EPT[Rant] Zerg need to be ahead in bases - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
NotSupporting
Sweden1998 Posts
| ||
|
hiyo_bye
United States737 Posts
On November 17 2010 13:42 mOnion wrote: 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! Can you elaborate? I dont see what's wrong with looking at the price for expansions to analyze this a bit. I also don't see why this should be related to real world economics. Frankly your post is pretty useless and I guess I should just ignore it but I'm interested. Also, that extra drone has an opportunity cost in mining time, but Zerg does spawn workers faster than the other races so it mitigates that, though overall the hatch price seems at least as expensive as nexus and cc | ||
|
TheGreatHegemon
61 Posts
On November 18 2010 01:55 hiyo_bye wrote: Can you elaborate? I dont see what's wrong with looking at the price for expansions to analyze this a bit. I also don't see why this should be related to real world economics. Frankly your post is pretty useless and I guess I should just ignore it but I'm interested. Also, that extra drone has an opportunity cost in mining time, but Zerg does spawn workers faster than the other races so it mitigates that, though overall the hatch price seems at least as expensive as nexus and cc Because it's incorrect. When a Zerg expands, it ups their military production as well. For a Terran/Protoss, if you expand you must also factor in additional Rax/Gateways/factories/etcetera. If anything, Zerg's expos are the cheapest because of this by a large margin. Consider, as well, that ramping up Zerg production ability (NOT the actual tech structures, though), requires no gas. Whereas if Protoss go anything other than gate/Terran go anything other than rax, our expansion requires gas to increase production to utilize the additional income. | ||
|
Invictus
Singapore2697 Posts
The thing is, zergs have inefficient units.The only way zergs can win is to flank with an overwhelming amount of units so any sort of stutter shot can be eliminated. I feel that the flaw is that people have already accepted that zerg needs to have one base up from their counterparts as a hard proven fact, which is PARTIALLY correct. 90% of the time, you NEED to have that extra expo up and running so that you can have enough gas to try and continue production. However, what people are intepreting is that its ABSOLUTELY a MUST to get a 3rd expo up and running without any heed. The problem to this is so plain. Zerg players are just playing rigidly and are thinking they have to be one base up. So even if their opponent is doing a timing push from 2 base, they try to stupidly take an expo and let it get sniped. It is PARAMOUNT that zerg tries to stay on equal footing with their counterparts, but it is the way that they do it that is actually causing the confusion here. 2 base zerg to 2 base toss would slowly but surely shift the advantage over to the toss, who have much more efficient units(thanks to the sentry and colossus) and trying some sort of weird timing push would leave you in a disastrous position if your push fails. Hence, the "staying up one base" rule is something like the lesser evil compared to playing on even bases. I wouldn't bank on playing risky if I were zerg, after all, zerg expos are so much easily sniped by the other races compared to the much easier-to-defend expos of T and P due to their unit efficiency(siege tanks, bunkers, cannons, force fields, warp in yeah you get the gist.) All in all just play ADAPTIVELY. thats the main keyword of my argument. If i actually spouted something weird or contradicted myself thats probably cause I'm tired like crap and its 1am over here | ||
|
mOnion
United States5657 Posts
On November 18 2010 01:55 hiyo_bye wrote: Can you elaborate? I dont see what's wrong with looking at the price for expansions to analyze this a bit. I also don't see why this should be related to real world economics. Frankly your post is pretty useless and I guess I should just ignore it but I'm interested. Also, that extra drone has an opportunity cost in mining time, but Zerg does spawn workers faster than the other races so it mitigates that, though overall the hatch price seems at least as expensive as nexus and cc Only looking at the cost of the hatchery as the only variable for expanding is ignorant. there are a million other things to consider larvae production is upped. you'll get an additional queen for inject and creep creep spread for above reason zerg units are cheaper and weaker and need to be produced quickly zerg units are gas heavy so you need the additional gas and other things I cant think of right now. the economics analogy was merely pointing out that your initial post had lurking variables that you weren't addressing. | ||
|
NJO
27 Posts
| ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
doesnt matter how you look at it. the MORE bases you have over your opponent>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>equal bases. this just so happens to work out in favor of zerg more because zerg expansions double as an increase in economy AND army production. | ||
|
Attiicus
United States84 Posts
| ||
|
kataa
United Kingdom384 Posts
On November 18 2010 01:52 NotSupporting wrote: Omg, this thread is like the perfect example why I do no longer read threads in the strategy forum (where this thread belongs). Too often it starts out with some poor argument that is totally undermined and not at all investigated. Then a few hours later the thread it completely filled page after page with people who think they all know whats up and 95% have next to no clue what they are talking about. So you end up looking through 10+ pages to find any decent post at all. It really is annoying when someone makes a thread on a topic that goes ten pages on a topic which was pretty much answered in something like the day9 daily. You can't think of Zerg units as just their mins/gas cost, but also how much larva you spend on them. All this "OMFG ROACH LING IS COST EFFECTIVE" stuff is annoying. Totally ignoring the fact the zerg dumped insane amounts of larva into a unit that dies in a few hits. | ||
|
Eknoid4
United States902 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). Zealots, colossi carriers, void rays, dark templar, motherships, and not being an idiot would like to speak to you. Not to mention you are talking in a vacuum which is just obnoxious. a single wall of zealots nullifies a equal resources of lings with ridiculous efficiency. Same with colossus and to an extent blink stalkers. And if you are only making one unit type every game, your problem isn't game balance. | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
On November 18 2010 02:56 kataa wrote: It really is annoying when someone makes a thread on a topic that goes ten pages on a topic which was pretty much answered in something like the day9 daily. You can't think of Zerg units as just their mins/gas cost, but also how much larva you spend on them. All this "OMFG ROACH LING IS COST EFFECTIVE" stuff is annoying. Totally ignoring the fact the zerg dumped insane amounts of larva into a unit that dies in a few hits. ^ this i want to emphasize something again that ive been saying for the last 2 pages now. 2 base protoss/terran vs 3 base+3 queen zerg>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 base protoss/terran vs 2 base +2 queen zerg. that ONE extra base is more production AND more economy. that is the advantage of a zerg. ALL of there units including peons come from ONE building, and that ONE building just so happens to be a building that collects minerals/gas. a zerg on equal bases will find themselves struggling mainly because a equaled base zerg will heavily be reliant on queens. if a toss/terran snipes off a queen and you are on equal bases then you can kiss whatever equality you had good bye. by loosing that one queen while on equal bases will put your army production significantly behind. a toss will just be able to warp in even more units/chrono boost and terrans mule it up. they do not have to fear having there macro machanics sniped off because it all comes from a building. zerg however comes from a unit that has 150 HP and can easily be sniped off. and once that happens it is very unforgiving if you a re on equal bases. but i guess you have to play as a zerg a good number of times to understand that. the OP of this thread clearly does not understand this. | ||
|
lindn
Sweden833 Posts
| ||
|
pwadoc
271 Posts
| ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
On November 18 2010 03:18 pwadoc wrote: No one in this thread has managed to prove that zerg units are not cost effective. and the vice versa can be said. | ||
|
Allscorpion
United Kingdom319 Posts
| ||
|
pwadoc
271 Posts
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. | ||
|
Eknoid4
United States902 Posts
in 9 pages if nobody has proven anything i think it's evidence that the thread shouldn't even have been made. | ||
|
Cambam
United States360 Posts
I know it's not the best way, but it's a start; several people have run unit tester comparisons and posted in this thread about the early zerg army winning without micro. If you want micro and real game situations, me and other zergs and protoss have spoken from experience that equal cost roach/ling, roach only, ling/hydra, roach/hydra or ling/roach/hydra armies can easily go toe to toe with zealot/stalker/sentry armies. I don't know why anyone would claim otherwise. If mass gateway (without templar tech) is so strong, why does toss even bother with colossi? Why isn't every toss just going 2 base 9 gate every game? How is the 4 gate stoppable? I have about 50 replays of me holding off 4 gates with a smaller cost ling/hydra spine crawler army (yes, including the cost of spine crawlers). Some people will say that hydra is higher tech, but other people in this thread are arguing that ling/hydra or roach/hydra armies can't beat zealot/stalker/sentry. Seriously, wtf? 4 gate should never lose by that logic. | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
Zerg mainly need the extra Hatcheries to keep up with the production as their economy kicks in.(Like a Terran needs to add more production facilities when he is reaching a higher saturation). The thing about this is that if you are getting an extra hatch you might as well think in the longer term and put it into an expansion. This has the Bonus that Zerg can't really defend a ramp, they fare better in open ground so taking your natural earlier(which ids normally more open) makes it easier to defend for Zerg. OP's argument is that, we shouldn't spread the thing about Zerg being disadvantaged at equal bases, its about the Zerg being mostly outproduced at 2 hatcheries. IE: If a Terran posted a replay where he only built 1 Barrack during all the game, but still used mules, didn't get supply blocked etc etc people should tell him that he needed to step up his production capabilities. Same with a Zerg, Hatcheries are great, but they are your only production Buildings, by the time you have 2 saturated bases chances are that you will need more hatcheries(not bases, but as many mentioned there are many perks to taking an expo) This is of course the opinion of a terrible player like me. But his point is that we shouldn't just automatically assume that Zerg need higher income to survive. Higher income is a key to winning but that is the case for all 3 Races. | ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
| ||
| ||
