EPT[Rant] Zerg need to be ahead in bases - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Cloak
United States816 Posts
| ||
|
hiyo_bye
United States737 Posts
300 minerals + 50 for drone + less supply from hatch (2 instead of.. 8?) So yeah it seems like it would cost 400+ (if you get an overlord to make up for the food) for an expansion. It does make some sense then to use one base for a good period of time | ||
|
johanngrunt
Hong Kong1555 Posts
All that cost effectiveness bullshit is overrated. Zerg units are good if you can get a flank, period, if you try to take an army head on, you're going to throw away that army, and need to reproduce, hence the false misconception that you need to be ahead in income. (which is never a bad thing but bear with me) The OP is saying that production capacity is a more important consideration than people give credit to. Obviously it depends on what you're making (money cheap larva expensive lings, or money expensive larva cheap broodlords) but in general you get the idea. And most of what the OP is saying centres around the early mid game. (4gates etc) Late game we all have a general idea that zerg units need gas hence need more expos etc. Basically the OP is calling us out for being creatively stunted, and we should analyze replays with a greater attention to detail instead of : NOOB!!! ZERG NEED MOAR BASE NOOB! | ||
|
mOnion
United States5657 Posts
On November 17 2010 13:33 hiyo_bye wrote: I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but I think Z expansions actually cost more than T and P. 300 minerals + 50 for drone + less supply from hatch (2 instead of.. 8?) So yeah it seems like it would cost 400+ (if you get an overlord to make up for the food) for an expansion. It does make some sense then to use one base for a good period of time yes lets only look at one variable. that's how the whole world does real economics, it should work for SC2 cuz its just a game! | ||
|
kesbie
New Zealand58 Posts
The advantage to putting the 3rd hatchery at an expansion zone is 1) to be able to get more gas and later 2) stagger drone transfers when the main is mining out, thus minimising the drop in resource gathering. Having 3 saturated base when your opponent is only on 2 bases puts zerg at a disadvantage since about 20 supply is used up in drones when realistically 50-60 drones is usually good enough. Similarly having 3 saturated bases will result in not being able to larva produce quick enough to spend it all unless you're saving up to sink into ultralisks. All of this "need to be up 1 base" talk is usually assuming that your opponent is sitting in his base twiddling his thumbs while actually letting you only power drones with 4 spotter zerglings on the field. Zerg cannot instantly produce to match a mid game army so at some point a standing zerg force needs to be available. This is the "big revelation" many, many, MANY zerg players are having even if they already did so without knowing why. We are at the moment in time the masses have proclaimed since beta. We are living in the sc2 world when zerg players "gets it". | ||
|
StarBrift
Sweden1761 Posts
| ||
|
AyJay
1515 Posts
1) Zerg operates differently from other races 2) Due to larva management, good zerg players should always be ahead in workers, should always have a slightly better economy 3) Due to larva management 2 hatcheries won't be able to drone and produce units at same rate as 2 CC or 2 Nexus therefore zerg player needs to expand or plant another hatchery. | ||
|
pwadoc
271 Posts
I'm only about 1600 diamond, but in my experience the OP is pretty much right. For instance, I used to get rolled by mass marine builds in ZvT, but I discovered that lings are actually cost effective against marines, and that the real constraint int he matchup was larva, not minerals or gas. I started building and in-base third and pumping lings, and while I'm still struggling with aspects of mass bio in ZvT, my problems are mostly in the late game now, and have more to do with weaknesses in my macro than anything fundamental to the races. The simple realization that I was facing a production deficit, and that a third base was a liability makes surviving the first 15 minutes of those games much much easier. | ||
|
Paradice
New Zealand431 Posts
This. It's amazing how many people propogate the "Zerg not cost-efficient against Gateway units" argument without having tested it. My results echo FrostOtter. RZ will *comfortably* destroy an equal cost Gateway army, with no upgrades on either side, I couldn't find a mix for P that won for equal cost (although it's hard to test multiple sentry compositions as early zerg units don't really have anywhere to spend that much gas. The closest match had a sentry with guardian shield but ultimately P still lost). Hydras just make it worse for P. Of course Zerg will lose to an equivalent cost gateway army when attacking into a Protoss ramp or choke... so what? The gateway army will lose when attacking into a zerg army on creep, too. | ||
|
fUddO
Canada197 Posts
| ||
|
guitarizt
United States1492 Posts
On November 17 2010 10:51 Sworn wrote: 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. Yeah this and they need the larva. I've noticed against terran I can have say about 40 workers to 29 on one base and they're still even with me in income because of imba mules. You're not going to see too many high level games where the zerg wins on even bases or behind bases. Even if toss or terran get their third I start freaking out because even if I have 6 bases I can't make enough drones or else my army's too weak and it still can be a close game but I'm just a mediocre diamond. | ||
|
me_viet
Australia1350 Posts
On November 17 2010 10:41 Cambam wrote: 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? Okay now calculate how much faster P and T can get to higher tech then Z. But yes, Roach/Ling would lose to an equal cost gateway army. Roach/hydra would lose to an equal cost army of gateway units too if the gateway units includes HT's. | ||
|
alexpnd
Canada1857 Posts
| ||
|
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
On November 17 2010 10:27 Subversion wrote: 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. This guy knows what he is talking about. | ||
|
charlie420247
United States692 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? i agree with chill 100%. zerg had to be up a base in bw and has to be up a base in sc2 for the same reason, zerg units are just simply not as cost effective as protoss or terran units. therefor you need more of them to stay even. this does not mean you cant beat a 1 base protoss as a 1 base zerg. you can. but it doesnt take a rocket scientist to realize your gonna need more $$$ to win as zerg compared to the other races. | ||
|
SubPointOA
United States183 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? exactly, i hate people who didn't play BW and try to debate on StarCraft 2. LOL TANKS HAVE LONGEST RANGE = TERRAN OP. same as bw anyways i feel Z has to expand FASTER, not always be 1 base ahead | ||
|
charlie420247
United States692 Posts
On November 17 2010 13:58 pwadoc wrote: Has anyone actually quantified the cost-effectiveness of zerg units? I've seen a lot of people claim that zerg units are not cost-effective, but in playing around in the unit tester I've found it has a lot more to do with unit composition than anything else. An equal roach/ling army against certain mixed of gateway units will lose pretty badly, but an equal cost roach/hydra army will tear apart gateway armies, even off creep. I actually spent a day trying out unit compositions in the test and found some very interesting stuff, but nothing that suggests that zerg units are particularly weak compared to the other races. I'm only about 1600 diamond, but in my experience the OP is pretty much right. For instance, I used to get rolled by mass marine builds in ZvT, but I discovered that lings are actually cost effective against marines, and that the real constraint int he matchup was larva, not minerals or gas. I started building and in-base third and pumping lings, and while I'm still struggling with aspects of mass bio in ZvT, my problems are mostly in the late game now, and have more to do with weaknesses in my macro than anything fundamental to the races. The simple realization that I was facing a production deficit, and that a third base was a liability makes surviving the first 15 minutes of those games much much easier. if you realized that lings are actually cost efficient against marines i dont know who the fuck you were playing. but let me say this. they obviously suck ass. lings can kill small numbers of marines sure but in no way are lings cost efficient against marines. this is just bs. | ||
|
eksert
France656 Posts
| ||
|
trNimitz
204 Posts
On November 17 2010 10:27 Subversion wrote: 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. Weak? LOL. Let's just ignore the fact speedlings beat any Toss unit cost for cost and roaches do the same (except when facing immos). | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 17 2010 14:59 trNimitz wrote: Weak? LOL. Let's just ignore the fact speedlings beat any Toss unit cost for cost and roaches do the same (except when facing immos). There's a reason why Protoss get sentries right away and colossi aren't far behind. If you just compare stalker to roach it's favorable to the zerg, but that's basically ignoring the entire game. Meanwhile colossi are probably the single deadliest unit in the game. If the Protoss manages to get 4 colossi your chances of winning drop dramatically even if you have corruptors or other 'counter' unit. I'd be willing to agree it's bad design and colossi/HTs should be weaker (or at least colossi should be more interesting to use) in turn for a stronger core set of units, but that's more about what's fun and interesting and not win % or army strength. | ||
| ||
