|
On December 28 2010 04:32 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 22:54 Tachion wrote:
I'm not sure why I'm posting this, 100 people have already but I just want to reinforce the idea that...
If a Terran or Protoss decide to go on the offensive in the early/early mid-game, and manage to trade army for army(resource costs included), they can come out of it pretty damn even. If a Zerg goes on the offensive and trades army for army, it puts him behind since he could have droned up and defended at a later point and come out of that exchange with a bigger economy.
I would go so far as to equate it to pullling scv's to use in your attack, and if you don't do any economic damage then you're just going to be farther behind in the worker count. There is a greater necessity to do economic damage to your opponent when playing offensively, and thus a greater risk compared to the other races. Wrong. At the beginning of the game, you drone your ass off. Why? Because your opponent has no units - he can't do any damage. Then, he starts getting his ball. You're forced to make units. Let's say he's on 1 base. You cut drones at a particular point in time to stop his attack. You trade armies. You have 2 base to his 1. Can he expand? No, because even though he has plenty of workers, he's on 1 base. Your income is still higher, and you can reinforce faster. Even if he does manage to expand, you can build 2 rounds of drones, and you've won the game because he can't apply pressure. Let's say you're both on 2 base. You trade armies. Now what? He can't pressure you because he has no army. You can make a round or two of drones. Now you're far ahead in economy, and you're soon to be ahead in army as well. The problem is either you're regurgitating common beliefs, or you just don't know when to drone. It's not to say that you're wrong that you'll get more economy by making drones instead of units. It's just flawed to think that trading armies as Zerg is a bad thing. Also, sometimes you can't always "defend at a later point" because Zerg is a very positional race. For example, on Shakuras Plateau, if you wait for a Protoss to get all the way up to your natural before you start defending with roach/ling/crawler, you've pretty much lost.
I think his statement is more about the early game but you are right about points later in the game. In fact many cases army trades are better for Zerg than other races.
|
army trades (assuming pop count is similar) is pretty much always beneficial for the zerg player
|
On December 28 2010 04:32 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 22:54 Tachion wrote:
I'm not sure why I'm posting this, 100 people have already but I just want to reinforce the idea that...
If a Terran or Protoss decide to go on the offensive in the early/early mid-game, and manage to trade army for army(resource costs included), they can come out of it pretty damn even. If a Zerg goes on the offensive and trades army for army, it puts him behind since he could have droned up and defended at a later point and come out of that exchange with a bigger economy.
I would go so far as to equate it to pullling scv's to use in your attack, and if you don't do any economic damage then you're just going to be farther behind in the worker count. There is a greater necessity to do economic damage to your opponent when playing offensively, and thus a greater risk compared to the other races. Wrong. At the beginning of the game, you drone your ass off. Why? Because your opponent has no units - he can't do any damage. Then, he starts getting his ball. You're forced to make units. Let's say he's on 1 base. You cut drones at a particular point in time to stop his attack. You trade armies. You have 2 base to his 1. Can he expand? No, because even though he has plenty of workers, he's on 1 base. Your income is still higher, and you can reinforce faster. Even if he does manage to expand, you can build 2 rounds of drones, and you've won the game because he can't apply pressure. Let's say you're both on 2 base. You trade armies. Now what? He can't pressure you because he has no army. You can make a round or two of drones. Now you're far ahead in economy, and you're soon to be ahead in army as well. The problem is either you're regurgitating common beliefs, or you just don't know when to drone. It's not to say that you're wrong that you'll get more economy by making drones instead of units. It's just flawed to think that trading armies as Zerg is a bad thing. Also, sometimes you can't always "defend at a later point" because Zerg is a very positional race. For example, on Shakuras Plateau, if you wait for a Protoss to get all the way up to your natural before you start defending with roach/ling/crawler, you've pretty much lost.
Well Saracen about your last statement: With so many of the maps/ spawn positions having this 15 second rush distance, you are already fucked even if you bring the protoss army to battle right outside his natural, because unless you destroy his army in the process of the army trade he is just going to waltz into your base right afterwards and start killing your economy/ production. There is literally no breathing room for zerg to remake his forces to bring the toss to battle again... Either way, you are fucked if you plan to apply this "second wave" theory after you trade your armies.
I really think zerg should get 300 supply limit when up against protoss if these are the sort of maps we are to get.
|
On December 28 2010 04:47 JiYan wrote:
army trades (assuming pop count is similar) is pretty much always beneficial for the zerg player
Really? Early game that seems somewhat larva wasteful. If you lose your army, don't you have to replenish it instead of drones in case they attack (since non-zerg can build up and still get workers)?
EDIT: Ahh saw the saracen post. makes a lot more sense.
|
On December 28 2010 04:39 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2010 04:32 Saracen wrote:On December 27 2010 22:54 Tachion wrote:
I'm not sure why I'm posting this, 100 people have already but I just want to reinforce the idea that...
If a Terran or Protoss decide to go on the offensive in the early/early mid-game, and manage to trade army for army(resource costs included), they can come out of it pretty damn even. If a Zerg goes on the offensive and trades army for army, it puts him behind since he could have droned up and defended at a later point and come out of that exchange with a bigger economy.
I would go so far as to equate it to pullling scv's to use in your attack, and if you don't do any economic damage then you're just going to be farther behind in the worker count. There is a greater necessity to do economic damage to your opponent when playing offensively, and thus a greater risk compared to the other races. Wrong. At the beginning of the game, you drone your ass off. Why? Because your opponent has no units - he can't do any damage. Then, he starts getting his ball. You're forced to make units. Let's say he's on 1 base. You cut drones at a particular point in time to stop his attack. You trade armies. You have 2 base to his 1. Can he expand? No, because even though he has plenty of workers, he's on 1 base. Your income is still higher, and you can reinforce faster. Even if he does manage to expand, you can build 2 rounds of drones, and you've won the game because he can't apply pressure. Let's say you're both on 2 base. You trade armies. Now what? He can't pressure you because he has no army. You can make a round or two of drones. Now you're far ahead in economy, and you're soon to be ahead in army as well. The problem is either you're regurgitating common beliefs, or you just don't know when to drone. It's not to say that you're wrong that you'll get more economy by making drones instead of units. It's just flawed to think that trading armies as Zerg is a bad thing. Also, sometimes you can't always "defend at a later point" because Zerg is a very positional race. For example, on Shakuras Plateau, if you wait for a Protoss to get all the way up to your natural before you start defending with roach/ling/crawler, you've pretty much lost. I think his statement is more about the early game but you are right about points later in the game. In fact many cases army trades are better for Zerg than other races.
I see. This is true early game before you have enough drones to support full rounds of drones (like against 2 stalker pressure or early marine pressure).
|
To OP: What if wall-off is possible for Zerg like T & P?
Now it's not exactly more options for attacking, but it'll give zerg more security in early game and will allow zerg can actually play strategically, instead of being stressed of unexpected attacks from T or P?
No, I dont think that would be a good idea.
I think it would be good if zerg had more options for early aggression like the other races. Your idea wouldnt change that, it would just make it easier to defend. Defending and playing a macro game as zerg is already possible right now, thats what mostly everyone is doing. Im talking about giving zergs a different option, not about helping zergs do the same thing they do now, but easier.
Zerg has plenty of "attacking" ability. Who cares if lings aren't able to bust a wall? If you have enough lings left over after an engagement from destroying a Protoss or Terran early/midgame attack, you've probably already won. If you're Protoss or Terran and you move out and happen to have too few units against Zerg, you can't retreat. You just lose all your units and then lose the game because Zerg can make 20-30 drones as you're replenishing your army to match his.
Thats not the ability to attack. Thats the ability to drone to get an economic lead.
When you have an army advantage, you can usually use it to:
Attack
Expand
Tech
(thats simplifying it obv.) Droning up would be the same as expanding, you use your bigger army to get an economy advantage to extend your lead. Thats a good option. Other races can do it too. If you win a huge fight as terran, and its really one sided, instead of going straight for the main, you can also just chill after you killed and expo, and take your own expo to extend your economic lead. And ofc, you have the option to attack.
Zergs from what I see FE everytime regardless (ignoring zvz) Terrans and toss aren't dumb they could play in the dark with a 2 gate or 2 rax opening and encounter a FE 95%.
Zerg make all units from larva. Making a hatch gives you the ability to mine more, and make more drones, sure.
But incidentally, it also gives you the ability to make more lings, roaches, or whatever army units you decide to make.
Using 350 minerals in the early game to make an expo, and thus to be able to build more units, isnt any greedier than making 2 gate or 2 rax. Its the same investment really, and the same outcome: the ability to make more units.
Making all of those as drones would be greedy. Making all of those as lings would be aggressive.
Thats the interesting part of zerg, and its larva management. Or at least, thats what its supposed to be.
But since making all of those as lings wouldnt really allow you to apply pressure unless you go all in, and make banelings/roaches too, well you have to try and play greedy.
You nearly always have to play greedy.
If you are for example terran, and you see a toss going one gate DT rush.
What exactly do you know? Well, you know that he invested his money into tech. not army, and not economy.
So, what can you do to counter it? Well, since hes already going for tech, you cant really catch up on that front. You can go for army though. You know hes going to be weak on that side till his DTs come online, so you can just try to attack, and do damage now. Or, you could take an expo, and try to protect yourself against the DTs.
You scout tech, you have the option of aggression, or economy.
In that situation, as a zerg though, you cant really go for aggression, so you go for economy. Try and get a lot of drones, and defend against the DTs. Economy isnt the weaker option, thats not the issue, so its still balanced. But you only have 1 option instead of 2.
Another example. Imagine a terran building 4 orbital commands in his base, trying to go for the massive economy advantage. You are protoss, and you scout it. What are your options? Well, you know hes going to be ahead of you in economy, but behind on tech, and army for now. Trying to take 3 bases would be foolish, since you know he is already going to be ahead in economy. But you can go for army, and just kill him now while he invested so much in his orbitals. Or you can go for tech, since his is going to be late, and greet his masses of marines with late stim and combat shields, with coloxen, or high templars for example.
But as zerg! Well in such a situation, you still cant attack without going all-in.
You can still try to go for the tech, and greet his huge marine push with a couple of infestors.
And again, going for the economy here wouldnt be a great idea. You cant really compete with that.
For terran and toss, there are 3 basic options to extend an advantage.
And 2 options as a response.
For zerg though, there are only 2 options to extend an advantage, and only 1 option to respond, because the option of attacking, the "just go and friggin kill him" option, isnt a very good one until later in the game, unless your advantage is already gigantic.
That doesnt make zerg worse than the other races. The remaining option is still a very good one 
It just makes zergs a little more limited during the early game, a little more predictable, and a little more boring.
To everyone who says: zergs are just too greedy, you could play off one base and attack too!
Really, ask yourself what you are more afraid of? How often do you lose to zergs who get a gigantic economic lead into a terrifying lategame? And how often do you lose to zergs who make 1 base speedlings or roaches, and attack you head on through your choke? Second option really isnt very scary. So getting the huge economic advantage is almost always the best option. Thats why zergs play greedy.
I dont want greedy play to be easier or better for zerg.
Id love to have a second option though.
|
Im not actually even suggesting any changes to the units, buildings, mechanics, or anything like that either.
Im pretty confident that changing maps would be enough.
Just imagine a map that has no chokes, no ramps, just open space and expansions.
Imagine zergling attacks on such a map. Would be pretty powerful. Terran would probably have to build everything super tight together, wall of as many parts of the mineral field as possible, and probably even build a bunker right away once the rax is up, to help wall off, and to put in some marines. Moving out would be incredibly difficult, because ling counterattacks could end up doing a ton of damage, and would be incredibly easy.
Now imagine the opposite, a map with a tiny choke as the only entrance to the main, with a ramp, and thus high ground, and that choke can be clocked by a single rax, depot, or bunker. That would be incredibly difficult for zerg to attack into with any effectiveness. Roaches wont be good there, lings neither, and banelings are really the only option.
Now thats both extremes. Right now, maps tend to favor the tiny ramps with high ground, and an easy wall off, single entrance, and an expo that also has a single entrance, with a slightly wider ramp, and often still high ground.
Im pretty sure that it doesnt have to be one, or the other. Its a lot easier for zerg to do successful attacks in the midgame, on blistering sands, with the 2 possible entrance points, compared to for example lost temple. Attacking the expo on metalopolis or xelnaga is actually possible in the early midgame for zerg, since its quite open, compared to again, something like lost temple.
Im pretty sure its possible for a middle ground. A sweet spot.
Somewhere between the incredibly open, where you cant stop lings no matter how much effort, and the tiny high ground ramp/chokes.
|
On December 28 2010 04:32 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2010 22:54 Tachion wrote:
I'm not sure why I'm posting this, 100 people have already but I just want to reinforce the idea that...
If a Terran or Protoss decide to go on the offensive in the early/early mid-game, and manage to trade army for army(resource costs included), they can come out of it pretty damn even. If a Zerg goes on the offensive and trades army for army, it puts him behind since he could have droned up and defended at a later point and come out of that exchange with a bigger economy.
I would go so far as to equate it to pullling scv's to use in your attack, and if you don't do any economic damage then you're just going to be farther behind in the worker count. There is a greater necessity to do economic damage to your opponent when playing offensively, and thus a greater risk compared to the other races. Wrong. At the beginning of the game, you drone your ass off. Why? Because your opponent has no units - he can't do any damage. Then, he starts getting his ball. You're forced to make units.
Let's say he's on 1 base. You cut drones at a particular point in time to stop his attack. You trade armies. You have 2 base to his 1. Can he expand? No, because even though he has plenty of workers, he's on 1 base. Your income is still higher, and you can reinforce faster. Even if he does manage to expand, you can build 2 rounds of drones, and you've won the game because he can't apply pressure. Let's say you're both on 2 base. You trade armies. Now what? He can't pressure you because he has no army. You can make a round or two of drones. Now you're far ahead in economy, and you're soon to be ahead in army as well. The problem is either you're regurgitating common beliefs, or you just don't know when to drone. It's not to say that you're wrong that you'll get more economy by making drones instead of units. It's just flawed to think that trading armies as Zerg is a bad thing. Also, sometimes you can't always "defend at a later point" because Zerg is a very positional race. For example, on Shakuras Plateau, if you wait for a Protoss to get all the way up to your natural before you start defending with roach/ling/crawler, you've pretty much lost.
I certainly don't disagree with what you said, because you mentioned that you're supposed to drone your ass off in the early game which was my focus. There is a big difference behind making 20 units and just parking them outside your opponents ramp because you can't do anything with them, and defending with those 20 units and using them all up to defend. If you wait as long as possible to make your attacking units, your drones will get out faster and have more time to mine, giving you a better economy.
I do think it possible for a zerg to be aggressive, but in my opinion it has to be at some point after your opponent takes his expansion. If your opponent is staying on 1 base, it means he's going to be doing some timing/tech attack which you absolutely have to defend, and trying to break a ramp early on is very all-inish since it requires such a big commitment.
|
On December 27 2010 22:54 Tachion wrote:
I'm not sure why I'm posting this, 100 people have already but I just want to reinforce the idea that...
If a Terran or Protoss decide to go on the offensive in the early/early mid-game, and manage to trade army for army(resource costs included), they can come out of it pretty damn even. If a Zerg goes on the offensive and trades army for army, it puts him behind since he could have droned up and defended at a later point and come out of that exchange with a bigger economy.
I would go so far as to equate it to pullling scv's to use in your attack, and if you don't do any economic damage then you're just going to be farther behind in the worker count. There is a greater necessity to do economic damage to your opponent when playing offensively, and thus a greater risk compared to the other races.
I had to make an account just to reply to how blatantly wrong this post is. I lurked for the last couple years but this one finally convinced me to make an account.
Trading your army as a zerg is the best thing you can hope for against a player of equal skill, it enables you to start throwing wave after wave of units against him without any advantageous way for him to respond. It blows my mind that you think this puts the 'zerg' at a disadvantage, when everyone knows that zerg armies are much cheaper and easier to replenish than P/T units could ever dream of being.
It's nothing to the zerg to throw away a few zerglings at the start, but to a protoss, those first few sentries or stalkers are everything. It's impossible to recover from the loss of resources and army strength if you lose your early game units, ESPECIALLY if the zerg fast expanded (as though there are zergs that don't do this lol). You should never be behind in worker count.
If you completely destroy a terran or protoss army, the last thing you are is 'behind.'
|
It's nothing to the zerg to throw away a few zerglings at the start, but to a protoss, those first few sentries or stalkers are everything. It's impossible to recover from the loss of resources and army strength if you lose your early game units, ESPECIALLY if the zerg fast expanded (as though there are zergs that don't do this lol). You should never be behind in worker count.
If you completely destroy a terran or protoss army, the last thing you are is 'behind.'
This is extremely false. If you do not drone properly you will fall behind very quickly. Making units is not drones, and in the beginning of the game, it's vital to get a solid economy going. Terran and Protoss can make units and drones at the same time, so they sacrifice nothing econ-wise by attacking with early units. That's just a fact. They will have the same number of probes and scvs regardless of whether or not they attack or defend or whatever.
The production advantage only works if you have the macro to back it up, which early game you do not. "Trading armies" is not ideal for zerg until they are outmacroing you.
I don't understand why people make a big deal out of zerg FE. We need the larva no matter what, and there's no advantage to an inbase hatch. There's nothing greedy about a zerg FE.
|
On December 28 2010 10:36 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +It's nothing to the zerg to throw away a few zerglings at the start, but to a protoss, those first few sentries or stalkers are everything. It's impossible to recover from the loss of resources and army strength if you lose your early game units, ESPECIALLY if the zerg fast expanded (as though there are zergs that don't do this lol). You should never be behind in worker count.
If you completely destroy a terran or protoss army, the last thing you are is 'behind.' The production advantage only works if you have the macro to back it up, which early game you do not. "Trading armies" is not ideal for zerg until they are outmacroing you.
Very well said. If you pump a bunch of lings or roaches in the early game, and the Terran/protoss hold you off with equal resources/units lost(but no damage to their economy), then you are going to find yourself very far behind since they were making probes/scv's that whole time and you have crap for drones in comparison. This drastically changes the further you progress into the game, but I really don't think Zerg has any place being aggressive until the midgame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
