|
On November 17 2010 11:54 Sniffy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 11:51 WniO wrote:On November 17 2010 11:24 ZekZ wrote:On November 17 2010 11:10 WniO wrote:
great post. one base zerg is quite scary, its strange that zerg is the weakest race yet they are the most willing to expand early. Lol. this thread is pretty terrible and your rant proves nothing Dont lol at my post. If you have nothing constructive to say against the OP than dont. Just laughing and shrugging it off does not count as a legit post or an argument. I realize its not normal, but im telling you one basing is actually really good for zerg. you plop down an extra hatch youd be amazed at how fast you can outproduce your opponent. If you actually lose to this then he has every reason to laugh at you. I can't believe you actually want to debate 1 base Zerg lol
From what ive played 1700 zerg... expanding at roughly the same time as the other races works just fine. But ill tell you what, when i get done working on my map ill post a few replays of me doing 1 base play and not just ALL-IN play. seems fair enough. And if you just want to see some proof of it working why dont you watch a very hard zerg play against a very hard toss or terran. not pros by any means but maybe ittl open up your opinion a bit.
|
Can a 2 base zerg beat a 2 base protoss? Yes but like 1/5 times... I don't know why its just after playing 1000+ games you figure out that you win more when your up a base.
When its 2 base vs 2 base i seem to see this huge army moving out and realize my army is balls. Then even if i manage to cut all drones and make only roaches or hydras he has complete map control takes a 3rd and then GG.
|
On November 17 2010 10:56 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I am speechless, I have no speech.
I don't really know what to say to this! Oh man!
-didn't compare BW economy to SC2 economy ( I really don't know where you got that)
-compared BW to SC2 that zerg needs to keep ahead in expos
It really does seem you over-analyzed both the OP's post and my own!
you are right to some degree, that I probably did misunderstand his post since I couldn't really follow it, but I don't think you could either.
Also, what was his "good" idea? to not expo as much and play safe? is that all he had to say?
Oh, ok.
You can still play safe and take a 3rd, I don't even know why you wouldn't want to.
And I do understand a little bit about BW, I mean I did play zerg for 6 years...
edit: Didn't mean to sound like an ass, but I feel the need to when the OP sounds like an ass himself.
|
I kinda just go with the old BW saying +1 expo or you lose.
|
On November 17 2010 11:54 Sniffy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 11:51 WniO wrote:On November 17 2010 11:24 ZekZ wrote:On November 17 2010 11:10 WniO wrote:
great post. one base zerg is quite scary, its strange that zerg is the weakest race yet they are the most willing to expand early. Lol. this thread is pretty terrible and your rant proves nothing Dont lol at my post. If you have nothing constructive to say against the OP than dont. Just laughing and shrugging it off does not count as a legit post or an argument. I realize its not normal, but im telling you one basing is actually really good for zerg. you plop down an extra hatch youd be amazed at how fast you can outproduce your opponent. If you actually lose to this then he has every reason to laugh at you. I can't believe you actually want to debate 1 base Zerg lol
i think he might be talking about 1 base Z v Z ling cheese... as 1 base 2 hatch speedlings can be easily supported.
I believe it was show in a day9 (i think the no queens one) that you can effectively go 2 hatch roach on 1 base. (guy went 4 hatch roach no queens so thats like 2 hatches with queens right?)
I also believe you can go something stupid like 3 hatch on 1 base and make speedlings out of all 3 of them with queens.
2 hatch roach = cheese vs other races (I guess...)
3 hatch sling = cheese vs other Z (I guess...)
It just depends really on what you are building i think and look at some of what top players do... FD, TLO, and dimaga have been going a 3 hatch on 2 base style lately... a lot more Z might be starting to do this too, so don't disregard the OP yet.
|
On November 17 2010 11:37 Subversion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 10:42 Amber[LighT] wrote:
Equal cost RH or RZ armies will not beat an equal cost gateway unit army (with no upgrades).
This. And also, Protoss can make Colossi off 2 bases, they dont HAVE to be pure gateway. You've completely neglected cost effectiveness, and that also pretty much sums up why ur wrong =/
While I agree that the "cost-effectiveness" argument holds water in some cases, I think everyone is blowing it way out of proportion because everyone has this idea of zerg as a swarm race. Zerg's units are less cost effective and thus you need more of them, but not to the degree everyone is saying. Especially against gateway units. Equal cost roach/hydra or roach/ling or pure roach armies can't beat gateway armies? I call bullshit. I'm sure the unit tester will prove me right, but that doesn't include micro. And with micro, I can only speak from experience, but all of those armies are capable of beating equal cost gateway armies. Can any zergs or protoss back me up? Am I crazy? Is it commonly accepted that gateway armies crush roach/hydra? Am I just an anomaly?
Anyway, as protoss and terran tech, you're right their units get quite cost-effective. But I feel like zerg has plenty of cost-effective responses that put them back on equal ground. Colossi? Roach + corruptor. Colossi aren't super effective against roaches and corruptors ruin any cost-effective advantage the colossi give by killing the colossi (or at least forcing them to move and spend less time shooting). Ultralisks work too. Storm? Roach + burrow + tunneling claws, or ultralisks or well-microed mutalisks. In all of these cases, the zerg doesn't need a more expensive army to beat the protoss army. This idea that zerg is WAY less cost-effective and therefore needs WAY more units and income and production is exaggerated and based on people's perception of zerg in the campaign.
|
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?
Early game Zerg armies are possibly the most positionally dependant armies in the game. As a result of this early Zerg aggression is rarely a good idea because your opponent is given high ground by default on most maps and has the luxury of defending a choke. This means that if a Zerg player tries to attack with an early roach/ling army they will EASILY be defeated for the cost because you are never going to get the surround on a good opponent who is defending their base.
Other races don't have this problem because units like Zealots don't rely on surrounding their opponent and are effective in chokes, stalkers and marines have a greater range than roaches so they can set up a superior concave, and most of the time Zergs will be attacking into a (semi-)wall.
So what is a Zerg player to do, their army is good when your opponent is in an exposed position and you have plenty of minerals to spare because you aren't going to be aggressive in the early game. Expand!
If you don't expand you are either not spending your resources or wasting resources on superfluous units.
This is just one more reason why Zerg players should expand more often and sooner than the other races.
Also there is production capabilities which is most likely the main reason but probably has already been talked to death.
|
As a random player, I can kind of see where OP is coming from, but I think of it more like this. When playing zerg, I need to be taking my expos quicker than my opponents. When they get their second, I need to start thinking about taking my third soon, but not necessarily right away. It's like you need to be half a base ahead, if that makes sense. When playing T/P though, I always feel if I'm on 2 base and they're on 3, I need to either destroy them soon or expand.
|
On November 17 2010 12:09 Cambam wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 11:37 Subversion wrote:On November 17 2010 10:42 Amber[LighT] wrote:
Equal cost RH or RZ armies will not beat an equal cost gateway unit army (with no upgrades).
This. And also, Protoss can make Colossi off 2 bases, they dont HAVE to be pure gateway. You've completely neglected cost effectiveness, and that also pretty much sums up why ur wrong =/ While I agree that the "cost-effectiveness" argument holds water in some cases, I think everyone is blowing it way out of proportion because everyone has this idea of zerg as a swarm race. Zerg's units are less cost effective and thus you need more of them, but not to the degree everyone is saying. Especially against gateway units. Equal cost roach/hydra or roach/ling or pure roach armies can't beat gateway armies? I call bullshit. I'm sure the unit tester will prove me right, but that doesn't include micro. And with micro, I can only speak from experience, but all of those armies are capable of beating equal cost gateway armies. Can any zergs or protoss back me up? Am I crazy? Is it commonly accepted that gateway armies crush roach/hydra? Am I just an anomaly? Anyway, as protoss and terran tech, you're right their units get quite cost-effective. But I feel like zerg has plenty of cost-effective responses that put them back on equal ground. Colossi? Roach + corruptor. Colossi aren't super effective against roaches and corruptors ruin any cost-effective advantage the colossi give by killing the colossi (or at least forcing them to move and spend less time shooting). Ultralisks work too. Storm? Roach + burrow + tunneling claws, or ultralisks or well-microed mutalisks. In all of these cases, the zerg doesn't need a more expensive army to beat the protoss army. This idea that zerg is WAY less cost-effective and therefore needs WAY more units and income and production is exaggerated and based on people's perception of zerg in the campaign.
Roach/Corruptor off 2 base? Ultralisks off 2 base? What game are you playing it sounds like fun.
|
On November 17 2010 10:50 IPA wrote: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?
Yes. It's called having an additional hatch and queen in your base and stockpiling larva through injection. It's pretty amusing when I lose a big battle but in 20-40 seconds rebuild an entirely different army. It's not easy but it is doable and makes more sense than haphazardly expanding every which way hoping your enemy is lax on scouting expansions.
|
Ok this is not bw and it may not be necessary in all situations, but as a general rule I still think zerg needs to be ahead in both economy and production because of the general cost efficiency of their units. That is why they should be ahead in expansions. That doesn't mean always at least 1 base ahead, but definitely expanding more often and not just building in base hatches. In base hatches are ok for certain compositions, but you still need the economic advantage, and zerg is equipped to more easily defend multiple expos.
|
On November 17 2010 12:09 Cambam wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 11:37 Subversion wrote:On November 17 2010 10:42 Amber[LighT] wrote:
Equal cost RH or RZ armies will not beat an equal cost gateway unit army (with no upgrades).
This. And also, Protoss can make Colossi off 2 bases, they dont HAVE to be pure gateway. You've completely neglected cost effectiveness, and that also pretty much sums up why ur wrong =/ While I agree that the "cost-effectiveness" argument holds water in some cases, I think everyone is blowing it way out of proportion because everyone has this idea of zerg as a swarm race. Zerg's units are less cost effective and thus you need more of them, but not to the degree everyone is saying. Especially against gateway units. Equal cost roach/hydra or roach/ling or pure roach armies can't beat gateway armies? I call bullshit. I'm sure the unit tester will prove me right, but that doesn't include micro. And with micro, I can only speak from experience, but all of those armies are capable of beating equal cost gateway armies. Can any zergs or protoss back me up? Am I crazy? Is it commonly accepted that gateway armies crush roach/hydra? Am I just an anomaly? Anyway, as protoss and terran tech, you're right their units get quite cost-effective. But I feel like zerg has plenty of cost-effective responses that put them back on equal ground. Colossi? Roach + corruptor. Colossi aren't super effective against roaches and corruptors ruin any cost-effective advantage the colossi give by killing the colossi (or at least forcing them to move and spend less time shooting). Ultralisks work too. Storm? Roach + burrow + tunneling claws, or ultralisks or well-microed mutalisks. In all of these cases, the zerg doesn't need a more expensive army to beat the protoss army. This idea that zerg is WAY less cost-effective and therefore needs WAY more units and income and production is exaggerated and based on people's perception of zerg in the campaign.
You aren't taking positioning into account, in an open field battle you may be right but in the bottlenecks that you are often times forced to fight in Zerg armies become less cost effective because they rely on surrounds and lack the AOE to punish a clumped ball like the other races do.
|
Obviously everyone knows that everyone needs to expand, but the question is Zerg behind if Protoss is on 2 bases and Zerg is on 2 bases?
And the answer is no.
The only way to truly be 1 base ahead of protoss at all times is to take a third extremely fast (same time he puts his nexus down,) and if you're able to do that as your standard play and win games, you're playing against horrible players and you're more than likely a horrible player yourself.
Does Zerg need to start his third earlier than Protoss? most of the time yes, but it all depends on the army count. If you just defended a huge 2 base push (on 2 bases, because you can't really do that on 3,) and the protoss was grabbing an expo while pushing, you should probably go and kill his third, or maybe even his nat and his entire base, don't bother wasting money on an expo when a player has over-extended himself so greatly.
You aren't taking positioning into account, in an open field battle you may be right but in the bottlenecks that you are often times forced to fight in Zerg armies become less cost effective because they rely on surrounds and lack the AOE to punish a clumped ball like the other races do.
How exactly does Zerg get bottle-necked, especially when they're NOT forced to defend 3 bases at the same time (2 mostly, because the main is defended by the Nat.)
Its getting a third too early that gets you into those situations in the first place.
|
I'm only a platinum zerg, but when playing against the other races, if I am on the same amount of expansions, I feel really constrained, and on edge.
The reason for this is because I feel like you need to have a larger, more costly army than the other two races in order to defeat it. Terran and protoss units are extremely powerful in the endgame, and shred through zerg units with ease. By the end game, I don't really feel comfortable engaging the enemy force unless mine is slightly larger, since I want to ensure that I will win. I feel like in the endgame, the T/P units are most cost effective. I could be wrong though.
|
I think generally this was the case because 2 hatcheries wasnt enough for production. Since zergs started putting an extra hatch in there base I would say this argument holds more weight.
|
I would amend the statement, "zerg needs to be ahead in bases" to "zerg need to take bases earlier than their opponent."
Rarely do i have games where I'm not on even bases with my opponent for at least some of the game. Similarly, it's not rare to fight when you're on even bases. However, I would say that zergs should be trying to get ahead on bases in most games. Don't mass off 2 bases vs a 2 base toss/terran and then wonder why you lost. Zerg units are GENERALLY less cost effective, so you need more of them.
|
Bisutopia19234 Posts
with the new queens, I believe it has become protoss that need the most bases in the late game.
|
I think the point the OP is trying to make is don't feel like you 100% must always expand to a third base sometime close to when Terran or Protoss take their second. Essentially one should expand to a third for the right reasons based on many factors. Is the opponent teching up fast or massing infantry units, is the map big or small, are you in position for a timing attack any time soon or not, are you going to need gas intensive units or mineral intensive units to survive? The list really does go on and on, so simply take heed of the addage from BW of 'you must be up one base', in SC2 it is not necessarily the case, oftentimes it still holds true. I have however seen at every skill level Zerg replays where taking the third, or fourth base too soon purely to 'stay +1 bases' actually was a detriment to the Zerg not a benefit.
|
Normally when I play I try to stay 1 ahead in my number of bases but then one extra i have normally is just used for gas until another mineral field runs dry. Zerg units require more gas than other races and staying "1 base ahead" gets more gas to even your army out compared to the others.
|
On November 17 2010 12:19 Kiarip wrote:Obviously everyone knows that everyone needs to expand, but the question is Zerg behind if Protoss is on 2 bases and Zerg is on 2 bases? And the answer is no. The only way to truly be 1 base ahead of protoss at all times is to take a third extremely fast (same time he puts his nexus down,) and if you're able to do that as your standard play and win games, you're playing against horrible players and you're more than likely a horrible player yourself. Does Zerg need to start his third earlier than Protoss? most of the time yes, but it all depends on the army count. If you just defended a huge 2 base push (on 2 bases, because you can't really do that on 3,) and the protoss was grabbing an expo while pushing, you should probably go and kill his third, or maybe even his nat and his entire base, don't bother wasting money on an expo when a player has over-extended himself so greatly. Show nested quote +
You aren't taking positioning into account, in an open field battle you may be right but in the bottlenecks that you are often times forced to fight in Zerg armies become less cost effective because they rely on surrounds and lack the AOE to punish a clumped ball like the other races do. How exactly does Zerg get bottle-necked, especially when they're NOT forced to defend 3 bases at the same time (2 mostly, because the main is defended by the Nat.) Its getting a third too early that gets you into those situations in the first place.
When did I talk about taking the third? I am mostly talking about taking the natural first so that you can fight on better footing in the open with early speedlings. Also because of chokes you cannot reasonably mount a speedling attack so an early expansion is a great idea because you can get a smaller defending/scouting force and build more when necessary while getting your base up instead of making superflous units.
If I must defend the idea of a fast third, which I will because I believe it is a good idea I would argue that you get two flanks to defend from. If your opponent pushes into your natural you can easily cut them off from behind with forces from your third, if they attack your third then you are in the same situation you would be in if you had no third and they attacked your natural.
Your farthest base from your main defends the bases that are closer in, by closing off potential escape routes. This gives your opponent only one base that is a good idea to attack at a time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
