EPTMy other question is whether I want to try to keep my hydras alive after they do their initial damage (see as it aids me in having a food advantage and Day [9] said in a daily that you should keep drop units alive) or do I want to let them die and replace the supply with mutas?
An aggressive path in ZvP 2.0 - Page 2
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Kaminoan
Chile25 Posts
My other question is whether I want to try to keep my hydras alive after they do their initial damage (see as it aids me in having a food advantage and Day [9] said in a daily that you should keep drop units alive) or do I want to let them die and replace the supply with mutas? | ||
|
Washow
Korea (South)119 Posts
I guess the archon buff will help but still... hope this guide gets buried here :p | ||
|
Macpo
453 Posts
 I'll try it some day. About sending back hydras in the overlords, two things: 1. you really want to trade armies with the protoss. So if armies are around equal, I would recommend to go on fighting. 2. Now, when your drop is over, you just have like 4 hydras while he has 10 stalkers or zealots, I would definitely send back the hydras in the overlord. The reason being that it will be very useful for later harassment: for instance, when your muta wave is coming, you can send it on the second base, while dropping with hydra leftovers in the main. @greycubed: I am not sure you can actually adapt like this and make zerglings. because 1. you have to scout the immortal or the void ray; and this is so obvious (especially for the immortal) 2. I don't think you will have enough larvae to make mass zerglings between the moment you actually scout toss and the moment you have to drop. Then overall roaches speedling drops can be effective I guess, it's just that I feel more confortable with hydras! | ||
|
Suc
Australia1569 Posts
On May 04 2011 18:34 greycubed wrote: Rate of fire is also "neglected" in my post but important as it avoids overkill. However neither are significant enough to favor hydra over roach in anything but an "oh shit I needed anti-air 5 minutes ago" scenario. If you're that concerned about forcefields get burrow move. How can you ignore rate of fire? Doesn't that directly affect dps? | ||
|
Mithrandir
United States99 Posts
On May 04 2011 20:33 Suc wrote: How can you ignore rate of fire? Doesn't that directly affect dps? He means overkill effects. For instance, is it better to do 1 damage per second or 60 damage at the end of a minute? Obviously 1 damage per second because if you're hitting an enemy with 5 life, you'd be wasting 55 damage with the slow powerful attack. Roaches do more damage than hydras but they have less attack speed so they are more prone to "wasting" damage. | ||
|
kirdie
Germany221 Posts
On May 04 2011 20:50 Mithrandir wrote: For instance, is it better to do 1 damage per second or 60 damage at the end of a minute? Obviously 1 damage per second because if you're hitting an enemy with 5 life, you'd be wasting 55 damage with the slow powerful attack. OTOH a high rate of fire suffers proportionally from armor. | ||
|
VashTS
United States1675 Posts
Also, Creep Tumor blocking is AWESOME. It's such a great feeling. | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
On May 04 2011 18:09 greycubed wrote: Could everyone PLEASE stop saying hydras do good dps and demolish gateway units? It's SO wrong. dps per cost: zergling: 28.74 roach: 8.00 hydra: 9.64 yes, lings cost more larva, but they only use minerals. Roaches won't bankrupt you on larva though. And they save you a lot of gas. And they're fast. And they don't get one-shot. And you can research burrow-move. source: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/User:Roemy/Unit_Statistics_(dps_only) Edit: also I didn't watch your replay, but generally I agree with you about spine crawlers. I think they're underused. DPS per cost doesn't really make sense. If you want that figure it'd be better to look at how much 1 DPS costs on a unit by unit basis, surely? Cost for 1 DPS (Gas = 1 and Mineral = 1) Zergling: 3.472 Roach: 12.5 Hydra: 10.345 Even then that doesn't really tell you anything and the presumption made that 1 gas is the same as 1 mineral is demonstrably wrong. By your original measure slow Lings on a 1 to 1 basis with marines have over double the "DPS per cost" but I bet you wouldn't send 10 unupgraded lings in to 10 unupgraded marines and expect to win. The measure completely ignores range, supply, time, actual DPS and all unit properties and abilities and is so fairly useless. According to the chart you linked any Zerg player that produces anything but a ling would have to be insane. If we try to take everything else in to account we realise at least the following: - More unit's can shoot at a unit at once than melee a unit at once. - Ranged units begin attacking much earlier and so more of them are able to DPS and generally able to for longer. - Zerglings deal 0 DPS when at range 5. - On a per larva basis Hydralisks are more efficient than Zerglings. - Zerglings deal less DPS than Roaches or Hydralisks. - Zealots destroy Zerglings and Sentry's can negate their DPS. Neither Zealots, Sentry's or Stalkers perform well against Hydralisks. I guess in short the point I'm getting to is that you're looking at completely the wrong things when deciding what destroy's Gateway units and what doesn't. On a seperate note this build looks interesting I'll give it a go and get back with results, thanks. | ||
|
Cabl3x
Canada8 Posts
 | ||
|
FoFo
Netherlands207 Posts
On May 04 2011 22:16 Iyerbeth wrote: DPS per cost doesn't really make sense. If you want that figure it'd be better to look at how much 1 DPS costs on a unit by unit basis, surely? Cost for 1 DPS (Gas = 1 and Mineral = 1) Zergling: 3.472 Roach: 12.5 Hydra: 10.345 Even then that doesn't really tell you anything and the presumption made that 1 gas is the same as 1 mineral is demonstrably wrong. By your original measure slow Lings on a 1 to 1 basis with marines have over double the "DPS per cost" but I bet you wouldn't send 10 unupgraded lings in to 10 unupgraded marines and expect to win. The measure completely ignores range, supply, time, actual DPS and all unit properties and abilities and is so fairly useless. According to the chart you linked any Zerg player that produces anything but a ling would have to be insane. If we try to take everything else in to account we realise at least the following: - More unit's can shoot at a unit at once than melee a unit at once. - Ranged units begin attacking much earlier and so more of them are able to DPS and generally able to for longer. - Zerglings deal 0 DPS when at range 5. - On a per larva basis Hydralisks are more efficient than Zerglings. - Zerglings deal less DPS than Roaches or Hydralisks. - Zealots destroy Zerglings and Sentry's can negate their DPS. Neither Zealots, Sentry's or Stalkers perform well against Hydralisks. I guess in short the point I'm getting to is that you're looking at completely the wrong things when deciding what destroy's Gateway units and what doesn't. On a seperate note this build looks interesting I'll give it a go and get back with results, thanks. nice post, hopefully people will shut up about it now. OT i'm not a zerg or protoss player but nice guide ^^ | ||
|
Saracen
United States5139 Posts
OP, what JustAGame posted is completely correct. There's no point in discussing a build's efficacy if you're not winning because of the build itself, but because your opponent played poorly. The reason is you'll come to a point where you'll face competent opponents and the build may just stop working entirely (as you found out from your previous thread). Here are some things to consider: At ~8 minutes, a typical 3 gate expand Protoss should have ~60 supply, not ~40. At ~12 minutes, he should be at ~120-130 supply if no engagements have happened, not ~80. A proper 6 gate moves out at ~8:00 minutes and hits somewhere at ~9:00 (depending on the rush distance). I would love to test this build out against you, but I don't have an EU account. So ask yourself this: do you really think you can keep up in macro if you decide to do this build, and do you really think you can hold off well-executed timing attacks with this build? What about a Protoss who goes mass air (heavy phoenix), meaning your drop won't work and neither will mutas? What about a greedier Protoss who takes a fast 3rd and turtles? | ||
|
Macpo
453 Posts
Now, please let me make a reflection on forum regulations: I very much understand the necessity of avoiding crappy posts, like insults, 2 sentence unjustified answers, off topic debate and so on. But this is not what is at stake here. I made a perfectly correct and justified post, provided replays and so on; it completely respects teamliquid standards of presentation. What I am being reproached is basically that I didn't test my bo against much better players than those with whom I am actually paired on the ladder. Unfortunately, I don't have any grandmaster protoss friend and I rarely meet any in tournament. So in the end, I am bit wondering about what are mods doing here: because if you need to have the authorization of a blue writer anytime you want to propose or share something, I am afraid we are not going anywhere. By the way, if people feel deeply irritated by my post or I don't know what related to it, they can just not read it. As for testing against much higher players "to see if it works" I am afraid it's a kind of tricky suggestion: given that I don't have the mechanics of a grandmaster, I would lose, even if my strategy wasn't bad. No offense just clarifying things. Macpo | ||
|
tskarzyn
United States516 Posts
When Spanishiwa posted his ice fisher strat, people called him an idiot (including some blue posters), and guess what- now other high level players are taking concepts from his build and including it in their own play. If a strat is terrible then people will want to hear it, but have a little more respect for the OPs that are going out of their way to try and add some fun content for the general population. | ||
|
Saracen
United States5139 Posts
I don't think it's very hard to realize the difference between competency and whatever level you think I'm trying to hold you to. All I want is to see that your build works against competent players. That doesn't mean master or grandmaster or whatever. It just means they have a solid build order and know how to execute it and know how to properly macro. I'm sure there are plenty of competent players in diamond, just like there are plenty of incompetent players in masters. I can even name a few in grandmasters. So if your build works against competent players, that means that you're winning because of your build, and not because of how good you are or how bad your opponent is. That's all I want to see. Also, I hate to say it, but "fun content" is very low on our priority list here compared to viability. You read the strategy forums to learn how to improve your gameplay. If you want to hear trivial discussions about nuke rushes and mothership rushes, go the the B.net forums. That said, if you find out how to make a nuke rush or mothership rush or raven rush or brood lord rush work without being gimmicky, then by all means post about it. | ||
|
Macpo
453 Posts
Then, I completely agree with you that we don't know if this build works against very good players, (I would personnally love to discover that), it's a limit to my post; yet I have the lack of modesty to think that despite that, some people still may be interested in what I wanted to share. Having said that, I will stop here on this issue, as I feel it doesn't bring much. EDIT: sorry to mention for half a line the possibility of "being fun " on creep tumors in my 5 page post. (I thought starcraft was "just a game" so to speak) | ||
|
Beef Noodles
United States937 Posts
On May 05 2011 01:10 Saracen wrote: This is not a hydra vs zergling DPS thread, so please keep the thread on topic. OP, what JustAGame posted is completely correct. There's no point in discussing a build's efficacy if you're not winning because of the build itself, but because your opponent played poorly. The reason is you'll come to a point where you'll face competent opponents and the build may just stop working entirely (as you found out from your previous thread). Here are some things to consider: At ~8 minutes, a typical 3 gate expand Protoss should have ~60 supply, not ~40. At ~12 minutes, he should be at ~120-130 supply if no engagements have happened, not ~80. A proper 6 gate moves out at ~8:00 minutes and hits somewhere at ~9:00 (depending on the rush distance). I would love to test this build out against you, but I don't have an EU account. So ask yourself this: do you really think you can keep up in macro if you decide to do this build, and do you really think you can hold off well-executed timing attacks with this build? What about a Protoss who goes mass air (heavy phoenix), meaning your drop won't work and neither will mutas? What about a greedier Protoss who takes a fast 3rd and turtles? This is slightly unrelated, but Saracen, you find air play stops drops? I agree it makes sense intuitively, but from my experience and watching IdrA and morrow, air play in not the answer to drops. Air cuts into the protoss gas/ stalker count. Plus if they over make phoenix (which they have to to stop the drops), all the roaches and/or lings you were going to drop are all that much more effective on ground. Maybe I would agree with you Saracen if you are a little more specific with the timings you are talking about. Are we talking 1 or 2 base air timings? When are you starting to research drop? Unless they have around 4-5 phoenix, I still find that overlord drops (especially hydra drops) are effective as long as you bring a few extra empty overlords to tank damage (and protect them with the hydras once you've dropped). I find phoenix just don't kill overlords fast enough to nullify the strategy (I'm not necessarily talking about the OP's strategy, but more drops in general). It's like scourge in BW. Yes they "own" medivacs, but TvZ drops were still very effective. Could you comment on that a little, or specify what timings you are talking about in your post, Saracen? | ||
Communism
United States176 Posts
Based on the fact that many people have made it into master league by only 4 gating and other such cheese strats, I think it is very obvious that there are lots of people in Master league who dont have any kind of real foundation in macro mechanics. Nobody is hating on your build or anything, just trying to protect you from getting all excited because you feel like your build is wrecking the master ladder, when in actuality (based solely on the replays you supplied) is just raping a sub-par version of an actual build that you will go up against. I am a high diamond zerg, and I have played protoss at my level who can hit 60 supply at 8 minutes with a 3 gate exp. So to get a better idea of how strong this build actually is you should find some practice partners who can macro well and try it against them. (not just play it on the ladder, as a 6 pool can get you into masters, but is it a good build?) Edit : sorry my post is kind of redundant after reading your reply to saracens post | ||
|
tskarzyn
United States516 Posts
On May 05 2011 02:14 Saracen wrote: Also, I hate to say it, but "fun content" is very low on our priority list here compared to viability. You read the strategy forums to learn how to improve your gameplay. If you want to hear trivial discussions about nuke rushes and mothership rushes, go the the B.net forums. That said, if you find out how to make a nuke rush or mothership rush or raven rush or brood lord rush work without being gimmicky, then by all means post about it. This is obviously one of many reasons why you are a high level player and scrubs like me are well, scrubs.. but some of us play this game purely for fun (gasp) and sometimes it's more entertaining to try new builds that may be sub-optimal just for the fk of it. just feel like people take themselves a bit too seriously in here... it is a computer game after all.... bnet forum here i come  | ||
|
Saracen
United States5139 Posts
On May 05 2011 09:56 tskarzyn wrote: This is obviously one of many reasons why you are a high level player and scrubs like me are well, scrubs.. but some of us play this game purely for fun (gasp) and sometimes it's more entertaining to try new builds that may be sub-optimal just for the fk of it. just feel like people take themselves a bit too seriously in here... it is a computer game after all.... bnet forum here i come There are plenty of places on the internet to discuss "fun/crazy/wacky" strategies. TL is not one of them. There are very few places on the internet where you can get a lot of high quality discussions about viable strategies. I'd dare to say TL is the only place at the moment. As much as I'd like to have a bunch of crazy discussions about weird strategies, we've found by trial and error that doing so discourages actual high level relevant discussion because the boards are perceived as "lower level" so higher level players are less willing to share their insights. Would you really want to talk about standard build timings and responses if you know half of the replies are going to be "you should nuke/vortex/mass PDD him herp derp?" I realize that there are plenty of casual players - in fact, a majority of people who play SC2 are casual players, and that's quite alright. But TL is probably not the place for them, and they'd be better suited for the B.net forums. TL's for players who actually want to make a conscious effort to improve their gameplay, regardless of what league they're in. But we should get the discussion back on track. Please no more derailing the OP. | ||
|
ASTARA.VOJ
New Zealand49 Posts
| ||
| ||
