EPT[Rant] Zerg need to be ahead in bases - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
CrazyF1r3f0x
United States2120 Posts
| ||
|
seiferoth10
3362 Posts
| ||
|
Cambam
United States360 Posts
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. You're right, that did come out a little unclear. What I was trying to say was that people who think zerg needs to have a better income than their opponent to be equal with them are misguided. That would be a horrible design/balance decision and it would be super imbalanced for zerg. Luckily, it's not true. You never hear casters say "It's 50 drones to 40 probes, so things are about equal..." | ||
|
EGMachine
United States1643 Posts
| ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
On November 17 2010 10:40 Terrifyer wrote: 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. I have more problem with YOUR arrogance than OP's. First of all, you appear to understand NOTHING about BW Zerg. BW Zerg was all about the gas. Zerg was by far the most gas-hungry race, and had to expand a ton to feed that hunger. If you look at BW Zerg bases, there are what, 12 Drones at a good base (not counting gas)? Guess what. In SC2, Zerg have equal worker counts in their bases to Terran and Protoss. The nature of the income is completely different. Sure, you might want to expand more if you're going for some really high-gas composition, like low-ling Mutaling or heavy Infestor play, but for the majority of Zerg builds you simply don't need a glut of gas. Second, you completely misunderstand the POINT of the OP. He's trying to show there's a DIFFERENCE between unit production and economy, and that the reason Zerg usually "needs" an extra base is because they need the unit production, not the economy. He was trying to encourage more conservative play that lets Zerg survive through heavy pressure by keeping their units more centralized and then expanding when they can hold it, rather than trying to hold an expansion they can't or risk losing because they can't keep up in production. I would really appreciate it if you knew what you were talking about before you posted, and refrained from insulting good ideas because they don't fit your preconceptions. EDIT: Okay, a little extreme, but the fact remains that the main importance of a new base is that it gives more production rather than more income. This isn't BW. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On November 17 2010 10:53 Machine[USA] wrote: Yeah I can tell you from experience, zerg must have a higher resource income in order to deal with protoss / terran. Now note that I said "resource income" 9 times out of 10 zerg has to have more bases than an opponent but in rare cases such as a protoss who goes 2 base 6 gate timing attack and cut's a ton of probes the zerg would stay at his natural keep up drone production and take a delayed third base but this is one of the only exceptions. ^ I respect your opinion as you're a much better player than me, but I feel like you have this feeling because a lot of Protosses take too long to expand to their third. Massing Colossus/stalker/sentry on 2 bases even if you're fully saturated is going to be an all-in against a zerg who already has his third up, so if the Protoss wants to continue later into the game (I think most try not to,) they will start taking their third faster, so it will not seem like you're a base ahead of them for too long. Do you think this sounds plausible? | ||
|
mardi
United States1164 Posts
You could say just build an additional hatch in your main or nat but it is more efficient to make another hatchery at another base so you can start mining as well. Zerg has two options, make a hatch in their base or expand. Most times its expand because of the option to also gather resources. | ||
|
ffdestiny
United States773 Posts
EDIT: I'm thinking of switching to Zerg from Terran, it's so much greener! Seriously :D | ||
|
sjschmidt93
United States2518 Posts
| ||
|
ThatsNoMoon
Mexico344 Posts
| ||
|
Kolvacs
Canada1203 Posts
Once we start any tier 2 or tier 3 production of units, you generally end up with 0 gas. We NEED those extra gases to be able to efficiently macro. But in the end, it really just depends on what build order a Zerg player is doing. | ||
|
FrOsTyy
United States125 Posts
| ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
Angra
United States2652 Posts
| ||
|
Cambam
United States360 Posts
On November 17 2010 10:56 Acritter wrote: He's trying to show there's a DIFFERENCE between unit production and economy, and that the reason Zerg usually "needs" an extra base is because they need the unit production, not the economy. He was trying to encourage more conservative play that lets Zerg survive through heavy pressure by keeping their units more centralized and then expanding when they can hold it, rather than trying to hold an expansion they can't or risk losing because they can't keep up in production. Thank you Acritter! Very well put. I often play against 15 nexus into 6 or 7 gate push and I win all the time by staying on 2 hatch 2 queen and defending with roach/hydra, instead of throwing down a vulnerable 3rd base that gives me unneeded income and production. Then I expand after I hold the push or after my army is big enough to make me feel comfortable expanding and defending. | ||
|
Cambam
United States360 Posts
On November 17 2010 11:06 YellowNRed wrote: This is simply not true in ZvT, if Terran is equal bases, you will be down 12 workers. Full saturation from both players is essnetiall 24 on minerals at each base and 6 on gas, well Terran can have 24 on minerals at each base, 6 on gas and 1 mule per base. Since mules mine uninterupted by scv's, it is equivalent to having an additional 6 scv's per mule. (1 scv mines 5 minerals, 5 x 6= 30, mules mine 30) There for if the Zerg wants to be able to keep up with Terran 2 base vs 2 base, well they can't. You need to have a third base with atleast 12 drones mining to be exactly even. While your post is partly true, the point you're missing is that terran produces scv's much slower than zerg or protoss. Hence, Zerg can be equal on 2 bases vs a 2 base terran for a certain amount of time. Once the terran reaches full saturation + mules, you're right, the zerg needs to have a 3rd. But there is a substantial amount of time where it is ok to be 2 base vs. 2 base against terran. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
The #1 reason that Zerg need to be ahead of any race is because we need the gas more then almost any race. Once we start any tier 2 or tier 3 production of units, you generally end up with 0 gas. We NEED those extra gases to be able to efficiently macro. But in the end, it really just depends on what build order a Zerg player is doing. I feel like as Protoss I need tons of gas. I need a lot of sentries to be safe against roach all-inns which are almost impossible for protoss to scout due to creep. I need to get a robo eventually or I can auto-loss to burrowed roaches. I can try to get a robo and obs fast instead of sentries (get immortals,) but I still need to expand before I do this, and then I won't be able to get enough defenses if my obs scouts mutas (because robo and immortals is really horrible tech against mutas obvsly.) So I can't just go robo blindly too fast, so I have to go with the sentries, and probably forge (eventually,) in order to get detection and get upgrades going, so at this point I can't really know if he's going mutas, so the only semi-safe tech option becomes Twilight Council, because robo will still get demolished by mutas (I will just have to put up so many cannons that I should probably just 'gg' and alt-qq.) So I'm going Twilight Council, which is gateway-tech really, so I'm gonna need more gateways, which cost a ton of minerals, so that probably means I coulnd't have gotten my 2nd base gases too fast (obviously i can get them fast if I want to all-in, but if teching and pumping probes it's tough. So now I'm going twilight council tech with little gas because I couldn't save it as I was getting so many sentries fast early on and I've been on 2 geysers for a long time, because I must BOTH pump probes AND add gateways, otherwise I'm either all-in or stupid. So at some point in this gas-starved mess I have to do a timing attack in order to make sure that he didn't do something super-greedy like take his third before lair, or get absolutely no units, and that's when I get to scout whether it's roaches or mutas, he could still trick me by defending with roaches, but that won't be too bad. If he's going muta I get blink and keep pumping stalkers, while preparing some kind of push, most likely archon-stalker (quite possibly out of a dark-shrine tech, sicne I won't have money for storm for a while anyways) with good upgrades. If he's going hydra-roach I need to try to either expand so that I could afford the gas for both immortals and templar, or I need to tech to templar off 2 bases, and hope to do a lot of damage like that (or if he's not expanding for whatever reason, hope to survive like that with just templar/immortal tech coming slowly due to how gas heavy that is on 2 bases, and cannons with zealot/sentry/stalker. So no, I don't think that Zerg is necessarily the most gas-expensive race. At least not in the mid-game. | ||
|
Flaunt
New Zealand784 Posts
| ||
|
furymonkey
New Zealand1587 Posts
However I don't mind more Zerg players to think like OP, so I can continue to crash them in ladders. | ||
|
Nazza
Australia1654 Posts
On November 17 2010 10:46 Chill wrote: 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? Rebuttal by doing a grudge match? But in all seriousness, it's very hard for a Z player to keep advantage when it's 2 base to 2 base. The Z player tries to delay the 1st expo of the P player for as long as possible, because higher tech units like collosi off 2 base is pretty freakin' scary. | ||
| ||
