|
EDIT: Here are some posts that help clarify my message from some awesome posters:
+ Show Spoiler +UPDATE: Added counter-argument & rebuttal section
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 the point of being a base up is to have a better economy in order to stay equal with your opponent, has missed the point. 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.
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").
As you can see from the last example, being ahead in hatches isn't very clear cut. It's a continuum, not a hard set rule. You don't need 2 hatches as soon as the game starts and you don't need 3 hatches the second your opponent expands.
And finally, the saying is only true in the very specific situation of when you're both producing standard armies and throwing them at each other (e.g. 4 gate vs. ling/roach). Think of it this way, if we applied the same logic to PvP, the advice would be "you have to have the same amount of production buildings as your opponent". Does that ring true to you? What if you get cannons? What if you forgo a gate to get a quicker expo? Clearly its not true in PvP, and I wish people would realize it's not always true in ZvX.
Please stop misunderstanding this idea and trivializing zerg help threads. There's nothing more frustrating than losing an intense, close game, going to TL for advice, and 50% of the posts saying this bullshit. This mentality is putting a damper on thinking and preventing people from actually analyzing zerg replays. C'mon TL, I know you can analyze better than this:
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/qU6Gq.png)
Let's move past this simplistic way of thinking towards a more helpful and constructive TL!
/rant
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS & REBUTTALS:
+ Show Spoiler +It's better to take an expansion than throw down an in base hatch
Yes, usually. But there are cases when it's safer/better to get an in base hatch, rather than take a vulnerable extra expansion when you don't need the extra income, only the extra larva. Zergs lose games by following this rule too blindly.
Zerg needs more gas than the other 2 races and thus more bases
Ask a protoss player going sentry/stalker/colossi or immortal/high templar how little gas they need. Ask a terran player using some combination of ghosts/thors/tanks and upgrades how little gas they need. On the other hand, zerg can mass roach/hydra with +2/+2 upgrades off two bases comfortably (and still have enough gas for 6-8 corruptors in time for colossi). My point is that for all three races, different strategies require different amounts of gas and zerg is no different from the other two. Obviously, I agree that if you are going mutaling, ultralisks, broodlords, or heavy infestors, you're going to need extra bases for more gas. But if you're playing kyrix aggressive zerg style (ling/roach/hydra) you don't have to be up a base at all times. If you can be, that's great, but you're not necessarily behind if you're not.
You're crazy! A protoss on 2 fully saturated bases with 6 gate 2 robo will crush a 2 hatch 2 queen zerg.
I agree! My point is that there is a window leading up to full saturation in which 2 hatch 2 queen is equal with 2 base protoss. Say both players are at 40 workers and toss only has 6 gates and no robo yet. 2 hatch 2 queen is perfectly fine for this situation. Zerg does not need to be "up a base" yet. Ideally, zerg's 3rd hatch should be finishing as protoss's 2 robo finishes.
|
if i was watching 2 equally skilled players i would be extremely shocked if a zerg beat a toss on equal base unless there was some kind of timing attack win by zerg or it was a 2 base mass gate all in or something by toss.
also, of course you don't need a third the second toss or terran takes their second but the longer you play on equal bases the farther behind you will fall. It's not a matter of production capabilities. It's a matter of cost effectiveness.
|
Excellent post, and I agree 100%. The main principle, though, is that if a Z player is going to build a new hatch... well, they may as well build it at an expansion. Zerg units are pretty quick to move across the map, it helps take the pressure off your natural, and gains you extra income once it gets up and running.
I guess a key thing to take home is that expansions should be considered production first, income-generation second!
|
I have a replay to support the OPs argument I will post when I get home.
|
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.
|
On November 17 2010 10:23 lowercase wrote:
Excellent post, and I agree 100%. The main principle, though, is that if a Z player is going to build a new hatch... well, they may as well build it at an expansion. Zerg units are pretty quick to move across the map, it helps take the pressure off your natural, and gains you extra income once it gets up and running.
I guess a key thing to take home is that expansions should be considered production first, income-generation second!
Good point, I forgot to mention this in the OP. I agree. However, in some situations it's too risky to take a 3rd and there's nothing wrong with throwing down a 3rd hatch in your main. As long as you saturate your main and nat, you should be fine against a 2 base toss. Proponents of the saying would disagree  , but I hope my post has dispelled that myth.
|
They don't need to be, but they SHOULD be because they have an easier time expanding(disregarding destructible BS).
|
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.
|
The majority of zerg units, particularly lategame units, are gas-intensive. Since gas is limited at each base, the zerg needs more bases to gather enough gas to produce units. However, zerg does have cheap gas units like roaches and zerglings as well. That is why it is not always necessary for zerg to have more bases. But in these cases, most would call the zerg play "all-in" or very aggressive because the player does not stockpile enough gas for lategame production. In these cases, the zerg must do some damage to stay even.
Production facilities don't have much to do with bases because in-base hatches remain viable, though not as popular as they were in BW.
|
Yup agreed.
HollowLord said it well, you don't need to be, but because of Zerg's reactionary style, going 1 base ahead helps a lot. But reactionary isn't the only way to play Zerg, of course. Downside to reactionary zerg play is that usually you have more expansions and a bigger economy and therefore you eat your resources map, so if the game goes into the late late game you usually run out of resources first (on your side of the map at least)
I don't think you mean what you say here, OP:
First of all, anyone who thinks that zerg needs to be ahead in bases to have a stronger economy is seriously misguided.
Should be "First of all, anyone who thinks that zerg needs to have a stronger economy by being ahead in bases is seriously misguided"
Is that what you meant? Otherwise I disagree; of course you need more bases (including the workers xD) to have a stronger economy.
|
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.
|
It's not really about having 2 bases it's about production capability. If a Zerg, Terran, and Protoss all have 2 bases and produce armies, the Zerg army will be inferior.
I should note that even if you add a 3rd in-base hatchery you will still be unable to produce efficiently from all 3 Hatcheries for a very long period. The hatchery will begin to drastically absorb your resources, making your expansion capability decrease, slightly.
|
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?
|
On November 17 2010 10:41 Cambam wrote:Show nested quote +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).
|
I think there are certain equal-base builds that are temporarily viable with an extra in base hatch, but i still think the statement is generally true. Zerg really needs (op. bases+ 1/2 op. bases) worth of hatcheries to produce an army capable of going toe to toe with the opposition. I think having a fully saturated extra base puts the zerg at a definite lead, a slightly saturated one making it reasonably even and an in-base hatch putting them a touch behind (but only if the op has two saturated bases up and running)
It's less cost efficiency, and more production. Most people don't make in base hatches, they'll just take an expansion and not bother to saturate it.
|
Agreed. Thank you for emphasizing the difference between economy and production. Zerg used to actually have to be ahead in bases because many of their units were not optimally cost-effective, but this is no longer the case with 4-range Roach. I hope players start taking this advice and investing the relatively low cost of building a Hatchery in-base to keep pumping out units instead of risking everything on an expansion that they then have to defend feverishly against a million and a half pushes and harassments.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
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?
|
Zerg grabs a economical advantage (against protoss, I only play ZvP as my Zerg match up, I'm a Protoss player.) by droning faster than the Protoss.
Then the zerg is able to start making a lot of units off 2 hatcheries, and usually the 2 hatches + 2 queens won't be enough to put all your income to use so then you grab your third very effectively, and dillute your saturation once it comes.
That's generally what the zerg wants. Taking a third too early isn't all that useful, because you may lose it to a 2 base timing that a protoss could be doing.
Against 1 base timings like 4 gate or blink stalkers, obviously you don't just keep spamming drones, you have to get stuff to defend.
If the protoss went for 2 bases but isn't doing a timing push, he will be behind on probes, but if he's teching accordingly he may not necessarily be behind (but difficult for protoss mid-game awaits.)
After your bases are saturated and you start pumping out hydra/roach or muta/ling (whichever is your mid-game preference based on map, although you probably need less drones for mutaling.)
The zerg will have enough money off 2 bases to both pump units off 2 hatches and get an extra hatch. He should generally put that hatch down at his expo, however, it is probably the toughest to face a zerg when he's still on 2 bases and playing very aggressively. Zerg can generally cut the protoss army size down or at least force a lot of forcefields, generally lots of sentries = colossus/sentry/stalker mid-game, so then zerg goes spire (if he went hydra/roach.) If zerg went muta-ling and Protoss went mass sentry/stalker into colo, the protoss is definitely all in, because Colo's are too much supply and do nothing to mutas, so he will have to push and he will probably lose 1 mineral line to mutas, and they'll still make it back to defend.
This is just what I'm noticing from PvZ/ZvP.
Since it seems like it's not possible to do damage to zerg mid-game before he's droned without either tricking him or being forced to fully commit to an-allinish attack, the most dangerous period of PvZ for me seems while the Zerg is still on 2 bases with many drones, building a large army. Then once he's on 3 bases he will either starve you out, or if you get an expansion up he will be forced to play more passively and you will be transition smoothly into late-game.
|
I think, if anything, the OP is misguided here.
Zergs, please (PLEASE) continue to take your 3rd at ~12 minutes. Z's power lies in rebuilding their army in moments; are we doing that off one or two bases?
|
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.
|
I was talking to a friend the other day (who plays z) and he asked me why Zerg always needs to be ahead in bases, sadly my Poor Protoss brain didn't know what to do. I tried to explain it, but I stopped when I realized that I never really though about it, because it was just a fact in Brood War, and I'd come to accept it. I would truly be interested if some one had some insightful knowledge on this because, I wonder why it has become such an accepted notion.
|
It's been said numerous times in this thread but... Zerg needs to build extra hatches anyway or they'll get overrun in production, so why not build your extra hatches next to minerals/gas? That way you can mine from there and get the additional larva capacity, kinda kills two birds with one stone.
|
I don't think you mean what you say here, OP:
First of all, anyone who thinks that zerg needs to be ahead in bases to have a stronger economy is seriously misguided.
You're right, that did come out a little unclear. What I was trying to say was that people who think zerg needs to have a better income than their opponent to be equal with them are misguided. That would be a horrible design/balance decision and it would be super imbalanced for zerg. Luckily, it's not true. You never hear casters say "It's 50 drones to 40 probes, so things are about equal..."
|
Yeah I can tell you from experience, zerg must have a higher resource income in order to deal with protoss / terran. Now note that I said "resource income" 9 times out of 10 zerg has to have more bases than an opponent but in rare cases such as a protoss who goes 2 base 6 gate timing attack and cut's a ton of probes the zerg would stay at his natural keep up drone production and take a delayed third base but this is one of the only exceptions.
|
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.
|
On November 17 2010 10:53 Machine[USA] wrote:
Yeah I can tell you from experience, zerg must have a higher resource income in order to deal with protoss / terran. Now note that I said "resource income" 9 times out of 10 zerg has to have more bases than an opponent but in rare cases such as a protoss who goes 2 base 6 gate timing attack and cut's a ton of probes the zerg would stay at his natural keep up drone production and take a delayed third base but this is one of the only exceptions.
^
I respect your opinion as you're a much better player than me, but I feel like you have this feeling because a lot of Protosses take too long to expand to their third. Massing Colossus/stalker/sentry on 2 bases even if you're fully saturated is going to be an all-in against a zerg who already has his third up, so if the Protoss wants to continue later into the game (I think most try not to,) they will start taking their third faster, so it will not seem like you're a base ahead of them for too long.
Do you think this sounds plausible?
|
For zerg to have equal footing in the midgame, zerg should have 1 more base. Also, they could have probalby 2 or 3 more hatcheries than the opponent's number of bases. Reason for having 1 more base than the other guy is because your opponent(protoss or terran) can build workers from their cc/nexus while you make your drones and army units from your hatchery. That extra base allows you to keep up steady production of drones while still being able to macro up an army.
You could say just build an additional hatch in your main or nat but it is more efficient to make another hatchery at another base so you can start mining as well. Zerg has two options, make a hatch in their base or expand. Most times its expand because of the option to also gather resources.
|
It's not essentially true that Zerg needs to be ahead by one base, but it is entirely, objectively true that they need to be in order to ramp up their macro.
EDIT: I'm thinking of switching to Zerg from Terran, it's so much greener! Seriously :D
|
The point is they need one more hatch than their opponent. Not necessarily 1 more base, but there's no reason not to lay your third at a mineral patch (though FD almost always goes 3 hatch on 2 base)
|
Hilarious post well done.
|
The #1 reason that Zerg need to be ahead of any race is because we need the gas more then almost any race.
Once we start any tier 2 or tier 3 production of units, you generally end up with 0 gas.
We NEED those extra gases to be able to efficiently macro.
But in the end, it really just depends on what build order a Zerg player is doing.
|
This is simply not true in ZvT, if Terran is equal bases, you will be down 12 workers. Full saturation from both players is essnetiall 24 on minerals at each base and 6 on gas, well Terran can have 24 on minerals at each base, 6 on gas and 1 mule per base. Since mules mine uninterupted by scv's, it is equivalent to having an additional 6 scv's per mule. (1 scv mines 5 minerals, 5 x 6= 30, mules mine 30) There for if the Zerg wants to be able to keep up with Terran 2 base vs 2 base, well they can't. You need to have a third base with atleast 12 drones mining to be exactly even.
|
great post. one base zerg is quite scary, its strange that zerg is the weakest race yet they are the most willing to expand early.
|
Zerg don't need to always be a full base up in SC2 like they do in BW, but they definitely need to at least be taking expansions before their opponent. If a Protoss or Terran is taking expansions freely before a Zerg then that's definitely a losing battle.
|
On November 17 2010 10:56 Acritter wrote:
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.
Thank you Acritter! Very well put. I often play against 15 nexus into 6 or 7 gate push and I win all the time by staying on 2 hatch 2 queen and defending with roach/hydra, instead of throwing down a vulnerable 3rd base that gives me unneeded income and production. Then I expand after I hold the push or after my army is big enough to make me feel comfortable expanding and defending.
|
On November 17 2010 11:06 YellowNRed wrote:
This is simply not true in ZvT, if Terran is equal bases, you will be down 12 workers. Full saturation from both players is essnetiall 24 on minerals at each base and 6 on gas, well Terran can have 24 on minerals at each base, 6 on gas and 1 mule per base. Since mules mine uninterupted by scv's, it is equivalent to having an additional 6 scv's per mule. (1 scv mines 5 minerals, 5 x 6= 30, mules mine 30) There for if the Zerg wants to be able to keep up with Terran 2 base vs 2 base, well they can't. You need to have a third base with atleast 12 drones mining to be exactly even.
While your post is partly true, the point you're missing is that terran produces scv's much slower than zerg or protoss. Hence, Zerg can be equal on 2 bases vs a 2 base terran for a certain amount of time. Once the terran reaches full saturation + mules, you're right, the zerg needs to have a 3rd. But there is a substantial amount of time where it is ok to be 2 base vs. 2 base against terran.
|
The #1 reason that Zerg need to be ahead of any race is because we need the gas more then almost any race.
Once we start any tier 2 or tier 3 production of units, you generally end up with 0 gas.
We NEED those extra gases to be able to efficiently macro.
But in the end, it really just depends on what build order a Zerg player is doing.
I feel like as Protoss I need tons of gas. I need a lot of sentries to be safe against roach all-inns which are almost impossible for protoss to scout due to creep.
I need to get a robo eventually or I can auto-loss to burrowed roaches. I can try to get a robo and obs fast instead of sentries (get immortals,) but I still need to expand before I do this, and then I won't be able to get enough defenses if my obs scouts mutas (because robo and immortals is really horrible tech against mutas obvsly.)
So I can't just go robo blindly too fast, so I have to go with the sentries, and probably forge (eventually,) in order to get detection and get upgrades going, so at this point I can't really know if he's going mutas, so the only semi-safe tech option becomes Twilight Council, because robo will still get demolished by mutas (I will just have to put up so many cannons that I should probably just 'gg' and alt-qq.) So I'm going Twilight Council, which is gateway-tech really, so I'm gonna need more gateways, which cost a ton of minerals, so that probably means I coulnd't have gotten my 2nd base gases too fast (obviously i can get them fast if I want to all-in, but if teching and pumping probes it's tough. So now I'm going twilight council tech with little gas because I couldn't save it as I was getting so many sentries fast early on and I've been on 2 geysers for a long time, because I must BOTH pump probes AND add gateways, otherwise I'm either all-in or stupid.
So at some point in this gas-starved mess I have to do a timing attack in order to make sure that he didn't do something super-greedy like take his third before lair, or get absolutely no units, and that's when I get to scout whether it's roaches or mutas, he could still trick me by defending with roaches, but that won't be too bad.
If he's going muta I get blink and keep pumping stalkers, while preparing some kind of push, most likely archon-stalker (quite possibly out of a dark-shrine tech, sicne I won't have money for storm for a while anyways) with good upgrades.
If he's going hydra-roach I need to try to either expand so that I could afford the gas for both immortals and templar, or I need to tech to templar off 2 bases, and hope to do a lot of damage like that (or if he's not expanding for whatever reason, hope to survive like that with just templar/immortal tech coming slowly due to how gas heavy that is on 2 bases, and cannons with zealot/sentry/stalker.
So no, I don't think that Zerg is necessarily the most gas-expensive race. At least not in the mid-game.
|
It's how the Zerg race was made. Did you ever play wc3? Human was exactly the same.
|
The extra gas from 3rd base opens up more options to your army. Especially some tech switch that can change the outcome of a game.
However I don't mind more Zerg players to think like OP, so I can continue to crash them in ladders.
|
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?
Rebuttal by doing a grudge match?
But in all seriousness, it's very hard for a Z player to keep advantage when it's 2 base to 2 base. The Z player tries to delay the 1st expo of the P player for as long as possible, because higher tech units like collosi off 2 base is pretty freakin' scary.
|
Wow op, your really not that smart. Zerg needs to be ahead because their units arent cost effective. You need a lot more of them to beat the other race's army. Similarly, zerg requires a lot of gas in order to get their better units out en masse- and in order to do that you need more bases.
It isnt because of production units. its because of the units themselves.
|
On November 17 2010 11:10 WniO wrote:
great post. one base zerg is quite scary, its strange that zerg is the weakest race yet they are the most willing to expand early.
Lol.
this thread is pretty terrible and your rant proves nothing
|
I think one way people mess up is that the type of units is different from the mixture of units.
All gateway units tells me what type of units you are using, but not the ratio. I believe that in the proper response ratios Zerg can do quite well.
|
yeah, um what's your current ranking? Because if your posting this and you aren't at least like 2000 diamond then you need to learn to play.
The problem with zerg is that their units aren't cost effective. Both terran and protoss units are significantly more cost effective against a zerg. Lets use mech as an exmaple. Can a 2 base zerg beat a 2 base terran when he goes mech? It's arguable, and there's a lot of factors to consider such as slow mobility and using nyduses, but in the end most likely the terran will rolfstomp the zerg. Same situation with protoss. A 2 basing toss who gets 16 probes at the minerals and 6 at the gas at each expo and makes none stop units will almost always beat the zerg. This is just from my experience and I don't have any replays to show this, but they will almost always beat a whatever unit combination zerg manages to go for. Being a base up allows zerg to just have more stuff than the opponent, so when a fight comes, while the opponent is more cost effective, zerg will just have more units.
And from my experience, I never had a production problem. If you keep your queens energy down with constant spits, the only unit you won't be able to produce out of 2 hatches constantly is zerglings, but iirc roaches and anything else is doable. If you want to go pure ling off 2 mining bases, you need another hatch.
Once again a lot of timing have to be considered. Like we can't just say 2 base z = 2 base p because a zerg can do a 2 base roach rush or something and kill the early expanding toss off, but that doesn't mean that on average 2 base toss is weaker than 2 base zerg.
here is my sc2 ranks in 1v1. I haven't played in months, but when I did I wasn't that bad. I play z
http://www.sc2ranks.com/team/3538519
|
On November 17 2010 11:17 Cambam wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 11:06 YellowNRed wrote:
This is simply not true in ZvT, if Terran is equal bases, you will be down 12 workers. Full saturation from both players is essnetiall 24 on minerals at each base and 6 on gas, well Terran can have 24 on minerals at each base, 6 on gas and 1 mule per base. Since mules mine uninterupted by scv's, it is equivalent to having an additional 6 scv's per mule. (1 scv mines 5 minerals, 5 x 6= 30, mules mine 30) There for if the Zerg wants to be able to keep up with Terran 2 base vs 2 base, well they can't. You need to have a third base with atleast 12 drones mining to be exactly even. While your post is partly true, the point you're missing is that terran produces scv's much slower than zerg or protoss. Hence, Zerg can be equal on 2 bases vs a 2 base terran for a certain amount of time. Once the terran reaches full saturation + mules, you're right, the zerg needs to have a 3rd. But there is a substantial amount of time where it is ok to be 2 base vs. 2 base against terran.
So your goal is to say what exactly? Why is it okay? I don't think it's okay at all. If you have such high resource collection rate, what in the world is WRONG with expanding? The gas income, as stated a million times in this thread, will become invaluable in the later stages of the game. 2 base brood lord or ultra isn't going to work out very well because you will 1) not have the gas, and 2) not have the production capability to have supporting units. The mentality of zerg should be to seek a 3rd as soon as possible, not to think "okay, it's fine and dandy for me to sit on 2 base because my opponent doesn't have the same income as me yet". Also remember zerg units have low hp in general and will die to equal cost armies of T and P if un-upgraded (upgrades also cost, you guessed it, gas).
|
The main characteristic of the Zerg is quantity over quality. This essentially means their units aren't as efficient.
Given that inefficiency, Zerg must have a better economy to overcome this. Luckily Zerg has mobile units good for map control that allows them to take their expansions easier.
Equal production capacity doesn't mean a thing, if the opposing army is more efficient.
|
Although, let us also remember that to a point "cost-effectiveness" is what you make it.
Terran and Protoss armies may be more cost-effective to the 1a-er, but someone who makes the most of the units could tip the scales toward Zerg...obviously this is only so effective, but it can make the difference in a battle.
|
On November 17 2010 10:42 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +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).
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 =/
|
On November 17 2010 11:10 WniO wrote:
great post. one base zerg is quite scary, its strange that zerg is the weakest race yet they are the most willing to expand early.
This thread is only a day old, right?
Ooo, it is.
Zerg is probably the strongest at the moment.
|
On November 17 2010 11:18 Kiarip wrote:
I feel like as Protoss I need tons of gas.
Yeah, I'm not really buying the argument that zerg needs more gas than other races. It depends on what army composition you're going for. Zerg has gas-heavy armies as do protoss and terran. Zerg has gas-light armies as do protoss and terran.
Also, I agree with a lot of posters that there are certain situations where you need to be a base ahead to be equal. I am by no means saying that zerg never has to be up a base. My point is that it's not a hard set rule. There are many, many situations where you don't need to be ahead in bases or even hatches to be equal.
|
Stim, medivacs, siege mode and forcefields greatly increase the efficiency of Terran and Protoss units, and Zerg has absolutely nothing like this. Hence, zerg needs MORE units(i.e. more bases/economy) to combat the increasingly effective units of the other races.
|
This thread is just so so bad.
Don't pay any attention to this if you're trying to learn Zerg. Seriously.
1 base Zerg is laughable. Saying that Zerg can compete with T and P on equal bases is just so wrong. This thread needs to be purged before some poor guy trying to learn the race reads it and takes it to heart. -_-
|
disagree. z needs the gas and the econ for macro style. most importantly, the larvae. dont u dare say queens. larvae is still a resource provided by a hatch @ an expo
|
What do you base all the information in your post on? You're just writing statements and expecting people to accept them as fact. Your examples are hinged on the assumption that 1 hatchery + 1 queen = 1 nexus + 3 gateways. Where is the math to back this up? You yourself assert that comparing the production capabilities of two races is difficult, so how can you just slap together an equivalency without any numbers to support it?
More importantly, you admit in the OP that, when maxed out economically, zerg is inferior to terran or protoss on equal bases. For this reason, zergs are always trying to stay ahead on that front. You claim that zerg would only need a third base if protoss moves up from 6 to 8-9 gates. This is extremely flawed thinking. Take the amount of time needed for a gateway to be built and turned into a warpgate, then compare that to the amount of time it takes to build a hatchery and saturate it with drones and a queen. They aren't even close. If all zergs listened to your advice, they would fall behind while the third hatchery is finishing, and subsequently get steamrolled by a full-economy two base protoss army. In the real world, an astute zerg player will expect the protoss to either expand himself or add more gateways, and thus will preemptively expand so as not to fall behind.
|
as an 1800 level diamond protoss player (easily 2k, but haven't played much in the past month due to school) typically a zerg will only win when he is ahead in expansions. the only time a zerg beats me with equal bases is when he cheeses really well, or keeps me contained for too long with mutalisks. other than that a zerg on equal bases will get run over by me
|
This should be fairly straightforward to demonstrate - we just need to sift through a large volume of replays and see whether winning zergs consistently have more workers and consistently mine more resources than their T & P counterparts in order to win. If it seems like in most cases zergs actually don't mine more resources in order to beat T's and P's, then that would support the OP. "Cost efficiency" varies drastically on the size and composition of armies - 6 roaches should easily beat 1 sentry, 1 stalker, 3 zealots, but enough sentries for FF can turn a seemingly resource-equal battle in the Protoss' favour.
I think it's a reasonable hypothesis that the OP, though I don't know if it's necessarily true (I'm not at a computer where I can view replays sadly), but if it is, it would indicate that on maps such as Jungle Basin it may become standard for zergs to have a 3rd in-base hatch.
|
On November 17 2010 11:24 ZekZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 11:10 WniO wrote:
great post. one base zerg is quite scary, its strange that zerg is the weakest race yet they are the most willing to expand early. Lol. this thread is pretty terrible and your rant proves nothing
Dont lol at my post. If you have nothing constructive to say against the OP than dont. Just laughing and shrugging it off does not count as a legit post or an argument. I realize its not normal, but im telling you one basing is actually really good for zerg. you plop down an extra hatch youd be amazed at how fast you can outproduce your opponent.
|
The reason Zerg requires more bases is actually twofold, not just for production. You need a strong economy to support an army that can be massed up at any given moment. Having two hatcheries in your main just doesn't work out at the beginning of the game. Sure you can have double the production, but your economy is gonna be on the rocks if you try to pull a stunt like that.
|
Nice try, but I'm still gonna take my third.
|
On November 17 2010 11:51 WniO wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 11:24 ZekZ wrote:On November 17 2010 11:10 WniO wrote:
great post. one base zerg is quite scary, its strange that zerg is the weakest race yet they are the most willing to expand early. Lol. this thread is pretty terrible and your rant proves nothing Dont lol at my post. If you have nothing constructive to say against the OP than dont. Just laughing and shrugging it off does not count as a legit post or an argument. I realize its not normal, but im telling you one basing is actually really good for zerg. you plop down an extra hatch youd be amazed at how fast you can outproduce your opponent.
If you actually lose to this then he has every reason to laugh at you. I can't believe you actually want to debate 1 base Zerg lol
|
On November 17 2010 11:54 Sniffy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 11:51 WniO wrote:On November 17 2010 11:24 ZekZ wrote:On November 17 2010 11:10 WniO wrote:
great post. one base zerg is quite scary, its strange that zerg is the weakest race yet they are the most willing to expand early. Lol. this thread is pretty terrible and your rant proves nothing Dont lol at my post. If you have nothing constructive to say against the OP than dont. Just laughing and shrugging it off does not count as a legit post or an argument. I realize its not normal, but im telling you one basing is actually really good for zerg. you plop down an extra hatch youd be amazed at how fast you can outproduce your opponent. If you actually lose to this then he has every reason to laugh at you. I can't believe you actually want to debate 1 base Zerg lol
From what ive played 1700 zerg... expanding at roughly the same time as the other races works just fine. But ill tell you what, when i get done working on my map ill post a few replays of me doing 1 base play and not just ALL-IN play. seems fair enough. And if you just want to see some proof of it working why dont you watch a very hard zerg play against a very hard toss or terran. not pros by any means but maybe ittl open up your opinion a bit.
|
Can a 2 base zerg beat a 2 base protoss? Yes but like 1/5 times... I don't know why its just after playing 1000+ games you figure out that you win more when your up a base.
When its 2 base vs 2 base i seem to see this huge army moving out and realize my army is balls. Then even if i manage to cut all drones and make only roaches or hydras he has complete map control takes a 3rd and then GG.
|
On November 17 2010 10:56 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
I kinda just go with the old BW saying +1 expo or you lose.
|
On November 17 2010 11:54 Sniffy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 11:51 WniO wrote:On November 17 2010 11:24 ZekZ wrote:On November 17 2010 11:10 WniO wrote:
great post. one base zerg is quite scary, its strange that zerg is the weakest race yet they are the most willing to expand early. Lol. this thread is pretty terrible and your rant proves nothing Dont lol at my post. If you have nothing constructive to say against the OP than dont. Just laughing and shrugging it off does not count as a legit post or an argument. I realize its not normal, but im telling you one basing is actually really good for zerg. you plop down an extra hatch youd be amazed at how fast you can outproduce your opponent. If you actually lose to this then he has every reason to laugh at you. I can't believe you actually want to debate 1 base Zerg lol
i think he might be talking about 1 base Z v Z ling cheese... as 1 base 2 hatch speedlings can be easily supported.
I believe it was show in a day9 (i think the no queens one) that you can effectively go 2 hatch roach on 1 base. (guy went 4 hatch roach no queens so thats like 2 hatches with queens right?)
I also believe you can go something stupid like 3 hatch on 1 base and make speedlings out of all 3 of them with queens.
2 hatch roach = cheese vs other races (I guess...)
3 hatch sling = cheese vs other Z (I guess...)
It just depends really on what you are building i think and look at some of what top players do... FD, TLO, and dimaga have been going a 3 hatch on 2 base style lately... a lot more Z might be starting to do this too, so don't disregard the OP yet.
|
On November 17 2010 11:37 Subversion wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 17 2010 10:41 Cambam wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Early game Zerg armies are possibly the most positionally dependant armies in the game. As a result of this early Zerg aggression is rarely a good idea because your opponent is given high ground by default on most maps and has the luxury of defending a choke. This means that if a Zerg player tries to attack with an early roach/ling army they will EASILY be defeated for the cost because you are never going to get the surround on a good opponent who is defending their base.
Other races don't have this problem because units like Zealots don't rely on surrounding their opponent and are effective in chokes, stalkers and marines have a greater range than roaches so they can set up a superior concave, and most of the time Zergs will be attacking into a (semi-)wall.
So what is a Zerg player to do, their army is good when your opponent is in an exposed position and you have plenty of minerals to spare because you aren't going to be aggressive in the early game. Expand!
If you don't expand you are either not spending your resources or wasting resources on superfluous units.
This is just one more reason why Zerg players should expand more often and sooner than the other races.
Also there is production capabilities which is most likely the main reason but probably has already been talked to death.
|
As a random player, I can kind of see where OP is coming from, but I think of it more like this. When playing zerg, I need to be taking my expos quicker than my opponents. When they get their second, I need to start thinking about taking my third soon, but not necessarily right away. It's like you need to be half a base ahead, if that makes sense. When playing T/P though, I always feel if I'm on 2 base and they're on 3, I need to either destroy them soon or expand.
|
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.
Roach/Corruptor off 2 base? Ultralisks off 2 base? What game are you playing it sounds like fun.
|
On November 17 2010 10:50 IPA wrote:I think, if anything, the OP is misguided here. Zergs, please (PLEASE) continue to take your 3rd at ~12 minutes. Z's power lies in rebuilding their army in moments; are we doing that off one or two bases?
Yes. It's called having an additional hatch and queen in your base and stockpiling larva through injection. It's pretty amusing when I lose a big battle but in 20-40 seconds rebuild an entirely different army. It's not easy but it is doable and makes more sense than haphazardly expanding every which way hoping your enemy is lax on scouting expansions.
|
Ok this is not bw and it may not be necessary in all situations, but as a general rule I still think zerg needs to be ahead in both economy and production because of the general cost efficiency of their units. That is why they should be ahead in expansions. That doesn't mean always at least 1 base ahead, but definitely expanding more often and not just building in base hatches. In base hatches are ok for certain compositions, but you still need the economic advantage, and zerg is equipped to more easily defend multiple expos.
|
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.
You aren't taking positioning into account, in an open field battle you may be right but in the bottlenecks that you are often times forced to fight in Zerg armies become less cost effective because they rely on surrounds and lack the AOE to punish a clumped ball like the other races do.
|
Obviously everyone knows that everyone needs to expand, but the question is Zerg behind if Protoss is on 2 bases and Zerg is on 2 bases?
And the answer is no.
The only way to truly be 1 base ahead of protoss at all times is to take a third extremely fast (same time he puts his nexus down,) and if you're able to do that as your standard play and win games, you're playing against horrible players and you're more than likely a horrible player yourself.
Does Zerg need to start his third earlier than Protoss? most of the time yes, but it all depends on the army count. If you just defended a huge 2 base push (on 2 bases, because you can't really do that on 3,) and the protoss was grabbing an expo while pushing, you should probably go and kill his third, or maybe even his nat and his entire base, don't bother wasting money on an expo when a player has over-extended himself so greatly.
You aren't taking positioning into account, in an open field battle you may be right but in the bottlenecks that you are often times forced to fight in Zerg armies become less cost effective because they rely on surrounds and lack the AOE to punish a clumped ball like the other races do.
How exactly does Zerg get bottle-necked, especially when they're NOT forced to defend 3 bases at the same time (2 mostly, because the main is defended by the Nat.)
Its getting a third too early that gets you into those situations in the first place.
|
I'm only a platinum zerg, but when playing against the other races, if I am on the same amount of expansions, I feel really constrained, and on edge.
The reason for this is because I feel like you need to have a larger, more costly army than the other two races in order to defeat it. Terran and protoss units are extremely powerful in the endgame, and shred through zerg units with ease. By the end game, I don't really feel comfortable engaging the enemy force unless mine is slightly larger, since I want to ensure that I will win. I feel like in the endgame, the T/P units are most cost effective. I could be wrong though.
|
I think generally this was the case because 2 hatcheries wasnt enough for production. Since zergs started putting an extra hatch in there base I would say this argument holds more weight.
|
I would amend the statement, "zerg needs to be ahead in bases" to "zerg need to take bases earlier than their opponent."
Rarely do i have games where I'm not on even bases with my opponent for at least some of the game. Similarly, it's not rare to fight when you're on even bases. However, I would say that zergs should be trying to get ahead on bases in most games. Don't mass off 2 bases vs a 2 base toss/terran and then wonder why you lost. Zerg units are GENERALLY less cost effective, so you need more of them.
|
Bisutopia19234 Posts
with the new queens, I believe it has become protoss that need the most bases in the late game.
|
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.
|
Normally when I play I try to stay 1 ahead in my number of bases but then one extra i have normally is just used for gas until another mineral field runs dry. Zerg units require more gas than other races and staying "1 base ahead" gets more gas to even your army out compared to the others.
|
On November 17 2010 12:19 Kiarip wrote:Obviously everyone knows that everyone needs to expand, but the question is Zerg behind if Protoss is on 2 bases and Zerg is on 2 bases? And the answer is no. The only way to truly be 1 base ahead of protoss at all times is to take a third extremely fast (same time he puts his nexus down,) and if you're able to do that as your standard play and win games, you're playing against horrible players and you're more than likely a horrible player yourself. Does Zerg need to start his third earlier than Protoss? most of the time yes, but it all depends on the army count. If you just defended a huge 2 base push (on 2 bases, because you can't really do that on 3,) and the protoss was grabbing an expo while pushing, you should probably go and kill his third, or maybe even his nat and his entire base, don't bother wasting money on an expo when a player has over-extended himself so greatly. Show nested quote +
You aren't taking positioning into account, in an open field battle you may be right but in the bottlenecks that you are often times forced to fight in Zerg armies become less cost effective because they rely on surrounds and lack the AOE to punish a clumped ball like the other races do. How exactly does Zerg get bottle-necked, especially when they're NOT forced to defend 3 bases at the same time (2 mostly, because the main is defended by the Nat.) Its getting a third too early that gets you into those situations in the first place.
When did I talk about taking the third? I am mostly talking about taking the natural first so that you can fight on better footing in the open with early speedlings. Also because of chokes you cannot reasonably mount a speedling attack so an early expansion is a great idea because you can get a smaller defending/scouting force and build more when necessary while getting your base up instead of making superflous units.
If I must defend the idea of a fast third, which I will because I believe it is a good idea I would argue that you get two flanks to defend from. If your opponent pushes into your natural you can easily cut them off from behind with forces from your third, if they attack your third then you are in the same situation you would be in if you had no third and they attacked your natural.
Your farthest base from your main defends the bases that are closer in, by closing off potential escape routes. This gives your opponent only one base that is a good idea to attack at a time.
|
ok i agree there is a misconception you don't have to be ahead in bases to win it's just the easiest way to do the thing you need because zerg units are weaker 1 on 1 then other races it requires that you mass them. In an attempt to reproduce what idra once said zerg needs to be ahead in ability to produce units which ofcourse helps if you have the econ however there are other ways of doing this which are more complex for most people to deal with ie. skipping hydra range vs a huge all in so you can get more hydras this is a very real case or skipping ling speed in favour of roaches but that's more vs harass and less vs all ins which would actually result in you losing from 1 mistake rather then just being at a disadvantage. this is atleast what i think and i also think that in the future the zerg will need to be ahead in long macro games because if you stay 3 base vs 3 base against a toss you will get crushed unless the toss is awful or hasn't dealt with the certain thing you are throwing at them.
|
Normally when I play I try to stay 1 ahead in my number of bases but then one extra i have normally is just used for gas until another mineral field runs dry. Zerg units require more gas than other races and staying "1 base ahead" gets more gas to even your army out compared to the others.
|
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.
|
I think Zerg does need to be ahead in economy to really be able to fight fairly. However, it's not necessarily 1 full base ahead. If a protoss goes early expo, I'm content with just saturating and then trying to harass them, rather than just expanding to a hard to defend third.
|
Zerg should have more bases than they have now if 1) they can get away with establishing those bases and 2) Can't get a win right now.
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
|
On November 17 2010 12:39 Cambam wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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?
|
On November 17 2010 10:42 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +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)?
|
Zerg units are weaker and thus they require more. Terran can rely on key compositions and Protoss on key units. Zerg relys on having alot of Crap.
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.
|
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.
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.
|
Look at some pro games man seriously and tell me not all zerg that win are ahaid of bases, not hatcheries, of course in-base hatch is good and helps production but the resources needed is really important, you don't have the gas to support for example benelings infestors and mutas on just 2 base gas against an equally skilled terran player and be on par, mutalisks alone are the main reason many players take the 3rd expansion for the extra 2 geysers, and not to mention fast tech switches.
|
Huh I wonder why then at top level play that when 2 good players play and unless zerg is all inning will always lose lol. If you watch high level play tell me in a macro game where the zerg was 2 base (and didn't do some all in timing attack) and win vs a terran/toss with the same amount of bases. You will find none because zerg is soo gas heavy that you need a 3rd base faster then terran/toss.
|
Yes but shouldn't the argument also include that your average protoss/terran unit> zerg unit. In most equal food battles, zerg is going to lose, so they would need slightly more production to keep up.
Sorry if this has already been posted
|
On November 17 2010 12:46 Ksi 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. 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.
|
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)?
In the unit tester the toss only managed to kill the lings off before dying. All 5 roaches lived. No micro, of course.
|
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.
On November 17 2010 13:06 FrostOtter 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)? 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.
|
Uh, zergs macro mechanic is revolved around having more bases, we have the weakest units in the game so we need more of then, aka more econ, aka more bases which we saturate quickly with our ability to power drone
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
|
hahaha
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.
|
I like this. I hate how terrans and protosses keep saying 'oh zerg op' and expecting to be on even terms with a zerg on 2 base when they themselves work off 1."By that time, you probably have an expo up". You bet your face I do. Because I'm zerg, and that's how I win. For the record, zerg is generally just as strong as any other race off 1 base. maybe SLIGHTLY weaker due to zerg's gas intensiveness, but in general, don't expect to be on even terms with a zerg on more bases than you. Ever.
|
At least if you're going to rant and say so many people are wrong or misguided be correct. Zergs are gass heavy and need the extra hatcheries and minerals to keep replenishing their armies because Zerg units are so weak.
|
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. Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 13:06 FrostOtter wrote: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)? 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.
That was without speed.
|
This used to be the case until Roaches came along. They're so cost effective now that 2 base Zerg can fight 2 base Terran/Protoss on even footing. Given that Zerg has the easiest time expanding, they should theoretically be pressured the most to expand, otherwise they get the best of both worlds and the game loses a sense of balance. Overrepresentation of Zergs in GSL might be just that.
|
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
|
I think the OP's main point isn't that Zerg should never be a base up on their opponent(double negative FTW!), it's just that having a base up is a good thing in general, and not being ahead an expansion isn't the end of the world.
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!
|
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!
|
Well put. There's a difference between "+1 base" and an extra hatchery. If you want to become aggressive or the map is hard to take and hold a 3rd expansion, then dropping an inbase hatchery is fine. You don't need a 3rd expansion mining. What you do need is the production capability.
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".
|
Well obviously zerg doesnt need to be up one base at all times in all games but zerg does need a bigger income because zerg units are less cost efficient. The whole design of zerg is to overwhelm your opponent with a bigger force.
|
Well heres my view:
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.
|
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.
|
On November 17 2010 13:19 FrostOtter wrote:Show nested quote +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. On November 17 2010 13:06 FrostOtter wrote: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)? 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. That was without speed.
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.
|
I really don't understand where the whole "Zerg are the most gas intensive race" thing still exists. Early game ZvP you only really need roaches and lings, and roaches are WAY cheaper gas-wise than sentries and stalkers. In mid-game, Zerg tend to transition into either Hydras or Mutas, while Protoss are STILL building stalker-sentry, but need to add on their power units as well (usually Collosi or High Templar). EVERY race has gas intensive builds, but only Protoss have ZERO gas-light builds.
|
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.
|
On November 17 2010 10:41 Cambam wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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.
|
Is there a way to filter this thread to see just responses from Chill? I hate digging.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
As a 2200 diamond zerg, i agree
|
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).
|
On November 17 2010 14:59 trNimitz wrote:Show nested quote +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).
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
Zerg should on average be half a base ahead.
|
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.
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.
|
On November 17 2010 21:55 Terrifyer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 18:29 Acritter wrote: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. 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.
|
Zerg needs to be ahead in hatcheries. Thanks to creep, lings, mutas and ovies, that hatchery might as well be next to a mineral patch.
|
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.
|
On November 17 2010 21:55 Terrifyer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 18:29 Acritter wrote: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. 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.
|
On November 18 2010 00:02 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
If you continued reading I think you'd reach the same conclusion as the OP.
EDIT: whoops double
|
Everyone that is better than you at this game agrees that you need to be up in economy(usually bases) over your opponents as Zerg. For some reason I think if someone got Sean to say it on a daily this kid would delete his op and say never mind.
Perhaps the OP is just the greatest troll ever sigh
|
On November 17 2010 21:43 archon256 wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Because he is trying to be witty by posting something that is not only not witty, but something he did not coin.
|
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!
EDIT: I don't think Zergs approve or are nazis. This is just historical evidence based on World War Second.
|
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)
|
I really agree with you here, OP. The myth that serg needs to be ahead in bases (atleast compared to protoss) needs to be put to rest.
One base roach always ends the game ahead in bases compared to their opponents?
|
On November 17 2010 10:41 Cambam wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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).
|
In low army numbers, zerg sure is cost effective. Their production cannot match up though, just like in BW. When they have 3 per patch, you'll have 2 per patch trying to keep up in army, but you don't have enough larvae to do that.
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.
|
In ZvT, Terran has MULEs (so he'll usually be ahead in pure income on even bases once saturation approaches) and you need Banelings/Mutas/Infestors in sufficient quantities to beat the bioball. Zerg is rarely gas-effective, so you need that extra base to get the required gas to tech and get the mid-tier units.
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.
|
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.
|
Yup, what everyone else about why zerg needs to be a base ahead of Toss or Terran. Yup.
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.
|
Zerg needs to be ahead in bases and zerg armies dont stand up to P or T armies are 2 huge myths.
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.
|
I feel it's like this:
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.
|
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.
|
On November 17 2010 13:42 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +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!
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
|
On November 18 2010 01:55 hiyo_bye wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 13:42 mOnion wrote: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! 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.
|
OP is shooting the fact that everyone is trying to say that people are ALL wrong when it is definitely correct for zerg to be one base up from their protoss and terran counterparts, which is partially correct and wrong.
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
|
On November 18 2010 01:55 hiyo_bye wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2010 13:42 mOnion wrote: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! 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.
|
I would agree that its not 100% necessary to drop a hatch instantly or a 3rd right when your opponent does, but it is in most cases the best course of action. The OP doesnt really seem to understand timing and then importance of creep early on. Its much easier for a Z to defend a nat with a hatch that has already finished then one that isnt, Also doesnt it seem pointless to 1 base an army (having to cut drones) then put down a hatch? what if u dont get attacked ? also dropping a 3rd when your opponent takes his second is just good game sense. Think of it like this: Your opponent just invested 400 into a nexus / cc, thats 400 min not invested into his/her army, now would it make sense for your opponent to commit to some kind of allin ? or try to swap armies ? no... in most cases they will try to buy themselves some time by threating to attack / poking at your army, and maybe scouting for your third. This leaves you with a window to start a hatch build units to defend it, so when he/she pulls his army back you begin to saturate your third. Its not a hard concept and its one most good zergs have adopted
|
whats the impression u guys get that being on equal bases is a good thing? making a 3rd hatch inside your main or at your natural is a stupid idea imo. if you are going to make a 3rd hatch then make that 3rd hatch at an expansion and get a economic advantage.
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.
|
unless you are looking for a timing attack.... If you can be ahead by a base, why wouldn't you want to?
|
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.
|
On November 17 2010 14:59 trNimitz wrote:Show nested quote +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).
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.
|
On November 18 2010 02:56 kataa wrote:Show nested quote +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.
^ 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.
|
it's insane how many games i've won on lower economy than my enemy, simply because i could outproduce my enemy by having more hatches and cheaper units to throw away to tear him down piece by piece.
|
No one in this thread has managed to prove that zerg units are not cost effective.
|
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.
|
This is a completly crap thread, I dont mean to be harsh but constantly expanded is one of the core elements of Starcraft and not many people seem to know it. So why wouldn't you want to expand, without resources how are you going to build your army? Also with more bases you can rebuild your army faster, tec faster and generally win a hell of lot more games.
|
On November 18 2010 03:35 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
|
On November 18 2010 03:35 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
in 9 pages if nobody has proven anything i think it's evidence that the thread shouldn't even have been made.
|
On November 18 2010 03:35 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
I don't get why everybody got so angry at this. Flawed as the OPs argument is, he is right.
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.
|
You will never beat Protoss as zerg if you play 2 base vs 2 base unless you all in. There is no further need for discussion. It's just mathematically impossible.
|
is it correct to assume:
2 base t/p > 2 base 2 hatch
2 base t/p = 2 base 3 hatch
2 base t/p < 3 base 3 hatch
edit: for income and unit production.
|
On November 18 2010 04:03 jinorazi wrote:
is it correct to assume:
2 base t/p > 2 base 2 hatch
2 base t/p = 2 base 3 hatch
2 base t/p < 3 base 3 hatch
i believe these assumptions are too situational to be able to make an assumption
|
On November 18 2010 03:51 Cambam wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 03:35 Ballistixz wrote: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. 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.
there is a major flaw in that logic tho. why would ANYONE go mass gatway units when a toss should have a few collousus up by the time the zerg has hydras up. a few colossus will crush hydra ling and roach ling with some stalkers+zealots+sentries backing them up. also you have sentries in that composition, instead of atk moving try using FFs and abuse the fact that roaches, even with the buff, have a range of 4, lings are melee, and that stalkers have a range of 6 and sentries a range of 5.
add colossus which has a range of 9 to the mix and ur good to go. doesnt matter how cost effective the zerg units are, they all get crushed by toss if you dont have the right composition to deal with it.
hydras are a tier 2 unit. colossus is a tier 2 unit. so since hydras are tier 2, why cant toss bring out colossus which is also tier 2?
and i can tell you right now, any toss that knows how to make excellent use of FF will not get beaten by pure roach or roach/ling army. i promise u that.
|
On November 18 2010 04:00 Piy wrote:
You will never beat Protoss as zerg if you play 2 base vs 2 base unless you all in. There is no further need for discussion. It's just mathematically impossible.
Really man? I don't really want to argue too much because I am a terrible player. But if you have mathematical proof about your claims post them because I am sure they will be interesting and will end this thread.
But seriously, we all agree that Zerg need Hatcheries to keep up with T/P production. The question here is if they need more bases to keep even. Obviously if anyone is ahead in base count that probably means they have more money thus more production thus they are ahead regardless of Race
|
On November 18 2010 04:07 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 03:51 Cambam wrote:On November 18 2010 03:35 Ballistixz wrote: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. 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. there is a major flaw in that logic tho. why would ANYONE go mass gatway units when a toss should have a few collousus up by the time the zerg has hydras up. a few colossus will crush hydra ling and roach ling with some stalkers+zealots+sentries backing them up. also you have sentries in that composition, instead of atk moving try using FFs and abuse the fact that roaches, even with the buff, have a range of 4, lings are melee, and that stalkers have a range of 6 and sentries a range of 5. add colossus which has a range of 9 to the mix and ur good to go. doesnt matter how cost effective the zerg units are, they all get crushed by toss if you dont have the right composition to deal with it. hydras are a tier 2 unit. colossus is a tier 2 unit. so since hydras are tier 2, why cant toss bring out colossus which is also tier 2? and i can tell you right now, any toss that knows how to make excellent use of FF will not get beaten by pure roach or roach/ling army. i promise u that.
Well, I don't like the term of Tiers, but aren't Colossi tier 3?
|
The reason zerg needs to be ahead in bases is so that they have enough hatcheries producing larva to keep up with an X base T or P player. A protoss or terran on 2 bases is going to be able to drop a lot of units really fast midgame. Since a great deal of zerg's midgame play (muta ling and roach/hydra) relies on producing a larger number of weaker units to counter your opponents smaller force of more powerful units.
Some examples, to counter a 2 base 6 gate ball with a few immortals using roach hydra, you are going to need at least 90 food worth of units. This means at least 45 larva, probably more since you are going to be making lings. Considering the fact that you spend the X larva per minute you get on all of your drones, buildings, and units. It is much easier to have this many larva off of 3 bases versus two.
That is why you "need" (its just advantageous) to be on one more base. You can also just have a second hatch in your main, but with a third base so close, and so much more beneficial, why not take it?
|
On November 18 2010 04:07 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 03:51 Cambam wrote:On November 18 2010 03:35 Ballistixz wrote: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. 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. there is a major flaw in that logic tho. why would ANYONE go mass gatway units when a toss should have a few collousus up by the time the zerg has hydras up. a few colossus will crush hydra ling and roach ling with some stalkers+zealots+sentries backing them up. also you have sentries in that composition, instead of atk moving try using FFs and abuse the fact that roaches, even with the buff, have a range of 4, lings are melee, and that stalkers have a range of 6 and sentries a range of 5. add colossus which has a range of 9 to the mix and ur good to go. doesnt matter how cost effective the zerg units are, they all get crushed by toss if you dont have the right composition to deal with it. hydras are a tier 2 unit. colossus is a tier 2 unit. so since hydras are tier 2, why cant toss bring out colossus which is also tier 2?
I was addressing the several posters in this thread that are claiming that roach/hydra does not beat zealot/stalker/sentry.
and i can tell you right now, any toss that knows how to make excellent use of FF will not get beaten by pure roach or roach/ling army. i promise u that.
It won't get beaten, but will it always beat a pure roach or roach/ling army? If that's confusing, I'm making the distinction between whether or not the protoss army is defending the zerg at the toss base or attacking the zerg at the zerg base. If you're saying a gateway army with good FF can always beat a roach or roach/ling army at the zerg base, that sounds pretty imba and likely untrue. Why isn't every pro protoss winning their PvZs in the first 8 minutes?
|
On November 18 2010 04:07 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 03:51 Cambam wrote:On November 18 2010 03:35 Ballistixz wrote: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. 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. there is a major flaw in that logic tho. why would ANYONE go mass gatway units when a toss should have a few collousus up by the time the zerg has hydras up. a few colossus will crush hydra ling and roach ling with some stalkers+zealots+sentries backing them up. also you have sentries in that composition, instead of atk moving try using FFs and abuse the fact that roaches, even with the buff, have a range of 4, lings are melee, and that stalkers have a range of 6 and sentries a range of 5. add colossus which has a range of 9 to the mix and ur good to go. doesnt matter how cost effective the zerg units are, they all get crushed by toss if you dont have the right composition to deal with it. hydras are a tier 2 unit. colossus is a tier 2 unit. so since hydras are tier 2, why cant toss bring out colossus which is also tier 2? and i can tell you right now, any toss that knows how to make excellent use of FF will not get beaten by pure roach or roach/ling army. i promise u that.
Colossi tech......
Gateway ->cyber core -> Robo Facility -> robo support bay -> upgrade to make them useful.
Definitely a tier 3 unit and a late one if you count their upgrade. Secondly, if the zerg actually has an interest in getting hydras quickly. He can have 10 at your door before your first colossi has started building. It just depends on when they decide to make the lair/hydra den. Generally speaking however, protoss playerys (Nony, Huk) make mass gateway units because it is an effective way to deal with that roach ling pressure that is all to common in the post patch environment. Also, because a big army is the only thing that will convince a smart zerg player to cut droning heavily so that he wont just violently out macro you like he would if your tried to go for early colossi.
As for FF, I could argue that any "excellent" zerg roach/ling player knows how to force a few fields out of a toss ball.
|
I like some points of the OP, and some, dont.
But this phrase is getting to my nerves. "Zerg needs to be AHEAD in bases to win the game". Thats really, ******. Any race thats AHEAD on bases should be able to win the game. Zerg can fight 2 base against 2 base, and even 1 base against 1 base. The problem is most players dont know how and NEVER WILL because 99% rush into the macro game (im not criticizing macro games or 1 base games, thats not my point). Most Zerg have been spoiled by being "able" (despite some still abusive bunker/cannon rushes) to fast expand and making loads of drones for the most part of the early game, thus getting a very late lair, very late 2nd 3rd gas, i mean until 42 food its most games drones a couple of scouting lings, and spine crawlers to defend the exp, which means more drones were produced. And you know what? thats great, your getting AHEAD in income, because the game relatively allows you to. But you dont think to remember that you are AHEAD of the other race your facing.
4ex.: Zerg fast expands into droning hard with 4-5 spine crawlers and few scouting lings, protoss goes 4 warpgate rush (not korean all in, meaning good saturation and 2 gases). Protoss attacks and fails and loses his troops. He has 2 choices he keeps getting units from 1 base and keeps trying, he stops unit production and expands, but most of the time they will just leave. Why? cuz they are in 1 base zerg is in 2 zerg is AHEAD, so much ahead because not only he had a decent saturation b4 the attack failed, but after it he just took 10-12 larva and morphed them into drones while you just got your 20-25 probes and you cut their production to make units, so even if you expand its going to take a lot of time until you can move out and in that time zerg can get 3rd or 4rth, not because he really needs it, its just because he is ahead and you give map control to be safe with your own expansion.
About 1 base zerg, the reason is so dificult is that hydralisk are shit in low numbers, they have a very expensive must-have upgrade (range) are so slow and so fragile, that spending 100/50 in them its not very cost efective. Roach ling is actually very good until/or they get void ray/banshee, and your screwed, hydra roach is too gas intensive for 1 base, hydra ling... collossi/tanks; muta ling would be a joke. Anything involving hydras and 1 base its a no go. And ofc protoss/terrans have better 1 base defense with walls and FFs so theres not much use to have an army which most of the time could kill the opponent but FFs and walls block them to, instead of investing in expanding.
About 2 bases, If FE zerg should be most games always be ahead in workers than the other races so which gives him the lead and the option to get even more ahead taking another expansion. And that would be true for any race if you have 1 more base that your opponent for quite some time, and he just getting expanded, its mostlikely the better option to expand once more yourself. Zerg by fast expanding its taking one step AHEAD in the game.
I believe zerg CAN play and CAN win in same bases with other races, but until players stop playing so wastefully and undestand that making 25+ banelings with your mutas to kill 20 marines and 3 tanks its not cost efective, its a great waste of 75/25 per baneling. The mentality is set to expand more and make a lot of w/e should counter the other players army, but at some point a players will know how to effectively use zerg units so that they can be very viable in same bases of other races, and then ppl will call zerg "OP".
|
We have to take into accoutn taht Zerg units are not very efficient in smaller numbers but in games where it tends to be macrogame (longer) they get more efficient by the time.
That's how I think the Zerg.
Longer you stay in game, the stronger you become as race.
|
On November 18 2010 05:22 Ryndika wrote:
We have to take into accoutn taht Zerg units are not very efficient in smaller numbers but in games where it tends to be macrogame (longer) they get more efficient by the time.
That's how I think the Zerg.
Longer you stay in game, the stronger you become as race.
You're thinking of protoss, zerg units are incredibly strong in small numbers. That is why they have strategies like 6 pool and 5 roach rush. It's why one of their most popular build orders relys on quickly getting 6 mutalisks. In the late game, zerg has to have a large number of units because of the glass cannon nature of their units. Lings, hydras and mutas all have very little hp when compared to their damage, and thus are better off the longer they live. This is what makes colossi such a good counter unit, they can reach the fragile hydralisks, and kill them quickly, leaving your gateway units alive. It is not until the enemy gets a large sum of units that your small units (lings in particular) get weaker because it takes longer for your massive army to start dealing damage. This is why as the game goes it is easier for zerg to produce masses of units. It is because your units lose their value late game.
|
Zerg doesn't need more bases or more drones to win. The standard play for Zerg is to hardcore macro, but there are many more ways to win.
|
On November 18 2010 05:48 bobcat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 05:22 Ryndika wrote:
We have to take into accoutn taht Zerg units are not very efficient in smaller numbers but in games where it tends to be macrogame (longer) they get more efficient by the time.
That's how I think the Zerg.
Longer you stay in game, the stronger you become as race. You're thinking of protoss, zerg units are incredibly strong in small numbers. That is why they have strategies like 6 pool and 5 roach rush. It's why one of their most popular build orders relys on quickly getting 6 mutalisks. In the late game, zerg has to have a large number of units because of the glass cannon nature of their units. Lings, hydras and mutas all have very little hp when compared to their damage, and thus are better off the longer they live. This is what makes colossi such a good counter unit, they can reach the fragile hydralisks, and kill them quickly, leaving your gateway units alive. It is not until the enemy gets a large sum of units that your small units (lings in particular) get weaker because it takes longer for your massive army to start dealing damage. This is why as the game goes it is easier for zerg to produce masses of units. It is because your units lose their value late game.
6 pool relies on you having more zerglings than they have zealots. In other words, strength in numbers.
|
On November 18 2010 07:32 Nazza wrote:
6 pool relies on you having more zerglings than they have zealots. In other words, strength in numbers.
Actually, 100 minerals in lings beats 100 minerals in zealots, in which case lings are more cost effective.
|
On November 18 2010 07:59 pwadoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 07:32 Nazza wrote:
6 pool relies on you having more zerglings than they have zealots. In other words, strength in numbers. Actually, 100 minerals in lings beats 100 minerals in zealots, in which case lings are more cost effective.
only in small numbers of zealots and lings, without micro, in open areas.
Secondly what he said was still valid. Zerg needs much more zerglings than zealots in a 6 pool because he needs to kill probes AND any potential zealots.
|
Added a counter-agruments & rebuttals section in the OP.
|
http://www.sc2ranks.com/us/1644632/CamBam
Is that you? lol it's kinda clever if it is. Your generating a huge debate where at the very least, players in your 'league' range will attempt once in a while, thus increasing the chance of giving you a couple of more wins? lol
Really, i'm not sure what your trying to argue anymore, maybe it's the way you write, but there's so much 'waffle' in your argument that it's incredibly flimsy.
It doesn't even feel like you understand how rts like this works. You present no evidence for your arguments as to how 2 base vs 2 base is equal and not disadvantageous for the Z. Perhaps link some pro-level game that shows that 2 base vs 2base is 'okay'.
Also, since I first started out playing Z, the old "Z needs +1 base" has helped me IMMENSELY to improve my game since bw (ty day9). Look at how Z macro works, the larva stockpiles so if you ever want, your money will never be too low. If you add a 3rd hatch in your main with no thoughts to it other than "it'll be safer" your gonna be stuck 10mins later thinking "well shit, i got no money to spend on an expo". Whereas when I follow "+1 expo" adage i'm forced to think of how to spread out creeps/units/unit comps to help def the expo and maintain my eco advantage. Yea sure the next 10 games i'll lose 9, but then the next 100 games i'll win 99 times due to the expo.
PS. Unit tester is shit. Has no relevance to the game other than 1v1 unit battles or maybe air vs air battle. If I want to play 'no micro 1v1' i'll play civilization 1.
|
http://www.sc2ranks.com/us/1644632/CamBam
Is that you? lol it's kinda clever if it is. Your generating a huge debate where at the very least, players in your 'league' range will attempt once in a while, thus increasing the chance of giving you a couple of more wins? lol Try and stop me ahahahahah! Bronze league will be mine!
Really, i'm not sure what your trying to argue anymore, maybe it's the way you write, but there's so much 'waffle' in your argument that it's incredibly flimsy. I think it comes across as flimsy because I'm not making a very big claim. I'm simply saying that, while it's usually a good idea to be up a base as zerg, it's not always required. Sometimes you can achieve the same effect by throwing down an in base hatch, and sometimes you don't even need that. I just feel like the "zerg +1 base" rule is followed so dogmatically around here and I wish people would realize it's not true 100% of the time.
|
Zerg is a swarm race. It's strength lies not in the individual units but in overwhelming numbers.
That is how the race was designed. It is designed such that you constantly send forces and try to overwhelm the opponent. Of course you can win otherwise, but generally that is how zerg is meant to be played. I think because of this design the units are not as cost effective. When you engage with a decent sized equal value army the zerg army usually will lose more.
The main problem is that zerg's have no good splash units, or good combat casters other than the infestor. So when faced against another race with such units, the zerg army will be at a disadvantage.
so that is why you need to stay 1 base ahead, because you need the extra economy to pump units and production abilities. 2 base vs 2 base, zerg can win. But the problem is, if given equal footing up to that point, the 2 base T/P will be able to make more effective armies.
|
Zerg can be a "swarm" race without having extra economy. Almost all of zerg's units are cheap and therefore an equal cost zerg army will have much more units than an equal cost protoss or terran army, especially if you have zerglings. And since it's equal cost, you don't need a bigger income to make it.
|
On November 18 2010 04:00 Piy wrote:
You will never beat Protoss as zerg if you play 2 base vs 2 base unless you all in. There is no further need for discussion. It's just mathematically impossible.
Protoss move commands his whole army and you kill it and then counter and attack his base.
wow, that seems totally mathematically impossible. It's almost like your "math" doesn't account for everything!
|
Wasn't the entire design of zerg to rely on more bases? They even get 300 minerals on main vs 400 for toss and terran. What your saying is you want to make this game more generic, therefor ruining starcraft.
|
i agree with the OP here, you don't have to be ahead in economy just to be even, assuming that you can be cost effective. an in-base hatch does increase your production capabilities and i would liken this to a terran player adding more barracks to his base.
on the other hand, zerg have the cheapest expo and have difficulty dealing with protoss or terran armies cost effectively, as such there's no reason why it's a bad thing to try and have more bases.
i'm pretty sure that there's more than one way to play zerg, other than just "omg i need to have one more expo" and if there isn't, there should be.
|
On November 18 2010 02:12 mOnion wrote:
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.
If you want more larva you can build the hatch in your base. This now boils down to whether or not your bases can support that extra hatchery. In certain army compositions it can.
Creep spreading from expansions isn't as useful and for the time being is undesirable considering how poorly people scout for expansions.
If zerg units are weaker it's a hint they aren't really cheaper. Frankly I don't think certain zerg units are cheaper for their cost like ultralisks, broodlords and infestors.
Zerg units are not gas heavy. Only some of them are and in the case of banelings in a specific situation (taking out buildings and high hitpoint nonlight units makes banelings a gas heavy unit while hitting light units makes them break even if splitting is used against them are highly efficient if the opponent fails to spread around the army)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
