| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
archon256
United States363 Posts
On November 17 2010 21:38 Tevinhead wrote: Dear Blizzard, Nerf rock, Paper is fine, yours sincerely, Scissors. ...what. This thread has nothing to do with balance, why are you posting that here? | ||
|
Tmaista
Norway5 Posts
| ||
|
Terrifyer
United States338 Posts
On November 17 2010 18:29 Acritter wrote: 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. Well, you do put words in my mouth a sure lot so it's rather pointless to argue with you. Did I say to expo when being pressured constantly? Nope. I put a 3rd hatch in my base all the time, however with an another hatch at an expo soon after (hopefully). Game situations vary, obviously, dude. However I'm sticking with the fact that if you let a toss stay on 2 bases with your 2 bases for a decent amount of time, your toast. | ||
Cambam
United States360 Posts
On November 17 2010 21:55 Terrifyer wrote: Well, you do put words in my mouth a sure lot so it's rather pointless to argue with you. Did I say to expo when being pressured constantly? Nope. I put a 3rd hatch in my base all the time, however with an another hatch at an expo soon after (hopefully). Game situations vary, obviously, dude. However I'm sticking with the fact that if you let a toss stay on 2 bases with your 2 bases for a decent amount of time, your toast. I agree. My point is that until you're both fully saturated on 2 bases, 2 base vs 2 base is equal. Until you're fully saturated on 2 base as zerg, you can't support 3 hatch worth of production, just like protoss can't support 6 gate 2 robo off two unsaturated bases. The "being up one base" thing is like telling a protoss he has to have 6 gate 2 robo before his 2 bases are saturated. It's unnecessary and detrimental. Just as a protoss can have only 6 while saturating and then throw down 2 robo later, there's nothing wrong with zerg sitting on 2 hatch 2 queen until saturation and then throwing down a 3rd hatch (in base or at an expo, depending on the game situation). if you let a toss stay on 2 bases with your 2 bases for a decent amount of time, your toast. My whole point is that there are windows of time that exist where it's ok to be on equal bases with P or T, and then I agree it's time to expand or throw down an extra hatch. I think this is what people mean when they say zerg needs to be "1/2 a base" ahead. I'm trying to dispel the idea that you can tell a zerg that lost to a 6 gate push (with both players having 2 unsaturated bases) that he lost because he didn't have a 3rd. | ||
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 Posts
| ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
I'm so tired of everyone spouting off this misconception all the time. It needs to stop. It's not true and is responsible for hundreds of empty responses to zerg help threads (why'd I lose? because you both had 2 bases and zerg has to be ahead in bases). Allow me to explain... First of all, anyone who thinks that zerg needs to be ahead in bases to have a stronger economy is seriously misguided. This is the worst way to interpret the saying and its ridiculous to think the game is balanced around the assumption that zerg must always have a better economy then their opponent stoped reading here. ALL races needs to be ahead in bases to get a economy advantage. if u are on equal or lower bases then the oponent then you are not winning the game imho. its always good to be ahead in bases for all the races, not just zerg. with zerg tho its highly advantageous because of the way they spawn units. extra hatches means extra units. mind as well make that extra hatch at an expansion. | ||
|
RoarMan
Canada745 Posts
On November 17 2010 21:55 Terrifyer wrote: Well, you do put words in my mouth a sure lot so it's rather pointless to argue with you. Did I say to expo when being pressured constantly? Nope. I put a 3rd hatch in my base all the time, however with an another hatch at an expo soon after (hopefully). Game situations vary, obviously, dude. However I'm sticking with the fact that if you let a toss stay on 2 bases with your 2 bases for a decent amount of time, your toast. Which is why the OP wrote a thread like this lol. The Op does have some interesting points, it's really Zerg's lack of production off two hatch and the fact that it's clearly better to have the 3rd hatch at an expansion that leads people to this closed mind set of "Oh gg 2 bases to 2 bases." Although if the OP didn't label it a rant and wasn't being so obtrusive, he would have reached out to more people. And if more people actually read the OP instead of people replying to it, they themselves would have a better idea. | ||
|
RoarMan
Canada745 Posts
On November 18 2010 00:02 Ballistixz wrote: stoped reading here. ALL races needs to be ahead in bases to get a economy advantage. if u are on equal or lower bases then the oponent then you are not winning the game imho. its always good to be ahead in bases for all the races, not just zerg. with zerg tho its highly advantageous because of the way they spawn units. extra hatches means extra units. mind as well make that extra hatch at an expansion. If you continued reading I think you'd reach the same conclusion as the OP. EDIT: whoops double | ||
|
iSiN
United States1075 Posts
Perhaps the OP is just the greatest troll ever sigh | ||
|
Fa1nT
United States3423 Posts
On November 17 2010 21:43 archon256 wrote: ...what. This thread has nothing to do with balance, why are you posting that here? Because he is trying to be witty by posting something that is not only not witty, but something he did not coin. | ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
EDIT: I don't think Zergs approve or are nazis. This is just historical evidence based on World War Second. | ||
|
iSiN
United States1075 Posts
On November 18 2010 00:22 Kurumi wrote: I thought we are over this? The reason Zerg FE'd in beta and right now is to have a chance to win. While Protoss and Terran have GREAT advantage from having their ramps in mains Zerg is only CRIPPLED. That's because we actually have no unit to take advantage of that.(Like Day9 said Zerg is missing unit to control zones;chokes ramps high ground) The thing about Hatcheries,production and economy is pretty simple, fighting with armies of P and T needs huge sacrifice (like half of Zerglings before they actually make it to a mid-game Terran mech) and Zerg needs to replenish its forces as fast as it can. It's just like Germany in WW2,despite having one of the best soldiers number of their men was too few to compare with Alliants also problems about oil,tank numbers and such. They just couldn't afford "getting more men" because their problems about oil and tank numbers would be EVEN bigger. Why I am comparing it? Well,choices made by Germany was JUST LIKE larva management - do that,You can't do anything else for a brief amount of time! Did you just call zerg players nazis? (SAD PANDA) | ||
|
Ladygaga
Norway16 Posts
One base roach always ends the game ahead in bases compared to their opponents? | ||
|
PatouPower
Canada1119 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? Lolwut? So you are comparing an equal cost hydra/roach army, middle tech units, to a gateway army, early tech units? Roach/hydras ARE the counter to gateway units, it is just normal that they counter such armies. But the fact here is that when you have an hydra/roaches army, the protoss should have something like HTs, and then, good luck about your equal bases (that is if you aren't already dead by the time you teched to hydras). | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
Even 2 base vs 2 base, they can match you in army and then make more workers, so they have a higher income. So you need 3 base realistically especially since this is when zerg starts to require a bigger army size to win. | ||
|
goldrush
Canada709 Posts
In ZvP, Collosi are extremely hard to beat two base versus two base because you don't ahve the gas to tech and produce the mid-tier units. While it's possible to go early game with the same number of bases, the zerg army gets less and less cost-effective as time goes on (e.g. Zerglings work fine against a small gateway army, but just melt later on against a larger gateway army, even if you outnumber them by the same proportions). Furthermore, their gas-intensive midgame units rely heavily upon critical mass. It costs so much to get upgrades, produce those midgame units, and tech, that you pretty much need that extra base once you hit the midgame. | ||
|
dreamend
64 Posts
On November 17 2010 10:15 Cambam wrote: There is a kernel of truth in the saying, but most people don't understand and take it way too literally. The truth has to do with production capabilities. Zerg doesn't have production buildings, only hatcheries and queens. This makes production comparisons with the other two races difficult. The essence of the saying is that zerg must stay equal with their opponent in production capability. The phrase should really be "zerg needs to be ahead in hatches" or "zerg needs to have more hatches than their opponent has bases". For example, if we think of a hatchery with a queen as roughly 1 nexus and 3 gateways worth of production, we can see the reason people say "zerg must be ahead in bases". In PvP, all else being equal, you can't win 3 gate vs. 4 gate. Same goes for ZvP. You can't hold off a 4 gate with just a hatchery and a queen. You'll simply get outproduced. However, if you have your main hatch, a queen AND an expo, you will have the production capabilities to be on par with a 4 gate. Similarly, 2 hatch + 2 queen isn't necessarily behind a 2 base protoss. If we continue on with the 1 nexus + 3 gate analogy, the zerg would have 2 nexi and 6 gates. This is a common amount of gates to have on 2 bases as toss (at least for a while). The zerg is not behind and does not need a 3rd base! If the protoss later adds on another 2 or 3 gates, then and only then would the zerg need to throw down a 3rd hatch (not necessarily a 3rd mineral/gas mining "base"). Seriously what are you basing this on? 1800 diamond experience? do you think top Zergs just mindlessly follow this 'you need to be ahead in bases' rule?' You're not basing your points on having, just saying shit with no explanation like '1 hatch and 1 queen is equal to 3 gateways' wtf? how do you work this out? why are you even thinking this way? But for the most part: Zerg should be ahead in income. A equal cost Protoss army -demolishes- an equal cost Zerg army in the mid-game. Think of how much Hydra/Roach/Corruptor Zergs are having to make in the mid-game just to deflect a protoss Stalker/Colossi army. It actually makes me angry that people think cost efficiency is meaningful, or that they try to precisely compare zerg production/protoss production. You can't do that. | ||
|
Snuggles
United States1865 Posts
Personally I like the idea of having to be continually expanding and staying ahead of the opponent, it feels very "zerg-esque" to me when you think about how zerg infests and contaminates areas with their creep. Arguing that we can sit on the same number of bases and harvesters is really silly. I mean, how many times have you seen a 200/200 toss lose to a 200/200 zerg head-on? Exactly, not too often, if at all. | ||
|
AidanS
39 Posts
Zerg needing to be ahead in bases to win isn't true, but seems true because 99% of the time Z expands at least 1 base ahead on the path to victory. Even if they could have won without that expansion. The lower initial cost and high benefit of a hatch compared to a nexus for example means that a Z player never cuts an expansion when ahead in order to try finish things now. Z armies are just as strong as P or T armies. At least for the moment with how things commonly play out. Currently at least with T favoring the marine and siege nerfed an equal sized Z and T battle can go either way with a crushing victory to one side or the other thanks to the baneling. P v Z armies are equal on equal supply but Z is way ahead on equal cost armies. The stalker is to blame since you need a bunch of them not to get mutaed, but while they fare well for supply Vs the roach they get murdered for cost. When the hydra was used instead of the roach it was more favorable to P but the current roach preference has weakened the collossi as it takes more of them to start one shotting rows of Z units. Late, late game when you get HTs with all the trimmings then P is more cost effective again, but this comes super late because of the need to tech robo first to not die to heavy roach builds and in order to scout past the first 2 lings popping. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10700 Posts
As long as Terran or Protoss are on Marine/Marauder/Medivac or Zealot/Stalker/Sentrie Zerg doesn't need more bases (at least not until T/P have fully saturated their 2 bases). But as soon as Tanks, Immortals or/and Colossus enter the field there is no way in hell a Zerg will be able to beat you cost efficient if T or P does not do a terrible positioning mistake. To win on even bases you need to win cost efficient... Zerg isn't able to do that as soon as the hard hitters of P/T join the party. | ||
| ||
|
|
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
CSO Cup
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Online Event
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
