EPT[Rant] Zerg need to be ahead in bases - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Elevenst
Canada249 Posts
| ||
|
Heat-on
United States5 Posts
| ||
|
Cambam
United States360 Posts
On November 17 2010 12:29 SichuanPanda wrote: 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. Beautifully put. Again, I'm mainly trying to say it's very situational and not set in stone that you must be up one base. Most of the time it's a good idea to take an extra base, but there are times when it's detrimental and this mindset is hurting zerg players in those situations. It's also ruining a lot of criticism given to zerg help threads. | ||
|
terr13
United States298 Posts
| ||
|
Eknoid4
United States902 Posts
Satisfy those 2 conditions, and zerg should expand. There is never a reason not to expand if protoss is going to be dumb enough to let you unless you are just so ahead of him already that you can win right now and an extra hatch would just slow that down | ||
|
Moa
United States790 Posts
On November 17 2010 12:39 Cambam wrote: Beautifully put. Again, I'm mainly trying to say it's very situational and not set in stone that you must be up one base. Most of the time it's a good idea to take an extra base, but there are times when it's detrimental and this mindset is hurting zerg players in those situations. It's also ruining a lot of criticism given to zerg help threads. I get the feeling that either I am misunderstanding what it is to be "1 base ahead" or most people claiming you don't need to be are. I believe that being 1 base ahead means that you have one more established base than your opponent has. This means that your second base should be up and running meaning with a good degree of saturation as your opponents second is going down. When your opponent has achieved saturation in their second base it is a good time to have your third going up. Is my definition of what it is to be "1 base ahead" correct? Would your opinion on the subject change if you look at this issue in terms of this definition? | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
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). Yes they will. You're saying 12 (300) lings and 5 roaches (375/125) won't beat 3 zealots (300) and 3 stalkers (375/150)? | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
Plus Zerg can expand and defend more easily. Hatches are their production facility(Don't have to build multiple barracks and Gateways). And thier mobile so they can quickly defend. If you want to work on minimal bases play Protoss or Terran. Instead of getting mad and ranting, keep practicing on ladder. Dons't matter if you lose. Who cares. Whats a rank? its not like your a proffesional and trying to qualify for Blizzard Tournaments. Be a man and take risks. You'll soon realize you can expand more then you realize. | ||
|
Ksi
357 Posts
Even if I disregard the fact that Hydralisks are higher tech than gateway units, yes, Hydra Roach or Roach Ling, or hell, even roach ling hydra WILL lose to pure gateway units cost for cost, even without micro from the Protoss player. The better the Protoss is at using forcefields and guardian shields or abusing terrain, the more it'll tip in the Protoss' favor. | ||
|
vojnik
Macedonia923 Posts
| ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
Sorry if this has already been posted | ||
|
Eknoid4
United States902 Posts
On November 17 2010 12:46 Ksi wrote: Even if I disregard the fact that Hydralisks are higher tech than gateway units, yes, Hydra Roach or Roach Ling, or hell, even roach ling hydra WILL lose to pure gateway units cost for cost, even without micro from the Protoss player. The better the Protoss is at using forcefields and guardian shields or abusing terrain, the more it'll tip in the Protoss' favor. Hydra roach completely annihilates gateway tech in every way possible unless you are trying to kite stalkers with roaches and kite zealots with hydras off creep or something. If you have hydra/roach and you lose to equal resources tier 1 gateway units (we're not talking OH BUT THEY HAD A PROXY WARPGATE AND REINFORCED), it is always your fault for either falling behind in macro or being on move command or something. There is no exception. One thing that will do well is gateway tech with blink stalker mixed in, but his micro has to be better than yours. | ||
|
FrostOtter
United States537 Posts
On November 17 2010 12:44 Silidons wrote: Yes they will. You're saying 12 (300) lings and 5 roaches (375/125) won't beat 3 zealots (300) and 3 stalkers (375/150)? In the unit tester the toss only managed to kill the lings off before dying. All 5 roaches lived. No micro, of course. | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On November 17 2010 13:06 FrostOtter wrote: In the unit tester the toss only managed to kill the lings off before dying. All 5 roaches lived. No micro, of course. Think you should include 100/100 for ling speed. | ||
|
Toxiferous
United States388 Posts
Of course that doesn't mean the instant your opponent matches your base that you need to instantly take another, but the longer the wait the further you are going to be behind without some timing attack/all-in in mind also: Zerg works well in early skirmishes simply because our swarm aspect is advantageous in small battles, we can get full surrounds quickly without worrying about units not attacking because we have too many low range/melee fighters and there simply is not enough surface area to engage later armies which usually have some sort of siege/aoe, doesn't really take away the fact we should be aiming to be a base up on the opponent, this is really only very early game and very early mid game, after that it's a pretty obvious switch in favor of other races, assuming army compositions were comprised correctly | ||
|
mOnion
United States5657 Posts
i'm not gonna lie, i just had a couple really shitty days and that OP made me smile REAL big. its adorable n_n everything worth noting has been mentioned. try not to make op's about something you have a VERY small amount of experience with clearly. to address what i feel is the root problem you're having, when people say "you lost because you had fewer hatcheries" its not to say that all of a sudden if you have a 3rd YOU WIN! It's everything that leads up to taking a 3rd and securing those gases. | ||
|
GQz
Australia168 Posts
| ||
|
ckw
United States1018 Posts
| ||
|
FrostOtter
United States537 Posts
On November 17 2010 13:09 Shikyo wrote: Many times I find myself starved for gas, and feel much more comfortable with 4 bases with like 8-10 drones on each minerals than with 3 bases with full saturation. Zerg requires a lot of gas because Zerglings are quite terrible and can't really be properly massed. Anything Zerg really wants requires a ton of gas, so you should have more bases than your opponents, even if you had less workers in total. Think you should include 100/100 for ling speed. That was without speed. | ||
| ||
