Analysis of Macro - Page 6

On February 10 2011 05:16 PJA wrote:


Less mineral patches would worsen the problem described in OP, allowing players to cut workers even earlier without hurting their econ.

Increasing the mineral patches would be more beneficial if lalush's theory is correct.

On February 10 2011 02:38 pilsken wrote:
Zerg point of view:

I feel that this misses out one major factor: Gas.

More expansions for zerg are usually not gotten for the minerals but most likely for more gas. Considering that the dream late-game composition is not 50 roaches, some lings and hydras but rather Broodlord-Infestor-Corrupter, i feel that gas is the limiting factor for zerg, as these super high tech units have a mineral:gas relation of 1:1 or worse, considering all the tech.

Even great macro Zergs like Nestea and Idra (and certainly everyone else below their level) has in the mid game often a surplus in minerals as your only mineral-dump is the super larva-heavy Zergling or Eco (=Expansions + Drones). If i take a faster fourth or fifth base, it's not because i need the minerals, it's because i wanna go hive, i wanna mass Mutas, i wanna get upgrades and pump infestors. I usually have only 3-4 guys at the minerals and then 6 saturating the gas very fast, so i can steer away from Roaches/Lings, which become worse and worse as the P and T armys add their tech-choices (namely tanks and Collo/Storm).

If there are tons of expansions, Zergs won't get ahead in minerals, but if i have 5 bases worth of gas, i can pump Mutas like Zerglings.

On February 10 2011 01:58 LaLuSh wrote:

I cannot help but find a major contradiction in Blizzard’s conceptual outline of how the zerg race is supposed to be played in SC2 with what the game’s economical system actually allows for. Zerg are supposed to keep outexpanding, outmacroing and outproducing their opponents.

Based on these data, the only way to secure a macro lead in SC2 seems to be by rushing to 3 fully saturated bases as quickly as humanly possible. The entire objective for zerg in SC2 seems to have been reduced to recklessly rushing to a macro lead as quickly, stupidly and foolishly as possible before the game caps the chance for any macro lead to develop.







This is an interesting question to pose with the new and giantly oversized maps GSL have introduced. I believe these large maps are an anti reaction to the volatile and unpredictable play that plagued “Blizzard-sized maps”. The unmanageable strategic extremes (due to unnamed factors that may or may not have been attempted to be explained in this article) on small and medium sized maps simply created the need for a party to step in and introduce a buffer zone for rushes and timing attacks.

With that said: what will larger maps achieve apart from increasing rush distances?

I would say absolutely nothing. What need do players have for 14 expansions in a game like Starcraft 2? Absolutely none. Zerg’s play will be centered around saturating 3 bases as quickly as possible and launching suicide attacks at the opponents’ thirds. Protoss’ play will be centered around camping and delaying until they’ve reached their invincible end game composition on 3+ bases. Terran’s play will… no idea.

Large maps will simply and frankly favor the race that currently has the pleasure of being dominant when maxed out in a 3base vs. 3base late game situation. That race, as you’ll see, will be Protoss. And please don’t mistake this for whine; it’s merely stating what should be obvious. On the other end, the same maps will likely disfavor the previous most stable performing tournament race on blizzard-sized maps: Terran.

On February 10 2011 05:48 intrigue wrote:
very good post. the vague discomforts i had about the game are being addressed one by one on TL forums by people like you! are there custom maps with a 300 supply cap to test out? i really want to see how it feels, and how zerg fares with maxed armies in that situation.