|
On November 17 2010 12:44 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 10:42 Amber[LighT] wrote:On November 17 2010 10:41 Cambam wrote: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). 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)?
Put the P in a choke and see what happens then. Or better, put the zlots against a wall 3 zlots will beat 12 zlings. Then micro the 3 stalkers against the roaches. This all changes on how effective it is with micro. Try helions vs slowings.
And I don't get why ppls use the unit tester in the first place to test 'effectiveness' of units. It might be good to find out that 1 roach loses to 1 hydra or air vs air battles. But really, it's so far removed from game situation that it's pointless. Units effectiveness is directly tied to you as a player. If a P charges out onto the open field with your amount of units, then yes he deserves to lose. If a Z charges into a choke then the Z deserves to lose.
Test collosus next or something, un-micro'd in open field they're not very cost effective vs spread out hydras etc.
Unit tester is stupid. I can easily use it and say that 600 Zerglings loses to 1 upgraded ultralisks. or 6 ultras can beat 200 marines.
I' would've never played sc if it was a simple game of smashing units built against each other 'with no micro'.
|
zerg has to be one base ahead always. im guessing you weren't a broodwar player? yes its a different game, but the same fundamental race defining aspects (cheap, weak units) still applies (though with the roach buff, that can be argued >.<)
|
On November 17 2010 15:16 me_viet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 12:44 Silidons wrote:On November 17 2010 10:42 Amber[LighT] wrote:On November 17 2010 10:41 Cambam wrote: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). 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)? Put the P in a choke and see what happens then. Or better, put the zlots against a wall 3 zlots will beat 12 zlings. Then micro the 3 stalkers against the roaches. This all changes on how effective it is with micro. Try helions vs slowings. And I don't get why ppls use the unit tester in the first place to test 'effectiveness' of units. It might be good to find out that 1 roach loses to 1 hydra or air vs air battles. But really, it's so far removed from game situation that it's pointless. Units effectiveness is directly tied to you as a player. If a P charges out onto the open field with your amount of units, then yes he deserves to lose. If a Z charges into a choke then the Z deserves to lose. Test collosus next or something, un-micro'd in open field they're not very cost effective vs spread out hydras etc. Unit tester is stupid. I can easily use it and say that 600 Zerglings loses to 1 upgraded ultralisks. or 6 ultras can beat 200 marines. I' would've never played sc if it was a simple game of smashing units built against each other 'with no micro'.
To add to this, testing 700 minerals worth of units on completely open terrain is hardly decisive. At that early stage, the question of whether zerg needs to be a base ahead is not even relevant. A more realistic scenario is one where both sides have armies about 3 or 4 times that size.
Zerg is the race with units that suffer from an anti-critical mass. As the armies of both sides grow larger, the scales tip further toward the non-zerg. You see less available surface area (per enemy unit) for the lings to attack, more roaches fumbling around due to their relatively short range, terrain getting in the way, along with the general trend of longer attack ranges becoming more useful the larger your army is.
|
I'd like to point out that a more accurate representation of toss is for every base, 3 gateways + Robotics Facility, in which case, if it was 6 gateway/2 Robotics Facility vs. 2 hatch/2queen zerg, the game would be slanted in the Protoss's favor.
|
I can't believe how many people believe that zerg needs to be ahead economically to be even with their opponent. As I said earlier, why don't any of the casters/commentators ever say something like "It's 50 drones to 40 probes, things are looking pretty even" or "40 drones to 40 probes, looks like zerg is in trouble!" If this is such a well-known "fact" of the game, why aren't any commentators talking like this? Why do they all seem to talk like drones are worth just as much as SCVs or probes?
|
Zerg absolutely need to stay ahead in bases. Their units are nowhere near as effective for their cost as Terran or Protoss units.
|
On November 17 2010 15:36 Cambam wrote:
I can't believe how many people believe that zerg needs to be ahead economically to be even with their opponent. As I said earlier, why don't any of the casters/commentators ever say something like "It's 50 drones to 40 probes, things are looking pretty even" or "40 drones to 40 probes, looks like zerg is in trouble!" If this is such a well-known "fact" of the game, why aren't any commentators talking like this? Why do they all seem to talk like drones are worth just as much as SCVs or probes?
Because, realistically, this situation almost never happens. Zerg will always have more workers than their opponent early game. Its the result of droning up. Ideally, by the time your opponent has as many workers as you have drones, ie two bases fully saturated, you were able to take advantage of your faster increased economy from being able to pump workers at a faster rate to have a much bigger army in order to harass or win an engagement while you take your third. The situation then repeats itself, you have a better economy till the opponent catches up, at which point you have to do something with it, ie attack or defend a large push.
But yeah, thats how zerg works. they will ALWAYS have a bigger economy ideally just from their ability to pump workers so much faster.
|
To OP: Go play zvp with you as zerg and another player of equal skill as protoss. Both of you stay on one base and see how that goes. You can make as many hatcheries as you like in base. I promise you barring cheese it won't turn out well for the zerg player. Same goes for zerg on 2 bases vs. protoss on 2 bases. Eventually when the protoss ball finally pushes out. If you're even with the protoss player the army will just destroy you because protoss units are more cost efficient. The situation is just worse for terrans.
I do agree with you that the up on one base theory is not credible because zerg doesn't necessarily have to be up a base just a half a base if you will. Basically it involves putting down another expansion faster than your opponent. If there's a situation where a terran or a protoss player puts down a 3rd base and saturates it before you as the zerg player, the terran or protoss player will win.
On November 17 2010 15:36 Cambam wrote:
I can't believe how many people believe that zerg needs to be ahead economically to be even with their opponent. As I said earlier, why don't any of the casters/commentators ever say something like "It's 50 drones to 40 probes, things are looking pretty even" or "40 drones to 40 probes, looks like zerg is in trouble!" If this is such a well-known "fact" of the game, why aren't any commentators talking like this? Why do they all seem to talk like drones are worth just as much as SCVs or probes?
It kind of makes me mad that commentators rarely mention the fact that being on more bases with less workers can actually result in more income for the player with less workers. The only time where commentators actually mention this is where one expansion is super super saturated. 40 drones on 3 bases goes a lot father than 50 on 2 bases. In a case like that the 40 drones are actually being used more efficiently. Worker usage is just as if not more important as worker production.
|
On November 17 2010 12:03 Terrifyer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 10:56 Acritter wrote: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.
First of all, I'm not understanding what "over-analyzing" is. And it's pretty clear I could and did follow his post, because he quoted me saying that I understood him. What's your excuse? Kneejerk reactions? Hint: Nobody would ever say, for any race, that getting an expansion (not trying to take, getting) is a bad thing. OP's good idea was that whenever you need additional UNIT PRODUCTION, you should consider building an IN-BASE HATCHERY rather than an expo and see whether it would be better FOR THAT GAME SITUATION rather than instinctively going "well, let's put down my third at the Gold before the two-base 6-Warp Gate push comes in". This is something that Day[9] has said, if you want some high-level support on the issue (forget when but he said it while reviewing a game on LT, the wording was something like "back in BW, we had to build all our little hatcheries side by side, in SC2 people have queens and say that's stupid, just put it down by an expo, but sometimes it's a very good idea to not put it down at an expo and instead in your base"). Your problem is that you're taking a statement that is trying to encourage people to not blindly obey preconceptions and consider gameplay situations and taking it to mean that all existing strategy is bad and that he has a "new age" version of gameplay everyone should follow.
|
this isnt starcraft 1, or broodwar. You should not be using any references to SC1, or broodwar to discuss playing SC2. The game is so different now.
|
zerg design hasnt changed much tho from bw to sc2. zerg still have a range of rather weak and often gas-intensive units( barring the roach) that they need to be effective. the point about having additional geysers with a 3rd has been mentioned before, i see this as a main incentive to grab a third.
furthermore you wanna play out your races strenghts, in the zerg case this being he fast expansion and saturation. if you look at it this way one of the terran strenghts is good defense and turtling up, will a terran player take advantage of this? you bet he will!!! now in the same way, one of the key advantages of a zerg player is the quick expansion and production of drones. why would i refrain from taking advantage of one of my races inherent bonuses?
one point that has been mentioned over and over again. maybe as a trade off for your splendid macro abilities, or rather because blizzard designed them to be like that, zerg units lack hard counters, cost effectiveness and often the ability to take many hits.
in game that drags out longer than your avg 4gate, baneling bust or 3 rax push (something im seeing less and less fortunately) and the current playstyle does deviate towards longer macro game these days, you will soon notice how equally sized armies will demolish your 2base zerg army at the very least at the moment colossi(thors/ siege tanks come out in force.
if i havent made it clear yet i am definitely an advocate of the theory of needing to grab more bases than your opponent as a zerg player.
|
This op is absolutely awful. Zergs need to be FE'ing about 75% of games, more production more saturation oppurtunities, access to more gas whenever you want....Plus you absolutely need 2 bases to drone up properly as well as produce units at the last minute to hold a push...the only time you shouldnt FE is ZvZ (sometimes) or if you want to allin/cheese.
Edit: The best way to tell that FE is infinitely better than to not FE is to watch top level zergs. I refuse to believe every pro zerg has no idea what they are doing in terms of fast expanding. If it was even decent some zergs would probably 1 base as a stylistic difference.
|
Although the OP is kinda confusing he has a good point. There's a difference between ECONOMY (income) and PRODUCTION (outcome). While in the other races you do these two things in separate structures, in Zerg you do in the same place.
I think the key idea of the OP, which I agree, is: It's not true that Zerg needs always to be ahead in ECONOMY, however the Zerg should be at least equal in PRODUCTION. The two purposes of the hatchery is the cause of this misguidance.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 17 2010 15:36 Cambam wrote:
I can't believe how many people believe that zerg needs to be ahead economically to be even with their opponent. As I said earlier, why don't any of the casters/commentators ever say something like "It's 50 drones to 40 probes, things are looking pretty even" or "40 drones to 40 probes, looks like zerg is in trouble!" If this is such a well-known "fact" of the game, why aren't any commentators talking like this? Why do they all seem to talk like drones are worth just as much as SCVs or probes?
Because there's about 2.5 casters that actually understand macro, and Z mineral lines are never going to be as fully saturated as P or T, because the extra minerals are wasted. It's about gas, and the amount of it needed for a Z army to compete.
It's amusing that you're talking about this as if it was a purely arbitrary decision by Zergs to require an extra base, without realizing that it was a natural progression of the game in order for Z to compete. Not only that, but the Zerg answer to the strength of the P/T ball (this goes for BW as well) is mobility and positioning, therefore the extra base also works to grab the attention of your opponent. If it was just 2 base vs 2 base and all they needed to do was push your natural, the Z would be crushed every time.
There's nothing wrong with making an extra production hatchery in your base (this is carried from BW as well) but you do need the gas advantage.
|
On November 17 2010 20:23 Jibba wrote:
Not only that, but the Zerg answer to the strength of the P/T ball (this goes for BW as well) is mobility and positioning, therefore the extra base also works to grab the attention of your opponent. If it was just 2 base vs 2 base and all they needed to do was push your natural, the Z would be crushed every time.
This is a great point. Putting a hatchery down on the other side of the map forces your opponent to decide where to attack, and you can catch him out in the open with your superior mobility or sac it to buy some time to tech up/build an army.
Fruitdealer demonstrated this pretty well in GSL1.
|
Essentially you've taken a valid point - Zerg needs to be ahead in production - to try and refute a different and not really related point - Zerg needs to be ahead in bases -
I'm going to try to follow your argument:
Zerg can be ahead in economy on 2 base vs 2base because of having more drones.
To use this economy Zerg needs extra hatcheries for production, which can be planted in base.
Therefore Zerg only needs to be ahead in production, not bases.
So what you are doing is assuming that nr. 3 is true always, when in reality it only applies to a very specific situation like when P is doing a 2 base push after sacrificing economy. At really any other point Zerg needs that extra base to use their potential drone advantage as well as getting that critical extra gas needed to make their army competitive.
|
On November 17 2010 18:29 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 12:03 Terrifyer wrote:On November 17 2010 10:56 Acritter wrote: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. First of all, I'm not understanding what "over-analyzing" is. And it's pretty clear I could and did follow his post, because he quoted me saying that I understood him. What's your excuse? Kneejerk reactions? Hint: Nobody would ever say, for any race, that getting an expansion (not trying to take, getting) is a bad thing. OP's good idea was that whenever you need additional UNIT PRODUCTION, you should consider building an IN-BASE HATCHERY rather than an expo and see whether it would be better FOR THAT GAME SITUATION rather than instinctively going "well, let's put down my third at the Gold before the two-base 6-Warp Gate push comes in". This is something that Day[9] has said, if you want some high-level support on the issue (forget when but he said it while reviewing a game on LT, the wording was something like "back in BW, we had to build all our little hatcheries side by side, in SC2 people have queens and say that's stupid, just put it down by an expo, but sometimes it's a very good idea to not put it down at an expo and instead in your base"). Your problem is that you're taking a statement that is trying to encourage people to not blindly obey preconceptions and consider gameplay situations and taking it to mean that all existing strategy is bad and that he has a "new age" version of gameplay everyone should follow.
You're my boy, Acritter! You're officially my coauthor (I added your posts to the OP). Thanks for the help in clarifying my position!
|
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.
How are you making ultras off 2 bases? 
On November 17 2010 15:51 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 15:36 Cambam wrote:
I can't believe how many people believe that zerg needs to be ahead economically to be even with their opponent. As I said earlier, why don't any of the casters/commentators ever say something like "It's 50 drones to 40 probes, things are looking pretty even" or "40 drones to 40 probes, looks like zerg is in trouble!" If this is such a well-known "fact" of the game, why aren't any commentators talking like this? Why do they all seem to talk like drones are worth just as much as SCVs or probes? Because, realistically, this situation almost never happens. Zerg will always have more workers than their opponent early game. Its the result of droning up. Ideally, by the time your opponent has as many workers as you have drones, ie two bases fully saturated, you were able to take advantage of your faster increased economy from being able to pump workers at a faster rate to have a much bigger army in order to harass or win an engagement while you take your third. The situation then repeats itself, you have a better economy till the opponent catches up, at which point you have to do something with it, ie attack or defend a large push. But yeah, thats how zerg works. they will ALWAYS have a bigger economy ideally just from their ability to pump workers so much faster.
Sorry to target you here dude, but I HATE IT when people are like "oh zerg can saturate so fast cos of larva herp derp".
People conveniently forget that we CAN'T make army and workers at the same time. If there is any threat/pressure, Zerg can't make any workers at all. If Zerg wants to make an army for early game pressure, can't make workers. Sure Zerg can saturate faster, provided the other person is doing nothing at all. But that player would be a bad player.
|
Dear Blizzard, Nerf rock, Paper is fine, yours sincerely, Scissors.
|
On November 17 2010 20:23 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 15:36 Cambam wrote:
I can't believe how many people believe that zerg needs to be ahead economically to be even with their opponent. As I said earlier, why don't any of the casters/commentators ever say something like "It's 50 drones to 40 probes, things are looking pretty even" or "40 drones to 40 probes, looks like zerg is in trouble!" If this is such a well-known "fact" of the game, why aren't any commentators talking like this? Why do they all seem to talk like drones are worth just as much as SCVs or probes? Because there's about 2.5 casters that actually understand macro, and Z mineral lines are never going to be as fully saturated as P or T, because the extra minerals are wasted. It's about gas, and the amount of it needed for a Z army to compete. It's amusing that you're talking about this as if it was a purely arbitrary decision by Zergs to require an extra base, without realizing that it was a natural progression of the game in order for Z to compete. Not only that, but the Zerg answer to the strength of the P/T ball (this goes for BW as well) is mobility and positioning, therefore the extra base also works to grab the attention of your opponent. If it was just 2 base vs 2 base and all they needed to do was push your natural, the Z would be crushed every time. There's nothing wrong with making an extra production hatchery in your base (this is carried from BW as well) but you do need the gas advantage.
This. Have you ever tried to produce an army that contains Mutalisks and Infestors? The amount of gas you need is INSANE. If I have 5 bases running, 3 of the will be almost saturated, 2 of them will be mining gas only.
As soon as you transition into T3, you need even MORE gas. The only time you don't need absurd amounts of gas as Zerg is if you're going for some kind of Roach/Hydra/Speedling only army which in my experience only applies to ZvZ (plus Infestors later). If you don't have very good gas income you can't make tier 3, and you can't make the amount of Mutas you need for them to be good.
Obviously if you're going for T1 units exclusively with Hydras added on you can build a Hatch in base, but this doesn't even apply to 2 matchups in game.
Infestors, Mutalisks, and Tier 3 are amazing units, and you need HUGE amounts of gas to support it. That means, you need expansions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
