EPThttp://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=220667
Official State of the Game Podcast Thread - Page 1039
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Koibu0
United States513 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=220667 | ||
|
GwSC
United States1997 Posts
On May 08 2011 22:47 kardinal wrote: As someone already did the math before, rushing for overlord speed and hallucination/observer takes roughly the same. It's not the fault of the race that most zergs at this point in time go for gasless builds. Why? Because playing greedy like that seems to work. And as long as it seems to work zergs will keep playing greedy. Zergs have the tools to get 100% super scouting just like protoss or terran if you pay the cost. So why don't protoss play gasless greedy builds? Because protoss will die to rushes and cheeses because there is no way to scout a zerg beyond the first probe without hallucinate or observer. It doesn't matter that the zerg can't wall in when they have lings at every xel'naga and lings patrolling everywhere else. Face it, zergs have exactly the same problem with scouting as anyone else. The problem with that comparison is that Protoss is so much better defensively/turtling because of Wall off/Forcefield/Cannons. All Zerg can do is hope they blindly built enough spinecrawlers, or were lucky enough to predict an air rush and also decided to build sporecrawlers. Zerg players are a lot more vulnerable due to that lack of scouting. | ||
|
Drgggg
17 Posts
No, he says you're behind because units Zerg makes for defense can't be used for pressure. If a Terran Builds marines, he can pressure and defend (bunkers) If a Protoss builds zealots/sentries he can defend (FF) and pressure (FF) If a zerg builds lings/spines/queens he can defend, but not pressure (wall-in). That, at least to me, seems like a design flaw. If you make that many queens early on it sets you back economically. You cant tell if they are going economically because you can't scout again...[day 9bit]... It's very good defensively, but thats disregarding the fact that they can expand as well Thats at about 56 mins. in. The main point I am taking from this statement that Idra is making is that 1) If the terran is doing a 1 rax FE Idra is behind because he spent more econ on defense then the terran did 2) If the does some sort of greedy tech Idra can not punish him for it because again he lacks the scouting. The problem with your race based examples is how vague they are. For instance in PVT If the terran goes 1 rax FE and throws down two bunkers to defend pumping marines (this is fairly common FE style) and for some reason the toss does a blind 1 gate expo into second expo the terran can not pressure either. The type of units isn't the only thing that matters it is also the number of units. On top of that what makes the existence of such a state a design flaw? What if zerg for instance had a build that could both reasonably defend everything while staying slightly ahead on economy? The amount of pressure you can put on isn't something you individually balance the necessary amount is a result of how well your economy is doing compared to theirs. For instance if a terran is up 3 bases to a toss 1 does he ever harass the mineral line of the toss? Not really. The problem with that comparison is that Protoss is so much better defensively/turtling because of Wall off/Forcefield/Cannons. All Zerg can do is hope they blindly built enough spinecrawlers, or were lucky enough to predict an air rush and also decided to build sporecrawlers. Zerg players are a lot more vulnerable due to that lack of scouting. Any defensive player (player who FE'd) is in the same amount of darkness as far as the early timing pushes go. Zergs like to complain that they are behind for building defensive structures, well so are toss you need to prove you are more vulnerable due to lack of scouting simply saying it doesn't make it true. | ||
|
Moonling
United States987 Posts
Take that Idra..what you think about that logic | ||
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
On May 09 2011 05:07 Moonling wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ33e9BK9aU&feature=player_detailpage#t=52s Take that Idra..what you think about that logic he probably thinks that it doesn't apply to starcraft at all because it doesn't | ||
|
GwSC
United States1997 Posts
On May 09 2011 04:45 Drgggg wrote: Any defensive player (player who FE'd) is in the same amount of darkness as far as the early timing pushes go. Zergs like to complain that they are behind for building defensive structures, well so are toss you need to prove you are more vulnerable due to lack of scouting simply saying it doesn't make it true. I'm not sure I can continue this discussion any further if you don't see how Forcefields/Walloff/Cannon or Walloff/Siegetanks/Marine and Maurauder sitting behind wall are better defensively than...building a lot of spinecrawlers. Ignoring any argument of who is further behind for playing defensively, Zerg defensive options are inferior to other races, and we don't have great defensive units like siege tanks and sentries that become core army units later in the game. Roaches do not come close to either of those defensively. | ||
|
GwSC
United States1997 Posts
| ||
|
Drgggg
17 Posts
Zerg defensive options are inferior to other races, and we don't have great defensive units like siege tanks and sentries that become core army units later in the game. Roaches do not come close to either of those defensively. I don't see why you consider roaches bad as a defensive unit. On creep roaches beat everything that isn't an immortal or a colo. Sure walling off can help you beat a larger army with a smaller one; however, even if zerg COULD wall off the nature of their early units would make them not want to anyway. Listing units and pretending it is blatantly obvious doesn't further any discussion. Unless you can explicitly list what is irrefutably wrong with zerg there is no baring in saying zerg is UP or zerg needs help scouting or zerg needs a more economic way to deal with 1 base pressure. There isn't even a way for me to refute your point because it is basically "i said so and you are stupid for not agreeing" | ||
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
On May 09 2011 06:33 Drgggg wrote: I don't see why you consider roaches bad as a defensive unit. On creep roaches beat everything that isn't an immortal or a colo. Sure walling off can help you beat a larger army with a smaller one; however, even if zerg COULD wall off the nature of their early units would make them not want to anyway. Listing units and pretending it is blatantly obvious doesn't further any discussion. Unless you can explicitly list what is irrefutably wrong with zerg there is no baring in saying zerg is UP or zerg needs help scouting or zerg needs a more economic way to deal with 1 base pressure. There isn't even a way for me to refute your point because it is basically "i said so and you are stupid for not agreeing" Roaches are not as cost effective as static defense. That's the idea behind static defense, it's super cost effective but it cannot be used aggressively. The problem with roaches is that they're not that hot aggressively either, because of all the things that the guy you quoted listed off. So Roaches aren't as strong defensively as sentries/siege tanks, and they aren't as strong aggressively as Toss and Terran units either. That's why you only want to make them when you know you need them. | ||
|
Drgggg
17 Posts
Roaches are not as cost effective as static defense. That's the idea behind static defense, it's super cost effective but it cannot be used aggressively. Under a 4 gate scenario roaches are cost effective against protoss I honestly don't know the absolute perfect response to terran all-ins so I cant explicitly show if this statement is right or wrong. A statement we could discuss would be if the terran 6 raxes and attacks with X marines and X scvs my responable amount of X lings and X banelings is far less efficient then a protoss who would have made X stalkers X zealots X sentries. I would argue roaches are very hot at aggression given you got the speed upgrade. You are just saying things with no explanation as if it is cannon. | ||
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
On May 09 2011 06:47 Drgggg wrote: Under a 4 gate scenario roaches are cost effective against protoss I honestly don't know the absolute perfect response to terran all-ins so I cant explicitly show if this statement is right or wrong. A statement we could discuss would be if the terran 6 raxes and attacks with X marines and X scvs my responable amount of X lings and X banelings is far less efficient then a protoss who would have made X stalkers X zealots X sentries. I would argue roaches are very hot at aggression given you got the speed upgrade. You are just saying things with no explanation as if it is cannon. Roach speed is lairtech, that doesn't really help with defending or applying early aggression. Sure, roaches are cost effective against 4gate, but if a 4gate doesn't come then you're behind because you delayed your lair and have fewer drones, and have no ability to make up for it by being aggressive and doing damage. If you try and get reactive roaches, you won't have enough in time unless you were saving larvae and money, but if you're doing that then you may as well just make the roaches because you're still delaying lairtech and drones. I'm arguing that roaches aren't that hot at aggression because Forcefields and Siege tanks are incredibly strong against them. That's my explanation. | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
On May 09 2011 06:47 Drgggg wrote: Under a 4 gate scenario roaches are cost effective against protoss I honestly don't know the absolute perfect response to terran all-ins so I cant explicitly show if this statement is right or wrong. A statement we could discuss would be if the terran 6 raxes and attacks with X marines and X scvs my responable amount of X lings and X banelings is far less efficient then a protoss who would have made X stalkers X zealots X sentries. I would argue roaches are very hot at aggression given you got the speed upgrade. You are just saying things with no explanation as if it is cannon. except roaches do not come with speed upgraded. You need lair and lair comes too late. | ||
|
freetgy
1720 Posts
On May 09 2011 06:54 MonsieurGrimm wrote: Roach speed is lairtech, that doesn't really help with defending or applying early aggression. Sure, roaches are cost effective against 4gate, but if a 4gate doesn't come then you're behind because you delayed your lair and have fewer drones, and have no ability to make up for it by being aggressive and doing damage. If you try and get reactive roaches, you won't have enough in time unless you were saving larvae and money, but if you're doing that then you may as well just make the roaches because you're still delaying lairtech and drones. I'm arguing that roaches aren't that hot at aggression because Forcefields and Siege tanks are incredibly strong against them. That's my explanation. well if you keep your opponent in his base you get more time 2 base vs. 1 Base which is imho enough to make up for early roaches. You would be right if those Roaches would be absolutely useless except defense, which they are not. Hell if you would just sacrifice all the roaches against his sentrys while he tries to expand your way ahead. Without Hallu/observer your opponent doesn't know how much unit you have and thus any kind if aggression could back fire easily for him. | ||
|
GwSC
United States1997 Posts
On May 09 2011 06:33 Drgggg wrote: I don't see why you consider roaches bad as a defensive unit. On creep roaches beat everything that isn't an immortal or a colo. Sure walling off can help you beat a larger army with a smaller one; however, even if zerg COULD wall off the nature of their early units would make them not want to anyway. Listing units and pretending it is blatantly obvious doesn't further any discussion. Unless you can explicitly list what is irrefutably wrong with zerg there is no baring in saying zerg is UP or zerg needs help scouting or zerg needs a more economic way to deal with 1 base pressure. There isn't even a way for me to refute your point because it is basically "i said so and you are stupid for not agreeing" And you completely ignoring my point that FF/Cannon/Wall and Wall/Siegetank/M&M destroy Roach/Spinecrawler as defensive options furthers the discussion how? All you managed to say was "Roaches aren't that bad defensively". Maybe so. But that doesn't change that other race's options are better. | ||
|
MonsieurGrimm
Canada2441 Posts
On May 09 2011 07:02 freetgy wrote: well if you keep your opponent in his base you get more time 2 base vs. 1 Base which is imho enough to make up for early roaches. You would be right if those Roaches would be absolutely useless except defense, which they are not. Hell if you would just sacrifice all the roaches against his sentrys while he tries to expand your way ahead. Without Hallu/observer your opponent doesn't know how much unit you have and thus any kind if aggression could back fire easily for him. The only times I've seen early roaches do any significant damage at all is when the Protoss got greedy, expanding and teching way earlier than was safe.. if you can show me a replay or VOD of zerg actually doing some damage without going allin against a safe Protoss, then I'd appreciate it. Forcefields let Cannons, Stalkers and Sentries do one-way damage to roaches any time the roaches push up because of their short range and how slow they are, and since Protoss has so many sentries so early with a 3gate expand the forcefields can go on for a very, very long time. | ||
|
Drgggg
17 Posts
And you completely ignoring my point that FF/Cannon/Wall and Wall/Siegetank/M&M destroy Roach/Spinecrawler as defensive options furthers the discussion how? I am not ignoring your point I am asking you to qualify it. An instance of siegetanks M&M being worse then roaches defensively is when trying to defend a fast third. This example would be a qualification we can discuss rather then a blanket statement. We would start by picking a reasonable and equal response from the opponent (lets say a protoss) and see if either of the races would outright lose. If one is in a winnable state and one is not we can then delve into why and discover some sort of root of imbalance. We would then go into discussing how the protoss that these two mythical players are playing against would deal damage or exert pressure and if this would lead to a game losing state for one defending player or the other. Who is to say that siege tank M&M is definitively better then roaches defensively. It is far more unreasonable for me to list every build for every race versus every other race and then compare game states then it is for you to list two similar builds from one race pushing two different races ( for instance 6 rax against protoss and 6 rax against zerg). For the purpose of this discussion it would be nice if you could think of P and Z defending situations because I honestly don't have much experience with proper terran defense so we would need a third party to explicitly list the proper measure. | ||
|
Thrombozyt
Germany1269 Posts
You don't have to bust the main when you are on 2 bases and he is on one. Yes, your lings/roaches won't get up the force fielded ramp or past the fortified entrance. But they don't have to. Pressure does not equal to 'threatening to kill'. Example: I open with 2 rax bunker pressure and build an expansion in my main. I force a ton of ling out of the Zerg but the moment speed kicks in and my force is busted, those lings don't use value. They deny me the option to float my CC out most of the time. Yes, I can build extra SCVs, but that's not too hot when I'm already close to saturation. Meanwhile you lings camp outside my ramp and until I have teched up to siege and INCHED my way out of my main, I cannot land my CC and my natural and I'm effectively on 1 base while you can drone up like a mad man and get a 3rd. You want to tell me that those lings suck for pressure because they cannot get past the wall? Sure, the ideal Zerg is the one that makes exactly the amount of units he needs to defend and puts the rest in drones and expansions. But please when you say that you are 'behind', compare yourself to your opponent and not to the hypothetical ideal Zerg. | ||
|
RogerChillingworth
Chad3116 Posts
| ||
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
On May 09 2011 17:36 Thrombozyt wrote: All the talk of how a wall-off is so uber strong defensively and also as pressure (?) ignore one fact: You don't have to bust the main when you are on 2 bases and he is on one. Yes, your lings/roaches won't get up the force fielded ramp or past the fortified entrance. But they don't have to. Pressure does not equal to 'threatening to kill'. Example: I open with 2 rax bunker pressure and build an expansion in my main. I force a ton of ling out of the Zerg but the moment speed kicks in and my force is busted, those lings don't use value. They deny me the option to float my CC out most of the time. Yes, I can build extra SCVs, but that's not too hot when I'm already close to saturation. Meanwhile you lings camp outside my ramp and until I have teched up to siege and INCHED my way out of my main, I cannot land my CC and my natural and I'm effectively on 1 base while you can drone up like a mad man and get a 3rd. You want to tell me that those lings suck for pressure because they cannot get past the wall? Sure, the ideal Zerg is the one that makes exactly the amount of units he needs to defend and puts the rest in drones and expansions. But please when you say that you are 'behind', compare yourself to your opponent and not to the hypothetical ideal Zerg. I agree with this entirely. For some reason people think "pressure" must equate to "I might kill him with this". Sure you can't break a Terran wall, but you can sure as hell make sure he isn't coming out from behind it. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On May 09 2011 17:36 Thrombozyt wrote: All the talk of how a wall-off is so uber strong defensively and also as pressure (?) ignore one fact: You don't have to bust the main when you are on 2 bases and he is on one. Yes, your lings/roaches won't get up the force fielded ramp or past the fortified entrance. But they don't have to. Pressure does not equal to 'threatening to kill'. Example: I open with 2 rax bunker pressure and build an expansion in my main. I force a ton of ling out of the Zerg but the moment speed kicks in and my force is busted, those lings don't use value. They deny me the option to float my CC out most of the time. Yes, I can build extra SCVs, but that's not too hot when I'm already close to saturation. Meanwhile you lings camp outside my ramp and until I have teched up to siege and INCHED my way out of my main, I cannot land my CC and my natural and I'm effectively on 1 base while you can drone up like a mad man and get a 3rd. You want to tell me that those lings suck for pressure because they cannot get past the wall? Sure, the ideal Zerg is the one that makes exactly the amount of units he needs to defend and puts the rest in drones and expansions. But please when you say that you are 'behind', compare yourself to your opponent and not to the hypothetical ideal Zerg. That's so wrong, just look at Jinro vs IdrA and how he expand himself : camp ramp, make a bunker just under the ramp, then take position little by little while the CC is building, and expand. The zerg cannot "theaten to kill" because, at this moment (which is between 5 & 6 min I suppose ?), as a zerg, if you build units and not drone, it's like going all in (zergling takes a lot of larvae). Most of you are talking about things that are irrelevant. Like it's hard for a terran to defend a third with a PF... Terran is all about space and attack path, put down a PF at the right position, control your opponent attack path, etc. Tank being slow does not make them bad in defense, just tricky to use. | ||
| ||
