| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
madcow305
United States152 Posts
Why would that be the correct response, when both Missile Turrets and Marines are extremely cost-effective vs. Mutalisk, and you probably won't be able to kill him unless he does not anticipate the Spire? Or, if we were to take your "if you see him FE, then you should Tech" example more literally and apply it in an extreme situation, if a Zerg sees Terran go for 1-Rax FE, they should tech to Ultralisks? Even though Ultras are not very good against Marine/Marauder? | ||
|
epikAnglory
United States1120 Posts
Targetting a Zerg's drones vs building is situational, keep in mind it usually is not 20 since they can run away and lower the death count by about half. Though usually drones will be preferred, I mean if you can kill the pool and deny Zergling speed and banelings, it should be a simple win if you follow up with a Bio-all in push. But if it is from 2 port, then most likely drones will be preferable. But seriously, stop flaming him. Though the banshee against tech vs drone example may not be the best, he still has the right idea. IMO Zerg weakness is to harass them overall, not just the tech tree. Stopping creep tumors (and killing them is even better) hurts the Zerg as well. Anything that makes the Zerg waste APM and droning that is only for defensive reasons. Overall, well read. | ||
|
_Search_
Canada180 Posts
On May 01 2011 09:44 Saracen wrote: I'm sorry, but the reason you won in the replays was because Zerg kept suiciding his anti-air and failed to get enough gas for enough mutas, not because you targeted tech structures. No matter how many drones he has, and no matter how much tech he has, of course he's not going to be able to deal with 6 banshees and 6 vikings if he just has 3 mutas and 3 queens. Killing his spawning pool made no difference at all. And I think in all but one of the games, you didn't even kill the spire the first time through. Similarly, the reason you lost the game where you killed so many drones is that you went for the same strategy but your opponent actually responded correctly, meaning he had an appropriate gas timing and didn't suicide his early mutas (you'll notice that he's the only one who didn't continue to harass your base once he saw the vikings). The bottom line is: in the games you won, you won because your opponents suicided their anti-air defense and didn't keep on producing it. In the game you lost, you lost because your opponent didn't suicide his anti-air defense and actually responded approriately. It had nothing to do with you killing a spawning pool. If you don't mind, I'd like you to play against me in any scenario, it doesn't even have to be the banshee vs Zerg example. I'll show you why you are wrong. I think you're picking on irrelevant points and ignoring the big picture. You didn't even recognize how little damage killing 30 drones with 4 Banshees did. Against Terran or Protoss that would be GG. Zerg rebuilt them like it was nothing, because it was. But I'm not here to out-argue the skeptics. If you don't want to accept my point you don't have to. Maybe if I feel up to it I'll play more games and put together another replay pack, though I'm quite convinced the one I already have is sufficient for anyone with an open mind. I also will not engage in some sort of dick-swinging showmatch. If I beat you it doesn't mean I'm right. It just meant I beat you. If I lose, it doesn't mean you proved me wrong. It just means I lost. I'm open to friendly challenges but the spirit of yours is totally combative. | ||
|
_Search_
Canada180 Posts
On May 01 2011 10:33 madcow305 wrote: Search, according to you, the correct Zerg response to a Terran 1-Rax fast expand is to go for a fast Spire. Why would that be the correct response, when both Missile Turrets and Marines are extremely cost-effective vs. Mutalisk, and you probably won't be able to kill him unless he does not anticipate the Spire? Or, if we were to take your "if you see him FE, then you should Tech" example more literally and apply it in an extreme situation, if a Zerg sees Terran go for 1-Rax FE, they should tech to Ultralisks? Even though Ultras are not very good against Marine/Marauder? Concerning the fast spire: I meant to respond to this anyways because people interpreted it as though I suggested to do nothing BUT a Spire, and pin all your hopes on it. I just meant the Zerg should place the Spire (and other tech) at a higher priority. I was trying to convey the general principle more than a simple "win recipe". It doesn't have to be a Spire. It could be an Infestation Pit. Also, please remember that a Zerg's strength is its economy and its weakness is tech, so Zerg still needs to highly prioritize their economy because in the end that's what will win them the game. A Zerg tech advantage will yield the same benefits as with the other races, but it's much more difficult to hold on to, especially against a Terran. However with this specific example I would definitely say that mutalisks are great against a Terran with low tech. Once the Zerg gets to 20+ mutalisks, marines and turrets are completely inadequate. Sure, the Zerg will be crushed if he engages the marines directly...so don't! Fly around the base picking off easy targets. Anything defended by less than 12 marines or 3 turrets is easy pickings. Most importantly, what that accomplishes is IT KEEPS THE TERRAN HOME. The Zerg can take the map and Terran has to sit and wait for their Thor to complete before they can move out. And what happens if Zerg lengthens the tech advantage by killing the armory or factory add-ons? It's the exact same stalemate situation as with the Banshees vs. Zerg. That's almost ALWAYS the benefit of a tech advantage. It gives the player map control. DTs, Mutalisks, Hellions, Banshees.... Every race has units that require specific responses and if that player does not have the response ready they are forced to bunker up until they do. Concerning the Ultralisks, not ALL tech will beat ALL economy builds, especially underpowered units like Ultralisks. You still need to pick the right unit for the right situation. Don't use Ultras vs. MM. Use Infestors. Don't use Brood Lords. Use Mutalisks to force stims and keep the Terran home. The point is that a fast expo sacrifices tech, so use that knowledge to gain an advantage and catch your opponent with their pants down. Just because I suggested a fast Spire v Terran doesn't mean that you HAVE to make a fast Spire to take my point. There are many other responses that follows in the Spirit of hitting your opponent where they are weak. | ||
|
Saracen
United States5139 Posts
On May 01 2011 11:04 _Search_ wrote: I think you're picking on irrelevant points and ignoring the big picture. You didn't even recognize how little damage killing 30 drones with 4 Banshees did. Against Terran or Protoss that would be GG. Zerg rebuilt them like it was nothing, because it was. But I'm not here to out-argue the skeptics. If you don't want to accept my point you don't have to. Maybe if I feel up to it I'll play more games and put together another replay pack, though I'm quite convinced the one I already have is sufficient for anyone with an open mind. I also will not engage in some sort of dick-swinging showmatch. If I beat you it doesn't mean I'm right. It just meant I beat you. If I lose, it doesn't mean you proved me wrong. It just means I lost. I'm open to friendly challenges but the spirit of yours is totally combative. I'm just giving you a chance to prove your train of thought. As I stated in my argument, all you did was show 5 replays of people who don't know how to respond to your strategy and 1 replay of someone who did, which does nothing to prove your point that you should be targeting buildings like the spawning pool if you're harassing with banshees. Anyone can cherry-pick a bunch of replays "supporting" their point. But if you actually take the time to watch the replays, it's clear that there's also a burden on the opponent to play decently. I mean, I could go around saying that mass queen + ultra is the new best ZvP strategy and post 5 wins against diamond level protosses involving that strategy, and then post a loss of me using hydra/roach, but that doesn't make mass queen + ultra viable. Also, regarding the replay where you lost, you didn't kill "30 drones." I don't have the replay anymore because I deleted it after I watched it, but as I recall, you were barely ahead in workers after your harass because you invested so much into teching to 2port banshee. And while it's true that Zerg can replenish workers faster than Terran or Protoss, that doesn't mean you can make a blanket statement like "killing drones isn't worthwhile," especially if you're macroing properly behind the harass. But as it stands, you haven't addressed any of my concerns, even my first post in this thread. In fact, you haven't addressed anyone's concerns besides trivially "showing" that you can kill spawning pools and still win with banshee+viking, which does nothing to support your claim. The reason I'm requiring you to substantially back up your claims is that some of the things you claim can be outright harmful mindsets for players to have. And I there are a lot of less experienced players who visit these forums searching for advice. When they see your OP, they might not be discerning enough to be able to separate the good advice you give from the bad (as you can see from the previous posts where people actually start agreeing that targeting the spawning pool is good). The reason I reopened the thread was that I felt there was some good to be gained from this thread despite all the misinformation, even though I've received PMs asking why it was reopened, and there's been ongoing discussion about whether or not to close the thread in other forums. But as I see it now, since you're so intent on leading people astray, don't be surprised if another mod closes this thread once and for all, even though I'll leave it open for the time being because I'm curious if you can actually prove your points or if you're going to keep on posting irrelevant replays to backup your statements that get picked apart if the viewer actually tries to analyze the game instead of mindlessly accepting your assertions as fact. If you can prove what you said, then that's excellent; I'll retract all my statements. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
Yes please! I'll have 2 stalkers and an observer at each mineral line and you'll be stuck on one base without an army. | ||
|
Fouf
Canada34 Posts
On April 29 2011 01:46 dave333 wrote: Can't say I like this. At all. "A fast expansion sacrifices tech. So the best Terran response to a Protoss FE is cloaked Banshee. The best Zerg response to a Terran FE is a fast spire. The best Protoss response to a high econ Zerg is to move quickly to tier 3." This in particular. The best response to a terran FE is a fast spire? This is just bad info. If the terran does a greedy build like CC before rax, you're better options are either double expanding or if you want aggression, a pure baneling bust. Likewise, a protoss response to high econ zerg (aka greedy zerg) is to kill him. Teching to T3 is not going to do jack on one base. Banshees might be a good response to a toss FE, but a toss on his game will know the dangers of banshees, and will actively seek it out. Rest of it is pretty obvious if you have any sense of the game. you have to remember, zergs "strongest point" is economy, so yes, double expanding would be the better choice instead of tech. teching is still a viable option. [just tech the right path] | ||
|
Fouf
Canada34 Posts
On May 01 2011 10:33 madcow305 wrote: Search, according to you, the correct Zerg response to a Terran 1-Rax fast expand is to go for a fast Spire. Why would that be the correct response, when both Missile Turrets and Marines are extremely cost-effective vs. Mutalisk, and you probably won't be able to kill him unless he does not anticipate the Spire? Or, if we were to take your "if you see him FE, then you should Tech" example more literally and apply it in an extreme situation, if a Zerg sees Terran go for 1-Rax FE, they should tech to Ultralisks? Even though Ultras are not very good against Marine/Marauder? zergs strong point is economy, so they would just out do the terran(double expand), since the terran is now in their ring. teching is still a viable option. | ||
|
aUzi
United States18 Posts
| ||
|
Amarkov
United States131 Posts
On May 01 2011 12:44 Fouf wrote: zergs strong point is economy, so they would just out do the terran(double expand), since the terran is now in their ring. teching is still a viable option. But that's not at all the OP's theory. You're saying (correctly) that zerg should pursue as much economy as possible while not dying to their opponent. This is not something you would predict from a theory of "attacking where your opponent is weakest"; you can only work it in with a huge amount of effort. And teching is not a viable option. If you're better than the other player, you can rush mutas and do a lot of damage, but you could probably do that anyway. A good player will be able to fight your harassment, and then you will be screwed because you sacrificed an economy to rush out mutas. | ||
|
Fouf
Canada34 Posts
On May 01 2011 12:55 Amarkov wrote: But that's not at all the OP's theory. You're saying (correctly) that zerg should pursue as much economy as possible while not dying to their opponent. This is not something you would predict from a theory of "attacking where your opponent is weakest"; you can only work it in with a huge amount of effort. And teching is not a viable option. If you're better than the other player, you can rush mutas and do a lot of damage, but you could probably do that anyway. A good player will be able to fight your harassment, and then you will be screwed because you sacrificed an economy to rush out mutas. but is attacking really defined as physically moving your army and attacking your opponent or maybe rather putting you at the biggest advantage? maybe zergs way of 'attacking' could be classified as outdoing their opponent in what they do best | ||
|
`Forte
United States128 Posts
On April 27 2011 15:20 _Search_ wrote: But let’s say the Terran opts instead to respond with 2-port cloaked Banshees, and they get to the Zerg base with enough time to either: kill 20 drones, kill 2 Queens, the Spine Crawler and half the standing army (say 16 lings and 4 banelings), kill the Lair, or kill the Spawning Pool, Baneling Nest and Evolution Chamber? Spore Crawlers are quickly being built (ignoring the possibility of simply attacking those), so time is of the essence. Remembering the concept of the three pillars that supports every build, which should the Banshees target? Hopefully it’s obvious that, even though they would be cheapest to replace, the Banshees should target the 3 Tech Structures. There’s no point in killing drones, against 2 hatcheries that would be like spitting into the wind. It would be like punching your enemy’s arm instead of kneeing their groin. Don’t hit your enemy where they are strongest. Killing the army also will not yield an advantage because, not only are lings and Queens quickly reproduced, but 2-port Banshee leaves the Terran army weak as well. Attempting advantages in two categories results in a weak lead that is quickly eaten up by the opponent’s much stronger advantage in just one category. Killing the Lair is a possibility, but that target is divided between being a tech and economic building, and as a tech target it’s not a strong one. The natural can always be turned into a Lair as well. Really, the Banshees need to pull the rug right out from under and take out the Spawning Pool, Baneling Nest and Evolution Chamber. Should that happen the Terran would have the game won, maybe not instantly, but the lead would be cemented. The Banshees (still being produced) would have full map control, preventing further expansions while the Terran could take any base they wanted. Zerg dares not move out before the Pool and Chamber are replaced and the Spire completed, because every ling they lose is lost forever and Terran still poses the threat of killing the irreplaceable Spore Crawlers/Queens with overwhelming Banshees. Killing the Tech puts the Zerg in heavy defense mode, concerned with only rebuilding their crumbled third pillar before the whole edifice collapses and the build falls in on itself. • While attacking where your opponent is weak is generally very important, a 1-base 2-port banshee build vs. a Zerg FE is so all-in that if you don't do severe long term damage to your opponent, you're going to lose. Killing drones puts the Zerg behind because he loses the cost of those drones, the cost of what those drones would have mined, and has to spend time+money+larva remaking those drones. Killing his Spawning Pool and Baneling's Nest isn't nearly as long-term as killing the equivalent of drones, because he can rebuild those structures and has a far superior economy to fall back on. • Killing 20 drones and killing the Spawning Pool, Evo Chamber, and Baneling Nest isn't equivalent. Drones have 40 HP, and the structures combined have 2500--it's the equivalent of killing 62 (and a half) Drones. • Also, don't forget that killing Drones is guaranteed damage. You could kill 10 drones before you have to retreat, or you could do 400 damage to the Spawning Pool before you have to retreat. The former actually impacts the Zerg. Plus, usually the only time 2-port banshee even kills 20 drones is when the Zerg didn't scout or prepare well. • Your opponent shouldn't have to wait for his pool to rebuild before attacking since you put most of your resources into teching quickly--other than the banshees you don't have much. Even if he does have to wait, it's only for 65 in game seconds, and he has a much stronger economy to fall back on. • Remaking 62 drones would take much longer than remaking a Spawning Pool and Baneling Nest. | ||
|
Amarkov
United States131 Posts
On May 01 2011 13:02 Fouf wrote: but is attacking really defined as physically moving your army and attacking your opponent or maybe rather putting you at the biggest advantage? maybe zergs way of 'attacking' could be classified as outdoing their opponent in what they do best Then you aren't attacking where they're weakest. You're not considering the three pillars or any of that nonsense. You're simply building your economy as much as you can while not dying to your opponent. | ||
|
Fouf
Canada34 Posts
On May 01 2011 13:07 Amarkov wrote: Then you aren't attacking where they're weakest. You're not considering the three pillars or any of that nonsense. You're simply building your economy as much as you can while not dying to your opponent. hmm maybe your right, nevermind my clueless input then. | ||
|
_Search_
Canada180 Posts
I killed like 20 drones, 100 zerglings and he didn't bat an eye (it's only econ and army...) but kill one tech building and he leaves the game! (as he should, that tech building was his only hope) http://www.sc2replayed.com/replays/171198-1v1-terran-zerg-xelnaga-caverns | ||
|
Jayrod
1820 Posts
On May 01 2011 11:04 _Search_ wrote: I think you're picking on irrelevant points and ignoring the big picture. You didn't even recognize how little damage killing 30 drones with 4 Banshees did. Against Terran or Protoss that would be GG. Zerg rebuilt them like it was nothing, because it was. Here's the part I don't get. How can you say someone is "ignoring the big picture" when you are sitting here trying to shrug off 30 larva's worth of drones that you killed. If you snipe a tech structure you're buying a little time (sometimes) and making 1 larva go to waste. For zerg larva is the limiting factor. Its larva and gas... If he has to use 30 larva on replacement drones... thats absurdly huge. Thats 30 larva that didn't go to army, which is exactly what YOU dont have with a flimsy banshee opener. When you kill 30 drones and let them get back into the game its because you had no follow-up, not because killing 30 drones is insignificant. + Show Spoiler + Here's a game I just played on ladder. It doesn't follow the Banshee example, but I thought it was funny because the game ending moment is when I snipe his Greater Spire with 4 Banshees, right before he can make BLs. I killed like 20 drones, 100 zerglings and he didn't bat an eye (it's only econ and army...) but kill one tech building and he leaves the game! (as he should, that tech building was his only hope) Thats 70 fucking larva please stop with this garbage. What is your goal with this thread? To keep bronze leaguers in bronze? | ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
but yeah, i disagree on the banshee sniping the pool instead of drones part (I mean it might be optimal in some situations) cuz if you are sniping a damn spawning pool and the zerg cant do anything about it, whether u attack the pool or drones, it dont matter, Zerg lose. but if you had one banshee or even two banshees, you should always go for the drones cuz trying to snipe a damn pool will end up in you having to pay for the banshee pilot's coffin. otherwise the thread is very articulate and has good points that can be applied to SC2. Thanks OP! | ||
|
_Search_
Canada180 Posts
On May 01 2011 14:54 Jayrod wrote: Here's the part I don't get. How can you say someone is "ignoring the big picture" when you are sitting here trying to shrug off 30 larva's worth of drones that you killed. If you snipe a tech structure you're buying a little time (sometimes) and making 1 larva go to waste. For zerg larva is the limiting factor. Its larva and gas... If he has to use 30 larva on replacement drones... thats absurdly huge. Thats 30 larva that didn't go to army, which is exactly what YOU dont have with a flimsy banshee opener. When you kill 30 drones and let them get back into the game its because you had no follow-up, not because killing 30 drones is insignificant. + Show Spoiler + Here's a game I just played on ladder. It doesn't follow the Banshee example, but I thought it was funny because the game ending moment is when I snipe his Greater Spire with 4 Banshees, right before he can make BLs. I killed like 20 drones, 100 zerglings and he didn't bat an eye (it's only econ and army...) but kill one tech building and he leaves the game! (as he should, that tech building was his only hope) Thats 70 fucking larva please stop with this garbage. What is your goal with this thread? To keep bronze leaguers in bronze? How about you watch the replays I so helpfully provided before trolling? You'll see how little economic damage matters to Zergs. Zergs are weak on tech. Target the tech. | ||
|
SuperKiller
United States97 Posts
| ||
|
Amarkov
United States131 Posts
On May 01 2011 15:38 _Search_ wrote: How about you watch the replays I so helpfully provided before trolling? You'll see how little economic damage matters to Zergs. Zergs are weak on tech. Target the tech. As you've repeatedly been told, the only reason your strategizing appears to work in your replays is because your opponents in the other games are bad and don't know what to do. Which makes sense, because a good player would not ever let you harass for long enough to kill a spawning pool. I don't know why you think simply ignoring criticism makes it go away? | ||
| ||
WardiTV Invitational
WardiTV Not-Summer Championshi
Lambo vs Shameless
TBD vs GgMaChine
Rogue vs PercivalLIVE!
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  33963Calm  3221Rain 1690Jaedong 1468EffOrt 802Mini 788Shuttle 658Light  388Larva 333Zeus 326[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games singsing1827 olofmeister1534 B2W.Neo936 Liquid`RaSZi432 Lowko345 hiko216 FrodaN210 XaKoH  182crisheroes163 Mew2King95 QueenE92 ArmadaUGS78 KnowMe53 Railgan5 |
|
OSC
OSC
ArT vs MindelVK
MiniZergUA vs TBD
Shameless vs TBD
Ultimate Battle
OSC
OSC
ByuN vs MaxPax
herO vs Krystianer
Percival vs Shameless
LetaleX vs YoungYakov
Nicoract vs Gerald
GgMaChine vs ArT
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Invitational
IPSL
TerrOr vs IJ_Terran
rasowy vs Hazorath
BSL
TerrOr vs OyAji
UltrA vs Gosudark
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
