[January] SC2 General Discussion - Page 8

On January 28 2012 23:09 Rulker wrote:
Does anyone feel like with the lack of (Foreign) tournaments, MLG specifically, they are becoming more hyped and hyped for this year's MLGs? I know I am, I can't wait to see the foreigners who worked hard in korea (Nani, IdrA, Morrow, Sase, etc) at an MLG!

On January 29 2012 09:27 springtree wrote:
Ever since I started playing I've always heard people say 'zerg need more bases than p/t' but I realized that I never fully understood why.

Are zerg units more expensive? It doesn't feel like it.

I understand needing more HATCHES for larvae but people are saying 'need more bases' not 'need more hatches'..

On January 29 2012 18:21 springtree wrote:
Ah, right.. So basically, hatches are cheaper which makes up for the fact you need more income. I wonder why units aren't cheaper to make up for them being weaker instead, but at the same time I don't think the game is unfavorable for zerg so I guess it works out somehow.

On January 29 2012 20:44 SovSov wrote:
It's the core principle of race diversity.
Protoss -> Strong, expensive units, few of them (high tech aliens)
Zerg -> Weak, inexpensive units, many of them (swarm)
Terran -> Versatile, middle expense, middle amount of them (humans as the "all around" race)

On January 29 2012 23:44 springtree wrote:


Don't mean to nag but that's just the thing -- zerg is the "weak, inexpensive" race, but it needs the most eco? O.o

On January 30 2012 00:15 SovSov wrote:

Yes, 1000 minerals worth of Zerg units is a lot weaker than 1000 minerals worth of Protoss units. So in order to stay even Zerg needs 1.5k minerals worth of units to compete.

(numbers are made up, but its for concept)

On January 30 2012 12:03 _scout wrote:


Forty lings will kill eight stalkers, so it can never be a straightforward comparison (and that's 400 gas to boot). Zerg produces out of hatcheries, so they need to continue hatchery production / larva inject to keep up in supply. Because of the creep vision and creep bonus Zerg players can and should expand ahead of their opponents. Do they need to? Probably not actually, if a Zerg player acted like a Terran and nailed some juicy 2-base timing push with roaches/hydras it would probably be fairly good against a Protoss also on 2-base (as long as the timing is while P is teching to colossi).

On January 16 2012 10:52 Sportnlife wrote:
So I've been watching a lot of TvZ recently and I've noticed Zerg players are starting to handle Reactor Hellion openings surprisingly well, and the common transition to Siege Tank/Marine is usually well countered by mass Ling/Baneling. Like in the Stephano vs Thorzain games in the SCI4. Do you think the meta game will start to shift away from Reactor Hellion openings to something else?

On January 30 2012 17:54 tryteyker wrote:
Alright, so I'm trying to catch up with the Day9 Dailies (never watched them actually D: ), and I'm trying to find the most important Dailies, ie most useful, would be nice if anyone could help me out there.

On January 30 2012 18:25 Blezza wrote:


You can't just isolate units like that though. If I went 1000 into lings then toss would 1000 into zealots and the Protoss would definetly win that engage. Also sentries give the Protoss a better engage and the Zerg worse. This is why roaches have 4 range so that they are more affected by forcefields. Mutas are extremely gas heavy so if u were on equal bases u would most definetly lose. If our units cost less it wouldn't make difference because we would have the same amount of larva, Zerg need the extra income.