest of your army? you could have killed the whole base! after this there's just this long succession of small attacks where you deal a little damage with a lot of army lost, and slowly you accumulate disadvantage, and by the time 40m rolls around you're out of money on your half of the map while T is still mining. these inefficient army engagements from 20-40 minutes lost you the game i believe.
how exactly you should engage as to not be totally inefficient is up to you. once you maxed out at 20 minutes you could have had broodlords attacking his gold with infestor/fungal+hydra support, for instance.
+ Show Spoiler +also lmao at some of these comments. the rage in this thread, oh man...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
