|
On February 21 2011 02:09 Galleon.frigate wrote:
I mean people, if there was an upgrade you could buy at hive tech, that increased your supply cap by 20 supply and cost 800 min, how many people would buy that?
great hypothetical argument, in my eyes, Zerg Players of course would get that Upgrade, i don't see why they shouldn't (if it suits their strategy)
Lets take the argument, ("Zerg should attack when they are maxxed")
I have no problem with this statement at all, as it is great to use that advantage.
Question would be why 200? why not 180? 160?
you should still have the economic and supply advantage.
the answer to that question, is the answer why not 220? 240?
especially in those "P, Deathball" situations, where you could overproduce Corrupters, and are left with to few groundunits, where it is argued that you will get rolled by gateway armies, this could play a role.
i mean the Corrupters are gonna roll his Voidray/Colossus ball in decent numbers,
now this additional supply due to the "trick" might give you the time to remax properly.
i mean you only need to play on time. (since your on assuming 4-5 bases, where he is on 2)
(again this is just an example where it could give an edge!, needs testing)
but 2 base deathball is an All-in after all,
if it fails he loses.
|
On February 21 2011 02:08 Bergys wrote:
This is a great idea, more so in ZvT than ZvP imo but very useful nonetheless. The zerg usually doesn't lose because he's out of minerals. They mostly lose because they get crushed and don't manage to remax in time. Also you don't lose the minerals when you pull drones, you just get them later. The only minerals you are losing are the ones that you use to cancel the spore crawler. It might be hard to pull of in a real game, but if you manage to do it it's definetely worth it imo. If you get your minerals later you are losing minerals. Not minerals mined over the course of a fully-mined out game of course, but until you would have been mined out and start mining the minerals you would have mined earlier you are down by that many minerals.
This isn't equal in the long run, this is a clear advantage for an opponent who does not take his workers off minerals. Until the point at which you only have left the minerals you didn't mine, you are behind, and once you hit that point you begin to catch up. At the end, when you are fully mined out, you have mined as many minerals as you would have if you didn't take your drones off earlier. At every point in the game until then, you are behind by as many minerals as those workers would have mined while off the mineral line. If your opponent plans to win he will take advantage of this. If he doesn't, you've caught up to him at the end of the game.
So many people on this site seem not to understand that the value of money is a decreasing function of time -.-
|
On February 21 2011 02:30 Yotta wrote:
So many people on this site seem not to understand that the value of money is a decreasing function of time -.-
i understand your argument fully, but Zerg (at least compared to the other races) mines more minerals in the same time as far as i am aware.(so it would be less of having an advantage, and not a disadvantage)
lets say Zerg has 3-4k on the bank and is maxxed, you say, taking drones of the line thus delaying mineral income is putting you up on the backfoot.
This now has to be compared to the tactical advantage of using those additional units?
lets consider baneling drops (into eco), which you wouldn't be able to do otherwise.
Question is, can those XX more supply used more costefficiently so they outwaight their costs of getting them?
idk, but seems worth testing.
how many additional XX units are beneficial is a question that needs to be answered, my +20 Supply is just an example, and may be "too much"?
(i am not a active zerg player!!)
|
i do agree that this is useful, there is a vod of machine coaching mr. bitter in which he actually does do this, though less exaggerated. he put down like 6 spores to free up space for some corruptors and had 206 supply, but the same idea still applies.
the thing is, i don't think this is a good idea unless you're in a situation where you're maxed but you can't attack in a good position. it's a position not unfamiliar to a late game zerg. sometimes you have to put down bases and such just so that you don't stagnate after maxing, because the shit hits the fan when a non-zerg is even or 1 less base and even supply maxed. this is less efficient but nonetheless another way to prevent stagnation to the point where the non-zerg catches up to you.
however, i think the original thread's intent of having like a 220 or 240 or whatever supply army is hugely exaggerating the usefulness of this. you're basically putting a mineral line out of commission at a time where you could be attacked and you need to be remaxing. i imagine there is that once in a blue moon time where the move pays off, but with this technique i imagine a more consistent usefulness, like maxing out and then fitting in some supply efficient units, like morphing corruptors to broodlords (4 supply, +2 since the corruptor is made already), or infestors or banelings to put into some overlords, maybe a pack of zerglings to runby without using your main army. things like that, i think are well worth the cost, while putting down 20 spores, stopping mining for 30 seconds to a minute, just for 10 more roach/hydra is just too much unless you just KNOW you'll die without more stuff than you have right now.
|
Smart idea. At this point of the game you really don't care about lost mining time.
Not sure why people are bringing it up.
You're not trying to be resoure efficient either. You're trying to end the game, and floating 4k/4k isn't helping in the least bit.
|
For now it does boil down to a style choice. It would take a lot of games to figure out if one method is more effective than the other. No need to theorycraft so muc. Just try it enough times to see if you like this method over making excess larva.
|
On February 21 2011 02:32 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2011 02:30 Yotta wrote:
So many people on this site seem not to understand that the value of money is a decreasing function of time -.- i understand your argument fully, but Zerg (at least compared to the other races) mines more minerals in the same time as far as i am aware.(so it would be less of having an advantage, and not a disadvantage) lets say Zerg has 3-4k on the bank and is maxxed, you say, taking drones of the line thus delaying mineral income is putting you up on the backfoot. This now has to be compared to the tactical advantage of using those additional units? lets consider baneling drops (into eco), which you wouldn't be able to do otherwise. Question is, can those XX more supply used more costefficiently so they outwaight their costs of getting them? idk, but seems worth testing. how many additional XX units are beneficial is a question that needs to be answered, my +20 Supply is just an example, and may be "too much"? (i am not a active zerg player!!)
Decreasing the magnitude of an advantage is a disadvantage.
If zerg is maxed and has 3-4k in the bank he has either been maxed for a while or has been macroing poorly. My argument is that this is not viable at high level play.
|
On February 21 2011 02:37 junemermaid wrote:
Smart idea. At this point of the game you really don't care about lost mining time.
Not sure why people are bringing it up.
You're not trying to be resoure efficient either. You're trying to end the game, and floating 4k/4k isn't helping in the least bit.
yes, it does help. your maxed army is going to die if you get attacked with a maxed army. food counts late game zvx are deceiving because often the zerg has many more drones and yet still ends up behind in food, meaning their army is way behind after the attack. you then recoup your losses with 1 production cycle.
you can't make 50+ units all of a sudden if you don't have thousands of resources. if you don't have that buffer, the non-zerg just marches forward, killing what they see. if you stop mining from one of your bases for a long time and you also spend a lot of the money preemptively, what you're doing is banking on winning with the first attack, because the banked resources are depleted. i'm completely unconvinced that adding 20 food of units before you inevitably remax to some extent allows you to do that without replays. maybe in tvz, but it seems completely futile in pvz
|
On February 21 2011 02:30 Yotta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2011 02:08 Bergys wrote:
This is a great idea, more so in ZvT than ZvP imo but very useful nonetheless. The zerg usually doesn't lose because he's out of minerals. They mostly lose because they get crushed and don't manage to remax in time. Also you don't lose the minerals when you pull drones, you just get them later. The only minerals you are losing are the ones that you use to cancel the spore crawler. It might be hard to pull of in a real game, but if you manage to do it it's definetely worth it imo. If you get your minerals later you are losing minerals. Not minerals mined over the course of a fully-mined out game of course, but until you would have been mined out and start mining the minerals you would have mined earlier you are down by that many minerals. This isn't equal in the long run, this is a clear advantage for an opponent who does not take his workers off minerals. Until the point at which you only have left the minerals you didn't mine, you are behind, and once you hit that point you begin to catch up. At the end, when you are fully mined out, you have mined as many minerals as you would have if you didn't take your drones off earlier. At every point in the game until then, you are behind by as many minerals as those workers would have mined while off the mineral line. If your opponent plans to win he will take advantage of this. If he doesn't, you've caught up to him at the end of the game. So many people on this site seem not to understand that the value of money is a decreasing function of time -.-
When you're maxed out and floating thousands of minerals and gas, this entire argument doesn't really mean jack.
Edit:
On February 21 2011 02:46 Herculix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2011 02:37 junemermaid wrote:
Smart idea. At this point of the game you really don't care about lost mining time.
Not sure why people are bringing it up.
You're not trying to be resoure efficient either. You're trying to end the game, and floating 4k/4k isn't helping in the least bit. yes, it does help. your maxed army is going to die if you get attacked with a maxed army. food counts late game zvx are deceiving because often the zerg has many more drones and yet still ends up behind in food, meaning their army is way behind after the attack. you then recoup your losses with 1 production cycle. you can't make 50+ units all of a sudden if you don't have thousands of resources. if you don't have that buffer, the non-zerg just marches forward, killing what they see. if you stop mining from one of your bases for a long time and you also spend a lot of the money preemptively, what you're doing is banking on winning with the first attack, because the banked resources are depleted. i'm completely unconvinced that adding 20 food of units before you inevitably remax to some extent allows you to do that without replays. maybe in tvz, but it seems completely futile in pvz
I think 40 banelings would help in the initial confrontation like crazy.
|
On February 21 2011 02:45 Yotta wrote:
Decreasing the magnitude of an advantage is a disadvantage.
If zerg is maxed and has 3-4k in the bank he has either been maxed for a while or has been macroing poorly. My argument is that this is not viable at high level play.
i guess it is a difference in playstsyle, you would suggest i am assuming attacking and trading armies when you reach 200/200?
then my question to you, why not already at 180 or 160?
(you still have your mining/supply advantage)
what makes 200 so special? (beside it beeing the ingame food cap)
|
On February 21 2011 02:49 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2011 02:45 Yotta wrote:
Decreasing the magnitude of an advantage is a disadvantage.
If zerg is maxed and has 3-4k in the bank he has either been maxed for a while or has been macroing poorly. My argument is that this is not viable at high level play. i guess it is a difference in playstsyle, you would suggest i am assuming attacking and trading armies when you reach 200/200? then my question to you, why not already at 180 or 160? (you still have your "mining" advantage) what makes 200 so special? (beside it beeing the ingame food cap) Your mining advantage is more pronounced later in the game because your economy grows exponentially. If you could go to 300/300 that's when I would attack as zerg. In starcraft, however, the lastest you can attack without doing inefficient things like this trick is at 200/200. This is when your faster economy growth will have the highest possible advantage against an opponent. So, in a sense, you're right. There is nothing special about this timing except that it is the food cap, the end of economic growth.
My argument from here is that this trick is so economically inefficient that doing it lessens any advantage you may have had at the 200/200 mark.
Edit: Of course, there are times when you should attack as zerg when you are not supply capped, like when your opponent screws up and you gain an advantage earlier in the game, but this is neither an example of high level play nor relevant to this thread.
Edit2: by "this is not an example of high level play" i don't mean that pros never make mistakes; of course they do. I'm saying that you can't theorycraft assuming that people will make mistakes because they do not make mistakes consistently. That's why theorycrafting is useless; everyone makes tons of mistakes every game and you can't predict what they will be. The best you can do is theorize how the game would play out if everyone played as well as humanly possible.
|
On February 21 2011 02:49 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2011 02:45 Yotta wrote:
Decreasing the magnitude of an advantage is a disadvantage.
If zerg is maxed and has 3-4k in the bank he has either been maxed for a while or has been macroing poorly. My argument is that this is not viable at high level play. i guess it is a difference in playstsyle, you would suggest i am assuming attacking and trading armies when you reach 200/200? then my question to you, why not already at 180 or 160? (you still have your mining/supply advantage) what makes 200 so special? (beside it beeing the ingame food cap)
this is a secondary question that is actually almost a second thread.
I think some people are moving away from the 300 push to the have a timing attack as soon as you max, try to trade to your advantage.
I'm not sure what is best, and I doubt even the best players will have the difinitive answer for months, though they will obviously know what works best for them.
It's a valid question, but if it should or shouldn't happen, zergs will and will continue to end up maxed with a lot of banking money - and that is the situation that the thead is addressing
|
This idea gives me a tremendous nerd boner. I'm imagining a 200/200 army with 10 mutalisks poking at their back for free (in terms of food) during the confrontation
|
On February 21 2011 00:48 kcdc wrote:
Or you could just stop making roaches at 180 food, and instead of grabbing 10 more roaches to max out, you could make 40 banelings and research OL speed and drops. Now your 200/200 army is twice as strong as the pure roach composition would have been!
you wont believe that shit but some protoss are actually capable of targeting down overlords
|
I have not tried this yet but it seems like a pretty good idea although incredibly situational. People who say 20 extra food is nothing for the cost are pretty uninformed IMO. Imagine in ZvZ you bust this trick out late game and get another 10 units than your opponent. The battle suddenly swings WAY into your favor and you come out with exponentially more units than your opponent after the engagement (in even fights, 2 more roaches or hydras on one side than the other will mean 25 units at the end).
Also considering supply in late game is ~70 workers meaning your actual army supply is only 130. Gaining 20-40 more supply is HUGE. Also to people who think the extra supply is pointless and burning your army just to re-max would be a better option: Imagine fighting a protoss army and 1/4th of your army gets force-fielded off. You lose 3/4thss and retreat with the remaining 1/4th and re-max. That is basically what you're doing if you don't break your food cap. Anyways that is a pretty crude example.
Anyways definitely going to try this. Thanks OP.
|
I can see this having some rare uses, but in general you should attack when you get close to or arrive at 200 supply. if you wait at 200 until you have harvested another ~3k minerals (1.5k for the spore crawlers and another 1.5k to spend on, for example, corruptors) it will actually give you a worse result in most cases than just attacking immidiately, because protoss can catch up in supply during this time.
and no matter what, 220 zerg supply still doesnt win against 200 of protoss (assuming somewhat equal tech etc.)
|
this is very common and used quite frquently, i remember hearing it on mr.Bitter's 12 weeks with the pros too, but it was quite known before that too.
Funny thing is, actually it might have been Morrow who did this first time i saw it, not sure though.
the problem is this takes up some time, and 20 supply or so doesnt change that much unless you need it for something like BLs, banedrops or whathaveyou
|
On February 21 2011 00:48 kcdc wrote:
Or you could just stop making roaches at 180 food, and instead of grabbing 10 more roaches to max out, you could make 40 banelings and research OL speed and drops. Now your 200/200 army is twice as strong as the pure roach composition would have been!
I think this makes sense if you opening with drop tech to do drops in ZvP, but if you didn't, that's quite a bit of tech and you could be caught thin at the wrong timing.
|
Of course, i don't see a Zerg playing going straight for a 240 food situation.
Sure attacking at 200 sure is most likely the better choice, but there is bound to occur some games where it comes to some really late games, where this might give you an advantage, in some of the matchups. (it just came into my mind after the nightend vs. morrow match, but it is not matchup specific)
i'll leave it too active zerg players to test and judge if this is something viable to incorparate in real play, since i have never seen this, so i just wanted to share my finding.
beside the 200/200 situation this also can be used to prevent supply blocks, though i don't know if it would be worth it.
|
I am, however, saying that if both players are playing well this will not be useful, ever. I've outlined in my previous post why I think this won't work if you reach 200 a bit before your opponent and if you reach 200 as your opponent does. If your opponent hits 200 before you and lets you do this you're not playing a high level player. If you hit 200 way before your opponent you're giving up your advantage by making units inefficiently while your opponent makes his at normal efficiency. If you can think of a viable scenario for this I'll gladly accept it, but I just can't imagine one.
Well the problem here with your assumptions is that you are looking at it in situations in which nothing will work.
If you reach 200 supply as your opponent has a 190 supply void ray colossus deathball, you are dead. If you both max out at the same time, you are dead. If he maxes out before you, you are dead. So of course, in all of those situations, getting to 220 food, or 260 food, or what ever, isnt really going to work. But in all of those situations, very little is going to work.
If you hit 200 way before your opponent
Thats the point you should be considering something like this, or a 300 food push, and so on.
you're giving up your advantage by making units inefficiently while your opponent makes his at normal efficiency.
There are quite a few situations where you may for example max out while your opponent is at 160 food or so, or have the ability to max out while he is still there, but cant actually attack him.
Sure enough, you may have a supply advantage at that point, but if you decide to attack through a choke into a PF and sieged tanks, with vikings, turrets and bunkers, then the fact that you have a supply advantage is quite irrelevant here, since an attack would be suicidal.
So yeah, in cases where your opponent maxes out before you, or at the same time as you, you will lose if he knew what he was doing.
In cases where you max out, and your opponent doesnt have some kind of defensive advantage, then you can just go and kill him. No point in making a 220 food army, or a 300 food push.
But in cases where you max out first, and have an advantage, but cant actually just go and kill him, well then you have to be inefficient.
Attacking into an entrenched position with your freshly maxed army is going to be inefficient. 300 food pushing him is also inefficient. Going to 220, or more supply, is also going to be inefficient.
But in cases like those, since all of your options are inefficient, you just stop caring about what is efficient or not, and instead start caring about what is effective. Stuff like dropping 20 banelings on a planetary fortress. Inefficient ressource wise, but highly effective.
In short, anytime you would consider a 300 food push, thats when you should consider this. Not as a goal in every game, but as a useful tactic.
And imo, this is superior to a 300 food push. Or a 300 food defense.
Instead of fighting with ~140 supply of army, remaxing, and fighting again with ~140 supply of army, fighting with 200 supply, directly is going to be a lot more effective.
Having your first army being 50% bigger, that makes it exponentially more effective.
A 200 supply army is just way more brutal than 2x 140 food armies.
And ofc, the best would probably be a 200 supply army, followed by instantly remaxing, and so another 140 supply wave coming right after. The 350 food push 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
