|
EDIT: Here are some posts that help clarify my message from some awesome posters:
+ Show Spoiler +UPDATE: Added counter-argument & rebuttal section
I'm so tired of everyone spouting off this misconception all the time. It needs to stop. It's not true and is responsible for hundreds of empty responses to zerg help threads (why'd I lose? because you both had 2 bases and zerg has to be ahead in bases). Allow me to explain...
First of all, anyone who thinks the point of being a base up is to have a better economy in order to stay equal with your opponent, has missed the point. This is the worst way to interpret the saying and its ridiculous to think the game is balanced around the assumption that zerg must always have a better economy then their opponent.
There is a kernel of truth in the saying, but most people don't understand and take it way too literally. The truth has to do with production capabilities. Zerg doesn't have production buildings, only hatcheries and queens. This makes production comparisons with the other two races difficult. The essence of the saying is that zerg must stay equal with their opponent in production capability. The phrase should really be "zerg needs to be ahead in hatches" or "zerg needs to have more hatches than their opponent has bases". For example, if we think of a hatchery with a queen as roughly 1 nexus and 3 gateways worth of production, we can see the reason people say "zerg must be ahead in bases". In PvP, all else being equal, you can't win 3 gate vs. 4 gate. Same goes for ZvP. You can't hold off a 4 gate with just a hatchery and a queen. You'll simply get outproduced. However, if you have your main hatch, a queen AND an expo, you will have the production capabilities to be on par with a 4 gate.
Similarly, 2 hatch + 2 queen isn't necessarily behind a 2 base protoss. If we continue on with the 1 nexus + 3 gate analogy, the zerg would have 2 nexi and 6 gates. This is a common amount of gates to have on 2 bases as toss (at least for a while). The zerg is not behind and does not need a 3rd base! If the protoss later adds on another 2 or 3 gates, then and only then would the zerg need to throw down a 3rd hatch (not necessarily a 3rd mineral/gas mining "base").
As you can see from the last example, being ahead in hatches isn't very clear cut. It's a continuum, not a hard set rule. You don't need 2 hatches as soon as the game starts and you don't need 3 hatches the second your opponent expands.
And finally, the saying is only true in the very specific situation of when you're both producing standard armies and throwing them at each other (e.g. 4 gate vs. ling/roach). Think of it this way, if we applied the same logic to PvP, the advice would be "you have to have the same amount of production buildings as your opponent". Does that ring true to you? What if you get cannons? What if you forgo a gate to get a quicker expo? Clearly its not true in PvP, and I wish people would realize it's not always true in ZvX.
Please stop misunderstanding this idea and trivializing zerg help threads. There's nothing more frustrating than losing an intense, close game, going to TL for advice, and 50% of the posts saying this bullshit. This mentality is putting a damper on thinking and preventing people from actually analyzing zerg replays. C'mon TL, I know you can analyze better than this:
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/qU6Gq.png)
Let's move past this simplistic way of thinking towards a more helpful and constructive TL!
/rant
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS & REBUTTALS:
+ Show Spoiler +It's better to take an expansion than throw down an in base hatch
Yes, usually. But there are cases when it's safer/better to get an in base hatch, rather than take a vulnerable extra expansion when you don't need the extra income, only the extra larva. Zergs lose games by following this rule too blindly.
Zerg needs more gas than the other 2 races and thus more bases
Ask a protoss player going sentry/stalker/colossi or immortal/high templar how little gas they need. Ask a terran player using some combination of ghosts/thors/tanks and upgrades how little gas they need. On the other hand, zerg can mass roach/hydra with +2/+2 upgrades off two bases comfortably (and still have enough gas for 6-8 corruptors in time for colossi). My point is that for all three races, different strategies require different amounts of gas and zerg is no different from the other two. Obviously, I agree that if you are going mutaling, ultralisks, broodlords, or heavy infestors, you're going to need extra bases for more gas. But if you're playing kyrix aggressive zerg style (ling/roach/hydra) you don't have to be up a base at all times. If you can be, that's great, but you're not necessarily behind if you're not.
You're crazy! A protoss on 2 fully saturated bases with 6 gate 2 robo will crush a 2 hatch 2 queen zerg.
I agree! My point is that there is a window leading up to full saturation in which 2 hatch 2 queen is equal with 2 base protoss. Say both players are at 40 workers and toss only has 6 gates and no robo yet. 2 hatch 2 queen is perfectly fine for this situation. Zerg does not need to be "up a base" yet. Ideally, zerg's 3rd hatch should be finishing as protoss's 2 robo finishes.
|
if i was watching 2 equally skilled players i would be extremely shocked if a zerg beat a toss on equal base unless there was some kind of timing attack win by zerg or it was a 2 base mass gate all in or something by toss.
also, of course you don't need a third the second toss or terran takes their second but the longer you play on equal bases the farther behind you will fall. It's not a matter of production capabilities. It's a matter of cost effectiveness.
|
Excellent post, and I agree 100%. The main principle, though, is that if a Z player is going to build a new hatch... well, they may as well build it at an expansion. Zerg units are pretty quick to move across the map, it helps take the pressure off your natural, and gains you extra income once it gets up and running.
I guess a key thing to take home is that expansions should be considered production first, income-generation second!
|
I have a replay to support the OPs argument I will post when I get home.
|
I really disagree with this.
Zerg relies on a strong economy because their army is much weaker than a Protoss army. They need to rely on reinforcing and remaking their army quickly.
|
On November 17 2010 10:23 lowercase wrote:
Excellent post, and I agree 100%. The main principle, though, is that if a Z player is going to build a new hatch... well, they may as well build it at an expansion. Zerg units are pretty quick to move across the map, it helps take the pressure off your natural, and gains you extra income once it gets up and running.
I guess a key thing to take home is that expansions should be considered production first, income-generation second!
Good point, I forgot to mention this in the OP. I agree. However, in some situations it's too risky to take a 3rd and there's nothing wrong with throwing down a 3rd hatch in your main. As long as you saturate your main and nat, you should be fine against a 2 base toss. Proponents of the saying would disagree  , but I hope my post has dispelled that myth.
|
They don't need to be, but they SHOULD be because they have an easier time expanding(disregarding destructible BS).
|
Other than banelings, Zerg has almost no real hard counter (i.e. situationally cost-effective) units. You try putting an equal cost zerg army vs an equal cost Terran or Protoss army, then tell me Zerg doesn't need to be ahead in bases and resource income.
|
The majority of zerg units, particularly lategame units, are gas-intensive. Since gas is limited at each base, the zerg needs more bases to gather enough gas to produce units. However, zerg does have cheap gas units like roaches and zerglings as well. That is why it is not always necessary for zerg to have more bases. But in these cases, most would call the zerg play "all-in" or very aggressive because the player does not stockpile enough gas for lategame production. In these cases, the zerg must do some damage to stay even.
Production facilities don't have much to do with bases because in-base hatches remain viable, though not as popular as they were in BW.
|
Yup agreed.
HollowLord said it well, you don't need to be, but because of Zerg's reactionary style, going 1 base ahead helps a lot. But reactionary isn't the only way to play Zerg, of course. Downside to reactionary zerg play is that usually you have more expansions and a bigger economy and therefore you eat your resources map, so if the game goes into the late late game you usually run out of resources first (on your side of the map at least)
I don't think you mean what you say here, OP:
First of all, anyone who thinks that zerg needs to be ahead in bases to have a stronger economy is seriously misguided.
Should be "First of all, anyone who thinks that zerg needs to have a stronger economy by being ahead in bases is seriously misguided"
Is that what you meant? Otherwise I disagree; of course you need more bases (including the workers xD) to have a stronger economy.
|
I disagree with this 100%.
BW and SC2 are completely different games, but they are still similar in that zerg play needs more expo's than your terran/toss opponent.
"You don't need 2 hatches as soon as the game starts and you don't need 3 hatches the second your opponent expands"
Do you have a problem with macro play? it seems that you think 1 base play is still fine to do even though the meta game has changed a lot since the beta...
Please don't try and sound so arrogant in your post next time, it makes you sound really stupid.
|
It's not really about having 2 bases it's about production capability. If a Zerg, Terran, and Protoss all have 2 bases and produce armies, the Zerg army will be inferior.
I should note that even if you add a 3rd in-base hatchery you will still be unable to produce efficiently from all 3 Hatcheries for a very long period. The hatchery will begin to drastically absorb your resources, making your expansion capability decrease, slightly.
|
On November 17 2010 10:32 Ksi wrote:
Other than banelings, Zerg has almost no real hard counter (i.e. situationally cost-effective) units. You try putting an equal cost zerg army vs an equal cost Terran or Protoss army, then tell me Zerg doesn't need to be ahead in bases and resource income.
So you're telling me an equal cost roach/ling army can't beat a gateway army? Or an equal cost roach/hydra army can't beat a gateway army? I agree that once protoss gets to the later tech, it's start getting hard, but what about these early armies?
|
On November 17 2010 10:41 Cambam wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 10:32 Ksi wrote:
Other than banelings, Zerg has almost no real hard counter (i.e. situationally cost-effective) units. You try putting an equal cost zerg army vs an equal cost Terran or Protoss army, then tell me Zerg doesn't need to be ahead in bases and resource income. So you're telling me an equal cost roach/ling army can't beat a gateway army? Or an equal cost roach/hydra army can't beat a gateway army? I agree that once protoss gets to the later tech, it's start getting hard, but what about these early armies?
Equal cost RH or RZ armies will not beat an equal cost gateway unit army (with no upgrades).
|
I think there are certain equal-base builds that are temporarily viable with an extra in base hatch, but i still think the statement is generally true. Zerg really needs (op. bases+ 1/2 op. bases) worth of hatcheries to produce an army capable of going toe to toe with the opposition. I think having a fully saturated extra base puts the zerg at a definite lead, a slightly saturated one making it reasonably even and an in-base hatch putting them a touch behind (but only if the op has two saturated bases up and running)
It's less cost efficiency, and more production. Most people don't make in base hatches, they'll just take an expansion and not bother to saturate it.
|
Agreed. Thank you for emphasizing the difference between economy and production. Zerg used to actually have to be ahead in bases because many of their units were not optimally cost-effective, but this is no longer the case with 4-range Roach. I hope players start taking this advice and investing the relatively low cost of building a Hatchery in-base to keep pumping out units instead of risking everything on an expansion that they then have to defend feverishly against a million and a half pushes and harassments.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
lol ive deleted my post like 50 times. its awesome that you write some abrasive rant about misguided people and miss 50% of the argument (cost efficiency of units) and base it on... well nothing. you cite nothing in this thread, just rattle off 1 hatch = nexus and 3 gateways and also make some weird cannons-in-pvp tangential argument.
i dont even know how to begin to rebut this.
first of all, z had to be up one base in brood war, despite having 5 hatches. why is that? can we draw some similar conclusions between SC2 and BW?
|
Zerg grabs a economical advantage (against protoss, I only play ZvP as my Zerg match up, I'm a Protoss player.) by droning faster than the Protoss.
Then the zerg is able to start making a lot of units off 2 hatcheries, and usually the 2 hatches + 2 queens won't be enough to put all your income to use so then you grab your third very effectively, and dillute your saturation once it comes.
That's generally what the zerg wants. Taking a third too early isn't all that useful, because you may lose it to a 2 base timing that a protoss could be doing.
Against 1 base timings like 4 gate or blink stalkers, obviously you don't just keep spamming drones, you have to get stuff to defend.
If the protoss went for 2 bases but isn't doing a timing push, he will be behind on probes, but if he's teching accordingly he may not necessarily be behind (but difficult for protoss mid-game awaits.)
After your bases are saturated and you start pumping out hydra/roach or muta/ling (whichever is your mid-game preference based on map, although you probably need less drones for mutaling.)
The zerg will have enough money off 2 bases to both pump units off 2 hatches and get an extra hatch. He should generally put that hatch down at his expo, however, it is probably the toughest to face a zerg when he's still on 2 bases and playing very aggressively. Zerg can generally cut the protoss army size down or at least force a lot of forcefields, generally lots of sentries = colossus/sentry/stalker mid-game, so then zerg goes spire (if he went hydra/roach.) If zerg went muta-ling and Protoss went mass sentry/stalker into colo, the protoss is definitely all in, because Colo's are too much supply and do nothing to mutas, so he will have to push and he will probably lose 1 mineral line to mutas, and they'll still make it back to defend.
This is just what I'm noticing from PvZ/ZvP.
Since it seems like it's not possible to do damage to zerg mid-game before he's droned without either tricking him or being forced to fully commit to an-allinish attack, the most dangerous period of PvZ for me seems while the Zerg is still on 2 bases with many drones, building a large army. Then once he's on 3 bases he will either starve you out, or if you get an expansion up he will be forced to play more passively and you will be transition smoothly into late-game.
|
I think, if anything, the OP is misguided here.
Zergs, please (PLEASE) continue to take your 3rd at ~12 minutes. Z's power lies in rebuilding their army in moments; are we doing that off one or two bases?
|
The reason Zerg needs to be ahead in bases is because they have more gas intensive units which means ya need moar bases. Also another base means :O MORE PRODUCITON! So yes zergs should be ahead in bases so they can evenly spread drones and units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
