|
On July 16 2012 05:40 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 05:30 Snowbear wrote:On July 16 2012 05:04 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 04:42 Crying wrote:
you guys are joking right
zerg not cost efficient???
BL/Infestor???
Ling/Ultra/Baneling/Infestor???
You joke right?
And you know that actually if protoss makes air to deal with BLs they die to a fungal?
And if we build colossus the zerg can pop 15corrupturs and NO BLINK can deal but not enoughly good Cost of Baneling per supply: 100/50 Cost of Broodlord per supply: 75/62,5 Cost of Infestor per supply: 50/75 Cost of Corruptor per supply: 75/50 Cost of Ultralisk per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Zergling per supply: 50/0 Now let's compare them to what Protoss and Terrans use against them: Cost of Medivac per supply: 50/50 Cost of Viking per supply: 75/37,5 Cost of Tank per supply: 50/41,6 Cost of Thor per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Marauder per supply: 50/12.5 Cost of Marine per supply: 50/0 Cost of HT and (HT-) Archon per supply: 25/75 Cost of Mothership per supply: 50/50 Cost of Colossus per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Immortal per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Stalker per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Zealot per supply: 50/0 So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. Funny enough, if you start using more and more Archons and a mothership and add in HTs (25/75) for carpet storming and replace stalkers with carriers (75/41,6), Protoss does very well because then they use armies that actually cost a similar amount of minerals and gas. Similar for Terrans that use Ravens (50/100) and BCs (66,6/50) and the occasional ghost (100/50) to EMP and snipe Infestors. If there is a problem with BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf (or whatever exact mixture of units is best), it is that zerg gets such an army way before Terran and Protoss, which can't switch into their respective "perfect armies" (so armies that don't use marines or marauders or stalkers) easily in the lategame. Let's imagine a maxed ling bling infestor ultra army. It will kill the terran army (unless the zerg fucks up). The zerg will remax faster, and the terran will lose his expansions. Zerg is maxed and can put more money in his eco. How can the terran ever win??? A maxed ling/bling/infestor/Ultra army gets DESTROYED by a maxed Tank/Thor/Hellion(Ghost) army and can't even fight a maxed BC/Raven force. If you insist on going bio or biomech against Zerg in the lategame, then you have to avoid big main army engagements at all costs, because the Zerg army is simply stronger, because it is simply way more costly. Again, I'm not saying that the game is balanced in the lategame, because the transitioning is too hard for Terran and the "timing window" for Broodlords therefore is way to big. (while the same does not hold for Protoss; transitioning into Archons (Warpgatebased) and Mothership (only one needed) is quite OK)
Yet top protoss lose more often than win even IF they get to the Archon+mothership combo.
Also your cost per supply comparison is kinda misleading as there's no roach in there nor does it factor in that zergs are at least one base ahead which means more gas income and probably more mineral income in most games. The race that has a better income that can sustain slightly more expensive units is imo preferable to one that has "cost efficient" units yet worse economy and production. Increase build time of ultra cavern/greater spire and the respective units?
|
On July 16 2012 05:51 Primal666 wrote:
i love how people can assume that zerg can just''remax'' faster, the only reason most pro zergs win lategame is because they already have an advantage so they have time to max out larvea.I rarely see zerg max army being sucesful when they arent compeltetly in control of the game.
Well Zerg has the late game advantage because they play Zerg, both Terran and Protoss struggle currently to stop Zerg from droning nonstop to perfect drone saturation. Zerg got buffed so many times, and players learned to play Zerg better which makes them currently the strongest race in the current meta game and state of balance.
This was clear from the beginning of SC2 because zerg has the strongest macro mechanic in the game (stacking production cycles)
Currently goods Zergs only lose if they somehow misjudge their opponents build. This however is almost impossible due to way better scouting and mapcontrol of Zerg.
Most time we see Zerg players losing a game when they try some all-innish attack and fail. (i.e. yesterday with MC vs. Stephano)
|
On July 16 2012 05:46 Iamyournoob wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 05:04 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 04:42 Crying wrote:
you guys are joking right
zerg not cost efficient???
BL/Infestor???
Ling/Ultra/Baneling/Infestor???
You joke right?
And you know that actually if protoss makes air to deal with BLs they die to a fungal?
And if we build colossus the zerg can pop 15corrupturs and NO BLINK can deal but not enoughly good Cost of Baneling per supply: 100/50 Cost of Broodlord per supply: 75/62,5 Cost of Infestor per supply: 50/75 Cost of Corruptor per supply: 75/50 Cost of Ultralisk per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Zergling per supply: 50/0 Now let's compare them to what Protoss and Terrans use against them: Cost of Medivac per supply: 50/50 Cost of Viking per supply: 75/37,5 Cost of Tank per supply: 50/41,6 Cost of Thor per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Marauder per supply: 50/12.5 Cost of Marine per supply: 50/0 Cost of HT and (HT-) Archon per supply: 25/75 Cost of Mothership per supply: 50/50 Cost of Colossus per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Immortal per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Stalker per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Zealot per supply: 50/0 So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. Funny enough, if you start using more and more Archons and a mothership and add in HTs (25/75) for carpet storming and replace stalkers with carriers (75/41,6), Protoss does very well because then they use armies that actually cost a similar amount of minerals and gas. Similar for Terrans that use Ravens (50/100) and BCs (66,6/50) and the occasional ghost (100/50) to EMP and snipe Infestors. If there is a problem with BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf (or whatever exact mixture of units is best), it is that zerg gets such an army way before Terran and Protoss, which can't switch into their respective "perfect armies" (so armies that don't use marines or marauders or stalkers) easily in the lategame. Is that your definition of cost-efficiency? You just state how much minerals/gas 1 supply of a certain unit costs which is basically a useless fact in the first place, if you ask me. Cost-efficiency basically means that I need to spend less ressources on fighting units than my opponent to be on equal army strength. Btw you missed one unit in your list: The Roach with "37,5/12,5" per supply if I am not mistaken. From what you are presenting there it seems to be the most "cost efficient" unit in the game (going by that imo wrong definition by you). Oh and guess what the staple unit in ZvP is these days. Right...
What are you talking about, you are completly missinterpreting what I wrote? I'm listing this, because it gets clear that if even supply armies of let's say Colossus/Stalker collide with Broodlord/Infestor, the Zergs army basically has cost like double the money and therefore will be superior.
And I did not list the roach, because the roach is not part of the ultimate Zerg lategame army. If it gets still used in a lategame army, then only because zerg had some left over or can't afford better units.
And no matter how you turn it, 37,5+12,5 = 50 so like a zergling, marine, or zealot, just that it costs gas as well.
The most basic interpretation of those stats is:
Low cost per supply units are costefficient, high cost per supply units are supply efficient. If you have same supply, the one with the supplyefficiency usually wins. If you have the same investment, the one with the costefficiency usually wins.
That's the whole reason why roach/ling is strong vs Protoss (very costefficient) premax, and why it sucks after max and why armies like Broodlord/Infestor are not rushable (like 1-2base hive go Broodlords), because one Broodlord doesn't do shit if the opponent gets 11 or more marines for the same money.
|
What about simply making zergbases cost 400 minerals, as bases cost for every other race?
Would Zerg make maybe be a bit more cautious about expanding.
Atm its mostly like: throw down 2-3 hatchies > watch which comes through > impeccable macro.
It just feels wrong to me playing as terran on maybe three bases, fend off multiple harrasses in grand favor, just to get out on the map and see he took every base while wasting stuff to keep you in your base and having even a bigger army afterwards although you warded off aggressions perfectly.
Yes, it would cut into zergs early game a bit, but since queenbuff Z's are sooo strong early on that it would be fair imo. Wouldnt mind a shorter lingsspeedtime to compensate.
Plus: This change wouldnt affect the fragile unit-balance, since its a one-(or two or tree)-time investment, nothing permanently gamechangeing.
|
On July 16 2012 05:58 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 05:46 Iamyournoob wrote:On July 16 2012 05:04 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 04:42 Crying wrote:
you guys are joking right
zerg not cost efficient???
BL/Infestor???
Ling/Ultra/Baneling/Infestor???
You joke right?
And you know that actually if protoss makes air to deal with BLs they die to a fungal?
And if we build colossus the zerg can pop 15corrupturs and NO BLINK can deal but not enoughly good Cost of Baneling per supply: 100/50 Cost of Broodlord per supply: 75/62,5 Cost of Infestor per supply: 50/75 Cost of Corruptor per supply: 75/50 Cost of Ultralisk per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Zergling per supply: 50/0 Now let's compare them to what Protoss and Terrans use against them: Cost of Medivac per supply: 50/50 Cost of Viking per supply: 75/37,5 Cost of Tank per supply: 50/41,6 Cost of Thor per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Marauder per supply: 50/12.5 Cost of Marine per supply: 50/0 Cost of HT and (HT-) Archon per supply: 25/75 Cost of Mothership per supply: 50/50 Cost of Colossus per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Immortal per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Stalker per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Zealot per supply: 50/0 So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. Funny enough, if you start using more and more Archons and a mothership and add in HTs (25/75) for carpet storming and replace stalkers with carriers (75/41,6), Protoss does very well because then they use armies that actually cost a similar amount of minerals and gas. Similar for Terrans that use Ravens (50/100) and BCs (66,6/50) and the occasional ghost (100/50) to EMP and snipe Infestors. If there is a problem with BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf (or whatever exact mixture of units is best), it is that zerg gets such an army way before Terran and Protoss, which can't switch into their respective "perfect armies" (so armies that don't use marines or marauders or stalkers) easily in the lategame. Is that your definition of cost-efficiency? You just state how much minerals/gas 1 supply of a certain unit costs which is basically a useless fact in the first place, if you ask me. Cost-efficiency basically means that I need to spend less ressources on fighting units than my opponent to be on equal army strength. Btw you missed one unit in your list: The Roach with "37,5/12,5" per supply if I am not mistaken. From what you are presenting there it seems to be the most "cost efficient" unit in the game (going by that imo wrong definition by you). Oh and guess what the staple unit in ZvP is these days. Right... What are you talking about, you are completly missinterpreting what I wrote? I'm listing this, because it gets clear that if even supply armies of let's say Colossus/Stalker collide with Broodlord/Infestor, the Zergs army basically has cost like double the money and therefore will be superior. .
Wait a second.... You first write:
"So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. "
Then you continue:
"the Zergs army basically has cost like double the money and therefore will be superior."
This is not in general a contradiction, but... I really do not understand where you are going with this. Supplyefficiency and cost effiency are two distinct things that is for sure.
But first of all: just by putting some numbers out there you do not precisely quantify one or the other. And second, if the more expensive late-game Zerg army beats Terran and Protoss armies doesn't that mean they are cost-efficient? I mean, you can argue which one is stronger...
The point I am trying to make here simply is: Your numbers do not uniquely define cost (in)efficiency and therefore I have no idea what you ultimately want to tell me.
|
On July 16 2012 05:58 freetgy wrote:
Most time we see Zerg players losing a game when they try some all-innish attack and fail. (i.e. yesterday with MC vs. Stephano)
and right there Ret proves it again
|
On July 16 2012 06:09 Iamyournoob wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 05:58 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 05:46 Iamyournoob wrote:On July 16 2012 05:04 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 04:42 Crying wrote:
you guys are joking right
zerg not cost efficient???
BL/Infestor???
Ling/Ultra/Baneling/Infestor???
You joke right?
And you know that actually if protoss makes air to deal with BLs they die to a fungal?
And if we build colossus the zerg can pop 15corrupturs and NO BLINK can deal but not enoughly good Cost of Baneling per supply: 100/50 Cost of Broodlord per supply: 75/62,5 Cost of Infestor per supply: 50/75 Cost of Corruptor per supply: 75/50 Cost of Ultralisk per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Zergling per supply: 50/0 Now let's compare them to what Protoss and Terrans use against them: Cost of Medivac per supply: 50/50 Cost of Viking per supply: 75/37,5 Cost of Tank per supply: 50/41,6 Cost of Thor per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Marauder per supply: 50/12.5 Cost of Marine per supply: 50/0 Cost of HT and (HT-) Archon per supply: 25/75 Cost of Mothership per supply: 50/50 Cost of Colossus per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Immortal per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Stalker per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Zealot per supply: 50/0 So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. Funny enough, if you start using more and more Archons and a mothership and add in HTs (25/75) for carpet storming and replace stalkers with carriers (75/41,6), Protoss does very well because then they use armies that actually cost a similar amount of minerals and gas. Similar for Terrans that use Ravens (50/100) and BCs (66,6/50) and the occasional ghost (100/50) to EMP and snipe Infestors. If there is a problem with BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf (or whatever exact mixture of units is best), it is that zerg gets such an army way before Terran and Protoss, which can't switch into their respective "perfect armies" (so armies that don't use marines or marauders or stalkers) easily in the lategame. Is that your definition of cost-efficiency? You just state how much minerals/gas 1 supply of a certain unit costs which is basically a useless fact in the first place, if you ask me. Cost-efficiency basically means that I need to spend less ressources on fighting units than my opponent to be on equal army strength. Btw you missed one unit in your list: The Roach with "37,5/12,5" per supply if I am not mistaken. From what you are presenting there it seems to be the most "cost efficient" unit in the game (going by that imo wrong definition by you). Oh and guess what the staple unit in ZvP is these days. Right... What are you talking about, you are completly missinterpreting what I wrote? I'm listing this, because it gets clear that if even supply armies of let's say Colossus/Stalker collide with Broodlord/Infestor, the Zergs army basically has cost like double the money and therefore will be superior. . Wait a second.... You first write: "So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. " Then you continue: "the Zergs army basically has cost like double the money and therefore will be superior." This is not in general a contradiction, but... I really do not understand where you are going with this. Supplyefficiency and cost effiency are two distinct things that is for sure. But first of all: just by putting some numbers out there you do not precisely quantify one or the other. And second, if the more expensive late-game Zerg army beats Terran and Protoss armies doesn't that mean they are cost-efficient? I mean, you can argue which one is stronger... The point I am trying to make here simply is: Your numbers do not uniquely define cost (in)efficiency and therefore I have no idea what you ultimately want to tell me.
yeah I agree, the Zerg army could still be costefficient from what I stated. But you can test that easily. All we need to do for this is make the "usual" (so stalker/colossus and marine/medivac/tank based composition with whatever few other units P/T will have in this scenario like some extra vikings) Protoss/Terran composition and put it to let's say 140 supply (simulating 60workers) and then buy an army that costs just as much of Broodlord/Infestor/Corruptor. The outcome will be something that is probably between 80 and 100 supply. Then you let them fight and therby determine costefficiency.
I ultimatly want to tell you, that the Zerg army is not costefficient in terms of "wins in even costfights".
|
What about simply making zergbases cost 400 minerals, as bases cost for every other race?
Good idea!
Amd then we make Hatches not costing a Drone and give them 10 supply instead of 2, like every other race...
|
On July 16 2012 06:21 Charon1979 wrote:Show nested quote +What about simply making zergbases cost 400 minerals, as bases cost for every other race? Good idea! Amd then we make Hatches not costing a Drone and give them 10 supply instead of 2, like every other race...
fine with me if zerg loses their starting overloard 
|
On July 16 2012 06:19 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 06:09 Iamyournoob wrote:On July 16 2012 05:58 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 05:46 Iamyournoob wrote:On July 16 2012 05:04 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 04:42 Crying wrote:
you guys are joking right
zerg not cost efficient???
BL/Infestor???
Ling/Ultra/Baneling/Infestor???
You joke right?
And you know that actually if protoss makes air to deal with BLs they die to a fungal?
And if we build colossus the zerg can pop 15corrupturs and NO BLINK can deal but not enoughly good Cost of Baneling per supply: 100/50 Cost of Broodlord per supply: 75/62,5 Cost of Infestor per supply: 50/75 Cost of Corruptor per supply: 75/50 Cost of Ultralisk per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Zergling per supply: 50/0 Now let's compare them to what Protoss and Terrans use against them: Cost of Medivac per supply: 50/50 Cost of Viking per supply: 75/37,5 Cost of Tank per supply: 50/41,6 Cost of Thor per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Marauder per supply: 50/12.5 Cost of Marine per supply: 50/0 Cost of HT and (HT-) Archon per supply: 25/75 Cost of Mothership per supply: 50/50 Cost of Colossus per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Immortal per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Stalker per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Zealot per supply: 50/0 So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. Funny enough, if you start using more and more Archons and a mothership and add in HTs (25/75) for carpet storming and replace stalkers with carriers (75/41,6), Protoss does very well because then they use armies that actually cost a similar amount of minerals and gas. Similar for Terrans that use Ravens (50/100) and BCs (66,6/50) and the occasional ghost (100/50) to EMP and snipe Infestors. If there is a problem with BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf (or whatever exact mixture of units is best), it is that zerg gets such an army way before Terran and Protoss, which can't switch into their respective "perfect armies" (so armies that don't use marines or marauders or stalkers) easily in the lategame. Is that your definition of cost-efficiency? You just state how much minerals/gas 1 supply of a certain unit costs which is basically a useless fact in the first place, if you ask me. Cost-efficiency basically means that I need to spend less ressources on fighting units than my opponent to be on equal army strength. Btw you missed one unit in your list: The Roach with "37,5/12,5" per supply if I am not mistaken. From what you are presenting there it seems to be the most "cost efficient" unit in the game (going by that imo wrong definition by you). Oh and guess what the staple unit in ZvP is these days. Right... What are you talking about, you are completly missinterpreting what I wrote? I'm listing this, because it gets clear that if even supply armies of let's say Colossus/Stalker collide with Broodlord/Infestor, the Zergs army basically has cost like double the money and therefore will be superior. . Wait a second.... You first write: "So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. " Then you continue: "the Zergs army basically has cost like double the money and therefore will be superior." This is not in general a contradiction, but... I really do not understand where you are going with this. Supplyefficiency and cost effiency are two distinct things that is for sure. But first of all: just by putting some numbers out there you do not precisely quantify one or the other. And second, if the more expensive late-game Zerg army beats Terran and Protoss armies doesn't that mean they are cost-efficient? I mean, you can argue which one is stronger... The point I am trying to make here simply is: Your numbers do not uniquely define cost (in)efficiency and therefore I have no idea what you ultimately want to tell me. yeah I agree, the Zerg army could still be costefficient from what I stated. But you can test that easily. All we need to do for this is make the "usual" (so stalker/colossus and marine/medivac/tank based composition with whatever few other units P/T will have in this scenario like some extra vikings) Protoss/Terran composition and put it to let's say 140 supply (simulating 60workers) and then buy an army that costs just as much of Broodlord/Infestor/Corruptor. The outcome will be something that is probably between 80 and 100 supply. Then you let them fight and therby determine costefficiency. I ultimatly want to tell you, that the Zerg army is not costefficient in terms of "wins in even costfights".
But how does it work as zergs are one to two bases up, especially mining extra gas compared to the other races. Shouldn't that be a factor when comparing army cost, one race has an advantage here that makes it easier for him to pump alot more gas into units.
|
On July 16 2012 06:05 AdmrlAwesome wrote:
What about simply making zergbases cost 400 minerals, as bases cost for every other race? Compared to protoss expansion, the hatchery is more expensive.
300+50 minerals for a hatchery and 2 supply
vs
400 minerals for a nexus and 10 supply (-> 50 minerals cheaper )
cant really compare to command centre/orbital/planetary
|
|
|
Good idea!
Amd then we make Hatches not costing a Drone and give them 10 supply instead of 2, like every other race...
Wouldnt mind minor adjustments to keep it fair. How they'd look has to be discussed, but im tired of seeing Zergs sit around macroing 10+mins long and then overwhelm anything by default. (6pool or macro, rarly seen something in between as T or P do)
Currently expanding is just no investment for zergs as it cuts in hugely for other races..
|
On July 16 2012 06:19 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 06:09 Iamyournoob wrote:On July 16 2012 05:58 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 05:46 Iamyournoob wrote:On July 16 2012 05:04 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 04:42 Crying wrote:
you guys are joking right
zerg not cost efficient???
BL/Infestor???
Ling/Ultra/Baneling/Infestor???
You joke right?
And you know that actually if protoss makes air to deal with BLs they die to a fungal?
And if we build colossus the zerg can pop 15corrupturs and NO BLINK can deal but not enoughly good Cost of Baneling per supply: 100/50 Cost of Broodlord per supply: 75/62,5 Cost of Infestor per supply: 50/75 Cost of Corruptor per supply: 75/50 Cost of Ultralisk per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Zergling per supply: 50/0 Now let's compare them to what Protoss and Terrans use against them: Cost of Medivac per supply: 50/50 Cost of Viking per supply: 75/37,5 Cost of Tank per supply: 50/41,6 Cost of Thor per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Marauder per supply: 50/12.5 Cost of Marine per supply: 50/0 Cost of HT and (HT-) Archon per supply: 25/75 Cost of Mothership per supply: 50/50 Cost of Colossus per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Immortal per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Stalker per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Zealot per supply: 50/0 So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. Funny enough, if you start using more and more Archons and a mothership and add in HTs (25/75) for carpet storming and replace stalkers with carriers (75/41,6), Protoss does very well because then they use armies that actually cost a similar amount of minerals and gas. Similar for Terrans that use Ravens (50/100) and BCs (66,6/50) and the occasional ghost (100/50) to EMP and snipe Infestors. If there is a problem with BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf (or whatever exact mixture of units is best), it is that zerg gets such an army way before Terran and Protoss, which can't switch into their respective "perfect armies" (so armies that don't use marines or marauders or stalkers) easily in the lategame. Is that your definition of cost-efficiency? You just state how much minerals/gas 1 supply of a certain unit costs which is basically a useless fact in the first place, if you ask me. Cost-efficiency basically means that I need to spend less ressources on fighting units than my opponent to be on equal army strength. Btw you missed one unit in your list: The Roach with "37,5/12,5" per supply if I am not mistaken. From what you are presenting there it seems to be the most "cost efficient" unit in the game (going by that imo wrong definition by you). Oh and guess what the staple unit in ZvP is these days. Right... What are you talking about, you are completly missinterpreting what I wrote? I'm listing this, because it gets clear that if even supply armies of let's say Colossus/Stalker collide with Broodlord/Infestor, the Zergs army basically has cost like double the money and therefore will be superior. . Wait a second.... You first write: "So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. " Then you continue: "the Zergs army basically has cost like double the money and therefore will be superior." This is not in general a contradiction, but... I really do not understand where you are going with this. Supplyefficiency and cost effiency are two distinct things that is for sure. But first of all: just by putting some numbers out there you do not precisely quantify one or the other. And second, if the more expensive late-game Zerg army beats Terran and Protoss armies doesn't that mean they are cost-efficient? I mean, you can argue which one is stronger... The point I am trying to make here simply is: Your numbers do not uniquely define cost (in)efficiency and therefore I have no idea what you ultimately want to tell me. yeah I agree, the Zerg army could still be costefficient from what I stated. But you can test that easily. All we need to do for this is make the "usual" (so stalker/colossus and marine/medivac/tank based composition with whatever few other units P/T will have in this scenario like some extra vikings) Protoss/Terran composition and put it to let's say 140 supply (simulating 60workers) and then buy an army that costs just as much of Broodlord/Infestor/Corruptor. The outcome will be something that is probably between 80 and 100 supply. Then you let them fight and therby determine costefficiency. I ultimatly want to tell you, that the Zerg army is not costefficient in terms of "wins in even costfights".
Okay, there we go Sorry, was a tad confused there.
However, consider 2 things: Zerg most of the time has more supply in workers and also in Queens which might not contribute in the actual engagements (at least not all of them). So Zerg might have a smaller army in terms of supply which may cost more. Again, I don't want to argue which Deathball is stronger, but it might be misleading to postulate that in a 200/200 scenario both races to have equal army supply.
Furthermore - which does not really adress your numbers, but still - one thing to consider is how a player got to a certain army. If you as a Zerg were able to survive with the very cost efficient roaches, you basically have ressources left over that you can now put in your more expensive to build lategame army whereas a Protoss for instance had to spent money on stalkers, sentries. The question is again: Can you trade Roaches efficiently against Protoss Gateway units. And againg, I don't think there is a clear answer.
But I believe that it is safe to conclude that the Zerg lategame army does not have to be afraid of Protoss or Terran late game compositions. At least of those they actually have, not the theoretically unbeatable ones 
EDIT: I reread my post and I have left out half of the stuff I would have had to say in order to make sense. However, I am too tired to correct this error. Garbage post.
|
On July 16 2012 06:23 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 06:19 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 06:09 Iamyournoob wrote:On July 16 2012 05:58 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 05:46 Iamyournoob wrote:On July 16 2012 05:04 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 04:42 Crying wrote:
you guys are joking right
zerg not cost efficient???
BL/Infestor???
Ling/Ultra/Baneling/Infestor???
You joke right?
And you know that actually if protoss makes air to deal with BLs they die to a fungal?
And if we build colossus the zerg can pop 15corrupturs and NO BLINK can deal but not enoughly good Cost of Baneling per supply: 100/50 Cost of Broodlord per supply: 75/62,5 Cost of Infestor per supply: 50/75 Cost of Corruptor per supply: 75/50 Cost of Ultralisk per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Zergling per supply: 50/0 Now let's compare them to what Protoss and Terrans use against them: Cost of Medivac per supply: 50/50 Cost of Viking per supply: 75/37,5 Cost of Tank per supply: 50/41,6 Cost of Thor per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Marauder per supply: 50/12.5 Cost of Marine per supply: 50/0 Cost of HT and (HT-) Archon per supply: 25/75 Cost of Mothership per supply: 50/50 Cost of Colossus per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Immortal per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Stalker per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Zealot per supply: 50/0 So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. Funny enough, if you start using more and more Archons and a mothership and add in HTs (25/75) for carpet storming and replace stalkers with carriers (75/41,6), Protoss does very well because then they use armies that actually cost a similar amount of minerals and gas. Similar for Terrans that use Ravens (50/100) and BCs (66,6/50) and the occasional ghost (100/50) to EMP and snipe Infestors. If there is a problem with BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf (or whatever exact mixture of units is best), it is that zerg gets such an army way before Terran and Protoss, which can't switch into their respective "perfect armies" (so armies that don't use marines or marauders or stalkers) easily in the lategame. Is that your definition of cost-efficiency? You just state how much minerals/gas 1 supply of a certain unit costs which is basically a useless fact in the first place, if you ask me. Cost-efficiency basically means that I need to spend less ressources on fighting units than my opponent to be on equal army strength. Btw you missed one unit in your list: The Roach with "37,5/12,5" per supply if I am not mistaken. From what you are presenting there it seems to be the most "cost efficient" unit in the game (going by that imo wrong definition by you). Oh and guess what the staple unit in ZvP is these days. Right... What are you talking about, you are completly missinterpreting what I wrote? I'm listing this, because it gets clear that if even supply armies of let's say Colossus/Stalker collide with Broodlord/Infestor, the Zergs army basically has cost like double the money and therefore will be superior. . Wait a second.... You first write: "So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. " Then you continue: "the Zergs army basically has cost like double the money and therefore will be superior." This is not in general a contradiction, but... I really do not understand where you are going with this. Supplyefficiency and cost effiency are two distinct things that is for sure. But first of all: just by putting some numbers out there you do not precisely quantify one or the other. And second, if the more expensive late-game Zerg army beats Terran and Protoss armies doesn't that mean they are cost-efficient? I mean, you can argue which one is stronger... The point I am trying to make here simply is: Your numbers do not uniquely define cost (in)efficiency and therefore I have no idea what you ultimately want to tell me. yeah I agree, the Zerg army could still be costefficient from what I stated. But you can test that easily. All we need to do for this is make the "usual" (so stalker/colossus and marine/medivac/tank based composition with whatever few other units P/T will have in this scenario like some extra vikings) Protoss/Terran composition and put it to let's say 140 supply (simulating 60workers) and then buy an army that costs just as much of Broodlord/Infestor/Corruptor. The outcome will be something that is probably between 80 and 100 supply. Then you let them fight and therby determine costefficiency. I ultimatly want to tell you, that the Zerg army is not costefficient in terms of "wins in even costfights". But how does it work as zergs are one to two bases up, especially mining extra gas compared to the other races. Shouldn't that be a factor when comparing army cost, one race has an advantage here that makes it easier for him to pump alot more gas into units.
If you go for a normal endgame scenario with 60-80workers per player. (I really thin 70 or 75 is best), you are usually at the same income because more than 3mining bases don't really pay off. (seeBreadth of Gameplay in SC2) Not to mention that Terrans also have mules.
It basically comes down to Zerg maybe being able to mine more gas, but then again, if you are 4base and your main gases haven't depleted yet you are mining off 8gas as well, and even zergs usually don't go for more than 10gas, which on even worker supply also means that their mineral income is lower if they use more gases.
I mean, I didn't really mean to argue gas costs bigtime with those stats. Just look at the combined overall cost (so interprete 1gas as 1mineral) and I'm still making the same point about how much more costly the zerg army is.
|
On July 16 2012 04:47 Masvidal wrote:
Zerg is flat-out broken against both Protoss AND Terran in the current build of the game. Arguing back and forth about whether or not change is warranted is pointless - it's obvious to pretty much everyone who plays the game and isn't a balance-blind, low-level Zerg player that one of two things need to happen. Either Zerg needs to be nerfed in some way to bring them in line, or Protoss and Terran both need to be buffed to bring them up in line with Zerg WITHOUT breaking the TvP matchup, which is the only non-mirror matchup in the game that is balanced at this point. Personally, I am in favor of the former option, because it makes more sense to change one overpowered race than to change two races which are already balanced relative to one another just because the 3rd race is more powerful. Anyone who can't see that Zerg having the strongest maxed army of all 3 races AND being able to remax into the same army faster than the other 2 races is a problem is stupid or insane.
So zerg queens get +1 range and suddenly the entire race is totally OP?
You claim PvT is balanced? It was considered heavily protoss favoured until very recently, because terran kept trying to play the macro game against a race that's stronger in the lategame. Only now is it "balanced" because terran have doing a lot more early and mid-game timings
ZvT is in a similar situation at the moment, terrans are expanding way too quickly and predictably - you can never out-macro a race that can build drones 15 at a time. Zergs see the CC firsts and just take a 3rd, if terrans opened with something like 2 rax or blueflame the games would be very different.
It's all metagame.
Also the zerg max isnt stronger than the P or T maxes. If both races spend equal minerals+gas on a 200 army, the zerg will always be weaker. Ravens, Ghosts and BCs are super strong, but the problem is getting to them.
And recreating an infestor/brood army from scratch takes quite a while and a huuuuge amount of gas.
|
On July 16 2012 06:33 Iamyournoob wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 06:19 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 06:09 Iamyournoob wrote:On July 16 2012 05:58 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 05:46 Iamyournoob wrote:On July 16 2012 05:04 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 04:42 Crying wrote:
you guys are joking right
zerg not cost efficient???
BL/Infestor???
Ling/Ultra/Baneling/Infestor???
You joke right?
And you know that actually if protoss makes air to deal with BLs they die to a fungal?
And if we build colossus the zerg can pop 15corrupturs and NO BLINK can deal but not enoughly good Cost of Baneling per supply: 100/50 Cost of Broodlord per supply: 75/62,5 Cost of Infestor per supply: 50/75 Cost of Corruptor per supply: 75/50 Cost of Ultralisk per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Zergling per supply: 50/0 Now let's compare them to what Protoss and Terrans use against them: Cost of Medivac per supply: 50/50 Cost of Viking per supply: 75/37,5 Cost of Tank per supply: 50/41,6 Cost of Thor per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Marauder per supply: 50/12.5 Cost of Marine per supply: 50/0 Cost of HT and (HT-) Archon per supply: 25/75 Cost of Mothership per supply: 50/50 Cost of Colossus per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Immortal per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Stalker per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Zealot per supply: 50/0 So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. Funny enough, if you start using more and more Archons and a mothership and add in HTs (25/75) for carpet storming and replace stalkers with carriers (75/41,6), Protoss does very well because then they use armies that actually cost a similar amount of minerals and gas. Similar for Terrans that use Ravens (50/100) and BCs (66,6/50) and the occasional ghost (100/50) to EMP and snipe Infestors. If there is a problem with BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf (or whatever exact mixture of units is best), it is that zerg gets such an army way before Terran and Protoss, which can't switch into their respective "perfect armies" (so armies that don't use marines or marauders or stalkers) easily in the lategame. Is that your definition of cost-efficiency? You just state how much minerals/gas 1 supply of a certain unit costs which is basically a useless fact in the first place, if you ask me. Cost-efficiency basically means that I need to spend less ressources on fighting units than my opponent to be on equal army strength. Btw you missed one unit in your list: The Roach with "37,5/12,5" per supply if I am not mistaken. From what you are presenting there it seems to be the most "cost efficient" unit in the game (going by that imo wrong definition by you). Oh and guess what the staple unit in ZvP is these days. Right... What are you talking about, you are completly missinterpreting what I wrote? I'm listing this, because it gets clear that if even supply armies of let's say Colossus/Stalker collide with Broodlord/Infestor, the Zergs army basically has cost like double the money and therefore will be superior. . Wait a second.... You first write: "So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. " Then you continue: "the Zergs army basically has cost like double the money and therefore will be superior." This is not in general a contradiction, but... I really do not understand where you are going with this. Supplyefficiency and cost effiency are two distinct things that is for sure. But first of all: just by putting some numbers out there you do not precisely quantify one or the other. And second, if the more expensive late-game Zerg army beats Terran and Protoss armies doesn't that mean they are cost-efficient? I mean, you can argue which one is stronger... The point I am trying to make here simply is: Your numbers do not uniquely define cost (in)efficiency and therefore I have no idea what you ultimately want to tell me. yeah I agree, the Zerg army could still be costefficient from what I stated. But you can test that easily. All we need to do for this is make the "usual" (so stalker/colossus and marine/medivac/tank based composition with whatever few other units P/T will have in this scenario like some extra vikings) Protoss/Terran composition and put it to let's say 140 supply (simulating 60workers) and then buy an army that costs just as much of Broodlord/Infestor/Corruptor. The outcome will be something that is probably between 80 and 100 supply. Then you let them fight and therby determine costefficiency. I ultimatly want to tell you, that the Zerg army is not costefficient in terms of "wins in even costfights". Okay, there we go Sorry, was a tad confused there. However, consider 2 things: Zerg most of the time has more supply in workers and also in Queens which might not contribute in the actual engagements (at least not all of them). So Zerg might have a smaller army in terms of supply which may cost more. Again, I don't want to argue which Deathball is stronger, but it might be misleading to postulate that in a 200/200 scenario both races to have equal army supply. Furthermore - which does not really adress your numbers, but still - one thing to consider is how a player got to a certain army. If you as a Zerg were able to survive with the very cost efficient roaches, you basically have ressources left over that you can now put in your more expensive to build lategame army whereas a Protoss for instance had to spent money on stalkers, sentries. The question is again: Can you trade Roaches efficiently against Protoss Gateway units. And againg, I don't think there is a clear answer. But I believe that it is safe to conclude that the Zerg lategame army does not have to be afraid of Protoss or Terran late game compositions. At least of those they actually have, not the theoretically unbeatable ones EDIT: I reread my post and I have left out half of the stuff I would have had to say in order to make sense. However, I am too tired to correct this error. Garbage post.
yeah, I'm totally on your side that there is way more to mention if you argue costefficientness in a general sense of a long macro game. But the thing that I wanted to point out was, that Zerg is not "costefficient" in terms of "we fight at completly even terms and Zerg wins".
But again, one thing I just want to point out is, that Zerg basically has nothing better to go for than BL/Inf/Corruptor, while P/T still have room. So if the lategame was balanced with the usual compositions being on even terms with BL/Inf/Cor, P/Ts could (probably) just turtle into the better army and then beat whatever zerg has.
So in my eyes, the conclusion should be that the transition into/addition of BC/Raven for Terran and into/of Carriers/Voidrays for Protoss should be easier, while in my eyes the zerg lategame units are fine. They just have too big of a timing window due to too little production, too big upgrade dependancy of Terran and Protoss Air endgame units.
|
On July 16 2012 06:43 Zrana wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 04:47 Masvidal wrote:
Zerg is flat-out broken against both Protoss AND Terran in the current build of the game. Arguing back and forth about whether or not change is warranted is pointless - it's obvious to pretty much everyone who plays the game and isn't a balance-blind, low-level Zerg player that one of two things need to happen. Either Zerg needs to be nerfed in some way to bring them in line, or Protoss and Terran both need to be buffed to bring them up in line with Zerg WITHOUT breaking the TvP matchup, which is the only non-mirror matchup in the game that is balanced at this point. Personally, I am in favor of the former option, because it makes more sense to change one overpowered race than to change two races which are already balanced relative to one another just because the 3rd race is more powerful. Anyone who can't see that Zerg having the strongest maxed army of all 3 races AND being able to remax into the same army faster than the other 2 races is a problem is stupid or insane. So zerg queens get +1 range and suddenly the entire race is totally OP? You claim PvT is balanced? It was considered heavily protoss favoured until very recently, because terran kept trying to play the macro game against a race that's stronger in the lategame. Only now is it "balanced" because terran have doing a lot more early and mid-game timings ZvT is in a similar situation at the moment, terrans are expanding way too quickly and predictably - you can never out-macro a race that can build drones 15 at a time. Zergs see the CC firsts and just take a 3rd, if terrans opened with something like 2 rax or blueflame the games would be very different. It's all metagame. Also the zerg max isnt stronger than the P or T maxes. If both races spend equal minerals+gas on a 200 army, the zerg will always be weaker. Ravens, Ghosts and BCs are super strong, but the problem is getting to them. And recreating an infestor/brood army from scratch takes quite a while and a huuuuge amount of gas.
They got +2 range IIRC.
The reason why Terrans open CC 1st is simple. If you play like 2 fac BF hellions and do like no damage at all (which is very likely at the higher lvls), you are pretty much lost. Good Zergs scout what's up, and you won't do that amount of dmg that it would be worth it to do such things
|
TL:DR @ bottom
......
Due to the fact that i see a lot of zergs winning everything all of a sudden, i feel motivated to contribute what i feel is a valuable perspective concerning the most recent balance changes regarding queen range.
First, the idea presented comes strictly from my (good) understanding of micro management and not from my understanding(s) of the current metagame and 1v1 strategy.
Some of you may have played MorroW's micro tourmanent (it's good). There is a matchup there where you get 5 rines and a single red flame hellion against 9 non-speed zerglings and a single queen. (the fight takes place on creep)
Before the patch change, the queen had a range of 3. What happened (almost invariably) when i was fighting as the T side, i would use the hellion to kill the lings and the marines to kill the queen. In the situations where i was unable to kill the queen and lost all my rines, i could actually kite the queen with enough accuracy that i would not take any fire from it whatsoever (this is a fight completely on creep, keep in mind).
You mght think this means hellions were OP, but not necessarily. It is actually very difficult to kite a 3 range queen with a 5 range hellion on creep because the time it takes for the hellion to shoot is just under the time it would take for the queen to close the distance and fire a shot (fire a tentacle before patch :D). When i was the zerg, by jerking the queen back and fourth to bate the hellion in closer than it needs to be, i could usually get some shots off, but instead of relying on this method i simply used my lings intelligently to kill both the rines and the hellion.
After the patch, obviously i cannot kite the queen anymore at all, the ranges are equal, and though i am still able to win this matchup with good marine control, the hellion now becomes something only useful for lings, and a liability due to its vulnerability to queens. It needs to be kept back to protect itself if it wants to get a chance to be useful instead of dying (you can use it to occupy the time of lings and such but that is if your opponent lets you).
So i instantly asked myself, if blizzard wanted queens to be more effective against hellions, why did they increase the range by 2 and not 1? I know for sure that a queen on creep with 4 range will be safe against hellion harassment. In fact it will create a balanced micro situation where the units can trade shot for shot instead of relying on their base attack speed. The hellion of course wants to trade shot for shot where the queen wants to get mroe shots in (with a faster attack speed) so the micro situations would look similar to what they do now, except the queens would actually be effective because they can always return fire to hellions if they are on creep. This forces the queens to actually stay on creep lest hellions take advantage of them.
So, my position is that instead of giving such a drastic buff (yes, it is a drastic buff) to queens when the game already seemed close to balanced, give it a smaller buff, the one the literally "skipped over".
Whether or not the overlord speed has contributed to the recent zerg surge or not i cannot say. And it is possible that queens are better off at 5 range and terrans just need to stop relying on hellions... But on a strict micro level, i think Queens at 4 range instead of 5 just makes more sense. Hellions used to own queens, and now queens own hellions...
TL;DR
Queens need to be put at range 4 instead of range 5. That way both hellions and queens will have to micro agaisnt one another for maximum effect.
|
On July 16 2012 04:02 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 02:57 Rabiator wrote:On July 16 2012 02:49 WaKai wrote:
Larva isn't even the problem, I've had better macro then most zerg players, usually they'll float 1000-2000 resources in the mid game while i'm at 400 floated resources. When he scouts my strat, and basically crushes it(i know how to marine split) while i have so little to build my army again, he basically rofl stomps me. The only time i win is when i actually catch the zerg droning.
The problem is that zerg get to many drones out so early. Maybe if they made queens cost an extra 50 gas so that they weren't the most cost efficient unit unit in the game. someone showed this to be true when they went down to the numbers. By doing this, it forces the zerg to get an earlier gas. Have to make a decision between speed for lings or more economy, opening up a window to punish the zerg for being greedy. As well Queens won't be easily massed as that will delay their tech. So basically you trade in "losing Drones from Hellion harrass" for "not getting Drones due to delayed Queens"? Not really a good change and Zerg will just get those 50 gas per hatchery for the Queens and then proceed with mass Drones as they do now. It wont affect the late game - which is the actual problem - at all. Uhhh...it would make it impossible for zerg to win. We would have no larva, no ling speed no tech no infestor no muta no drone if that happened. It would be impossible to beat ANYONE even two leagues below your level. Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 03:56 Adonminus wrote:
The problem is that if you nerf zerg for ZvT, it may cause problems to ZvP which is currently very nicely balanced. Only possible way to bring balance back is to simply revert queen range to 3, or at least to 4 instead of 5. I simply don't see any other possible solution that won't hurt ZvP. Tvz has swung back to balance in korea, byun just wtf raped nestea, maybe NA terrans should spend less time complaining and more time changing their play styles to the mass bio mass expand style kors have been doing? Everyone I play at top diamond goes marine tank two base timings, which havent worked in AGES.
yes of course, byun beat nestea the tvz matchup is now balanced!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
