EPTOfficial State of the Game Podcast Thread - Page 976
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
{ToT}ColmA
Japan3260 Posts
| ||
|
Nu11
Canada167 Posts
I'm so lost. If A, B, C, D and E are an option for your opponent, and you have to guess, you'd be fucked 80% of the time... This is not the case. This is not the state of the game. That is the state of the game. Watch the games. Protoss and Terran both have multiple builds they can do, that zerg cannot possibly scout, that T/P get an auto win with as long as they are remotely competent. However, T/P players do not take these risks every game. Again, they are risks. T/P can still and are still a massive threat in a fair game. The issue here is not a game to game basis, it's that the option simply does not exist for zerg to scout these plays. Zerg as a race is fundamentally broken. There are so many things they have no options to get out of. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On May 05 2011 06:55 TheTenthDoc wrote: Like...WhiteRa? He's okay, but not that dominant. forgot the ra, sorz he has like 6 major foreigner tournament wins (thats more then Idra+ret combined), and probably woulda had a 7th if MC hadn't been at Dreamhack. | ||
|
Soap
Brazil1546 Posts
On May 05 2011 06:47 Nu11 wrote: It would be nice for low level players surely, but Day9 cannot speak about high level play. He doesn't play it, and he refuses to discuss any real issue brought up. That being said, IdrA is entirely correct. Everything he said is fact, it's not debatable at all. Day9 should look for alternative ways for zerg to get ahead. Are there methods to stall pushes? can zerg incorporate more spine crawler pushes into their TVZ/TVP? Should zerg actively hunt down obs/ravens with Muta/Overseer? There's lots of meta game to be worked out. But the point remains, zerg cannot scout these builds and will be beaten every time, even if they outplay their opponent if the zerg does not guess correctly. There is a significant difference between taking an offensive risk and a defensive risk. A defensive risk leaves you with no offensive opportunities if it fails. An Offensive risk, especially the protoss early pushes can still be pulled back and used to defend in the case of zerg guessing correctly. Zerg cannot take his defensive units and just go win the game, protoss can easily warp in and stall with sentries. I think IdrA was on to something with his spine crawler push builds, this turns a defensive risk into an offensive one, albeit not a very good one, but it worked out in a number of games I'm sure many people here saw. I think another issue here is that zerg have options they are not using. We never see contaminate play for instance. Maybe these options are not explored because they are simply not worth it, but I would think the meta game will change some more over time. Protoss timing pushes are absolutely deadly. and if you sit at home with units specifically designed to mess up those timings or lock down units all together, I don't see how fair complaints can be made. An overseer is cheap compared to the units a single colossus will kill in battle for instance. Tyler addresses this beautifully. SC is about how far you're willing to go to mitigate risks. You can put infinity spine crawlers and queens and be safe (hey spanishiwa!) or you can choose to cut corners and eventually be owned by a counter no matter how much of a better player you are. See Jinro vs MorroW on TSL3. | ||
|
Deleted User 108965
1096 Posts
| ||
|
SgtDK
United States54 Posts
| ||
|
Nu11
Canada167 Posts
On May 05 2011 06:52 artanis2 wrote: Zerg can scout, IdrA just doesn't know how to do it. Every race's scouting method costs money, Zerg's costs 100 minerals and 1 larvae. If IdrA is too blind to see that he MUST do this then he is a bad Zerg player and should probably switch. You cannot get an overlord into any decent T players base when this tech is about to start. End of discussion. Only a terrible terran is going to have any potential scouting options for zerg. Go play a game and try to get an overlord into a terrans base early game after he has his marine production up. Sure, Z can scout the base, very slowly, and maybe if hes extremely lucky the terran will be a retard and build his buildings in a stupid spot, but you're ignoring many things, like T/P having the ability to hide tech outside their base, which zerg does not have. | ||
|
Warrior Madness
Canada3791 Posts
The reason why this roach, hydra, early drop build is not solid is because you have to make a HUGE invesment (drop), and you MUST do damage to the protoss economy or you lose. And it's easily counterable when they see it coming. Sure you can drop 1 ovie full of roaches at his main mineral line, and at his nat while at the same time pushing towards his third. It works, if the toss doesn't know how to defend. A smart toss never ever makes zealots, he makes cannons... One cannon will make it really hard to drop. Two cannons will make it impossible to drop. So let's say that happens, the toss pulls his probes quickly enough (though he won't need to with 2 cannons), he expects it so he drops some cannons i.e. He's playing on terminus TE. The zerg's spire becomes late, the toss has secured his third, and he's got 3 collosus out now. You lose. It is not a solid strategy. | ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
That is the state of the game. Watch the games. Protoss and Terran both have multiple builds they can do, that zerg cannot possibly scout, that T/P get an auto win with as long as they are remotely competent. This is 100% bullshit. If P and T had "autowin" unscoutable builds, they would do them all the time, because they could make a shitton of money. That they don't is a clear sign no such "autowin" build exists. As for the "Zergs are amazing players so when they win they deserve it, but when anyone else wins its because of race"...that is also bullshit. It isn't based on *anything*. MVP was a better BW player than Nestea, and there is *no* reason to believe that Nestea is somehow a vastly better SC2 player than MVP...unless you're inherantly biased to only respect Zergs. | ||
|
Tabbris
Bangladesh2839 Posts
On May 05 2011 06:52 artanis2 wrote: Zerg can scout, IdrA just doesn't know how to do it. Every race's scouting method costs money, Zerg's costs 100 minerals and 1 larvae. If IdrA is too blind to see that he MUST do this then he is a bad Zerg player and should probably switch. Did you even listen to his Idras argument? Any good T has Marines patroling around the base and his tech well hidden. Even if you sac an overlord there is a high chance that you arent ganna see shit | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On May 05 2011 06:59 1Eris1 wrote: forgot the ra, sorz he has like 6 major foreigner tournament wins (thats more then Idra+ret combined), and probably woulda had a 7th if MC hadn't been at Dreamhack. To be fair, a lot of those are in EU/NA tournaments that IdrA and Ret couldn't or wouldn't participate in because they were in Korea. It's kinda not fair to just compare wins like that when two of the players involved didn't play in nearly as many tournaments. | ||
|
Mordiford
4448 Posts
On May 05 2011 06:58 Nu11 wrote: That is the state of the game. Watch the games. Protoss and Terran both have multiple builds they can do, that zerg cannot possibly scout, that T/P get an auto win with as long as they are remotely competent. However, T/P players do not take these risks every game. Again, they are risks. T/P can still and are still a massive threat in a fair game. The issue here is not a game to game basis, it's that the option simply does not exist for zerg to scout these plays. Zerg as a race is fundamentally broken. There are so many things they have no options to get out of. This isn't the state of the game, watch the games. T and P's can take a risk, but it's a fucking risk, you can do it too, big fucking surprise... See, if they take that risk and you play your semi-defensive play and are on point, you'll crush them every fucking time. If they take that risk, and you're not playing defensively, they can shit on you. If you play defensively, and they don't take a risk, then they might be slightly ahead economically depending on how to played it, but you're not in the fucking gutter. You can still gain an advantage as the game goes on. I don't see what games we're referring too, what do you have to point me towards to help me see what the shit your talking about with a sample size that actually suggests that this is the case? | ||
|
Nu11
Canada167 Posts
On May 05 2011 06:59 Soap wrote: Tyler addresses this beautifully. SC is about how far you're willing to go to mitigate risks. You can put infinity spine crawlers and queens and be safe (hey spanishiwa!) or you can choose to cut corners and eventually be owned by a counter no matter how much of a better player you are. See Jinro vs MorroW on TSL3. Again, you're missing the point. yes, you can win some games taking defensive risks, but it is factually imbalanced if the only way you can defened a risk you cannot possibly see coming is taking a risk when the opponent has many options, most branching, while they can scout you. If I see a bunch of spine crawlers coming up and I'm Protoss, I'm going to make that zerg hate his life because he wasted a bunch of minerals that will not help him. | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
On May 05 2011 05:57 corpuscle wrote: A one-base Zerg can't hold off any sort of early aggression (4gate, 3rax, etc.) because you simply won't have enough units. A Zerg that opened one-base will lose in the mid-late game if their opponent was nice enough to not kill them early on. It's pretty much the most accepted fact of Zerg play that you need to be one base ahead of your opponent at all times, the race simply isn't designed to be able to deal with T or P on equal bases. I'm not going to comment on the balance bullshit (though I am currently switching from Zerg to Protoss, wonder why), and you really shouldn't either, because you clearly don't have a strong idea of what Zerg players are dealing with. A one-base Zerg can certainly defend early aggression. Unless I'm very much confused, one-base no-lair Zerg is best punished by tech (particularly air units), not by low-tech aggression. Early Zerg has two major investments that leave them weak. The first is droning up the natural, which a one-base Zerg skips (at least, for now... if they do eventually expand it will become a weak point). The second is getting Lair tech up. Lair is expensive, and to make it effective you usually need to invest quite a bit into upgrades or extra buildings... which is too much tech for a one-base economy. Consequentially, in one-base P/T vs. one-base Zerg, you want to force the Zerg to tech Lair. This is not very difficult and puts the Zerg on the back foot, which is why Zerg players generally don't like being one base versus one base. On May 05 2011 06:27 corpuscle wrote: You don't need the economy to hold the push, you need the units. Zerg builds their units out of hatcheries, if you didn't notice. You also, again, will lose even if you hold, because you're way behind economically if you're on one base. Believe it or not, you don't win the game just by holding off an early push. For some reason, I'm more likely to believe every single pro zerg player over you. Do you think that one-basing works totally fine and nobody ever tried it? Have you ever played zerg at any sort of level? One-basing does NOT work fine for Zerg, or at least there's pretty strong reason to think it doesn't. (If you can prevent the opponent from expanding, it miiight have legs.) But the reason given in this thread (Zerg needs more hatcheries to spend all their money on units) is objectively false. One hatch + one Queen can spend all the income of one base. The problem is that the income of one Zerg base has difficult facing off against the income of one Protoss or Terran base. I propose that the reason for this is not that the Zerg units aren't cost-efficient (Zergling/Roach/Baneling are pretty efficient, particularly for that part of the game) but that Lair tech is not cost-efficient off a one-base income. | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
It's the ultimate horrible argument.. and the ultimate excuse to discuss a terrible subject. | ||
|
PartyBiscuit
Canada4525 Posts
On May 05 2011 07:00 SgtDK wrote: Days9 point was kind of vague, I agree with his ideas but it would've been easier if they came to a clear consensus on what imbalance is. They did. Imbalance is when all 3 races do not have an equal chance of winning at the start of a game (given equal skill levels). The points are clear: 1. Zerg does not have efficient early game scouting (that Toss and especially Terran does). 2. Zerg does not have strong early defenses that can compensate for that lack of intel. Terran/Toss can wall off against zerg until or have more robust units that can await the tech reveal in comparison. Idra argues ONE of these two things needs to change. It's not a complicated argument at all - Day9 could not produce an answer, except to explore further. | ||
|
Soap
Brazil1546 Posts
| ||
|
R3N
740 Posts
Now on the scouting issue I have to disagree with Idra. Zerg can lair tech->overseer roughly as fast as Terran can tech into banshees and if the map/spawns isn't favorable (like close positions metaloplis), you should expect it in the first place; otherwise you'll have plenty of time to prepare for it. The same goes for other Terran openings. The map/spawn positioning tells allot of the probability of banshee or all-in play. | ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
| ||
|
Mordiford
4448 Posts
On May 05 2011 07:02 Warrior Madness wrote: I always face palm when people say Idra's zvp is 10x better than it was 2 months ago. So he's been doing risky hydra builds, roach ling all ins, playing risky drop plays and he's 10x better now?... Yeah right. A solid build is a build that results in you being slightly behind, even, or slighty ahead despite what the opponent is doing, and even if he sees it coming. The reason why this roach, hydra, early drop build is not solid is because you have to make a HUGE invesment (drop), and you MUST do damage to the protoss economy or you lose. And it's easily counterable when they see it coming. Sure you can drop 1 ovie full of roaches at his main mineral line, and at his nat while at the same time pushing towards his third. It works, if the toss doesn't know how to defend. A smart toss never ever makes zealots, he makes cannons... One cannon will make it really hard to drop. Two cannons will make it impossible to drop. So let's say that happens, the toss pulls his probes quickly enough (though he won't need to with 2 cannons), he expects it so he drops some cannons i.e. He's playing on terminus TE. The zerg's spire becomes late, the toss has secured his third, and he's got 3 collosus out now. You lose. It is not a solid strategy. Okay, so a Protoss has to make a minor sacrifice to nullify a drop play and you just highlighted how he would do that. So why can't a Zerg just plant some Spinecrawlers and make a fucking Queen? It's the same exact thing as what you just said the Protoss would do to nullify a drop play... If you cut corners, there's a risk involved, if the Protoss decided to cut a corner, he'd get punished by IdrA's play, if he made those cannons, he'd be alright is what you're saying. Why does this not also apply for Zerg? | ||
| ||
