|
On August 12 2012 22:50 zmansman17 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 09:58 Shiori wrote:On August 12 2012 09:21 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
watch teaja closely, terrans lategame strength is .. mules = unlimited macro. no zerg nerf required, just adjust your strategy. its not like teaja has insane micro, his main strength is macro+strategy Oh shut up. None of the games Taeja has played against Zerg have been anywhere near standard. Most of them have been the Zerg failing at metagaming him or Baneling Busting. If you try to 4CC on ladder you're going to get smashed. I love how so many Zergs point to Taeja and say "Do that." That's like saying: "Play perfectly and register an average of 300 apm".
There are tons of pros with a similar APM and even better micro. Taeja+Gumiho do well because they discovered some effective Strategies. One important aspect is obviously the use of macro OC's. And when watching lower level terrans (< GM) it is also obvious they do not make use OC's full potential.
|
United Kingdom12037 Posts
The thing people need to realise is this situation is exactly the same as the Fruitdealer situation.
Fruitdealer at a point was the only zerg to be able to do anything as (at the time) he was playing Zerg the best way anyone could. He made use of things others didn't and won the first GSL. The same thing is happening with Taeja in the fact he's playing perfectly, but he shouldn't be used as the majority as no-one is anywhere near as good as him. Look at his TvP's yesterday. His Micro is something that many people will never be able to pull off and he was winning engagements he probably shouldn't have.
|
On August 12 2012 23:12 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 23:01 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 12 2012 22:50 submarine wrote:On August 12 2012 21:21 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 12 2012 19:49 Bagi wrote:On August 12 2012 17:45 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 12 2012 09:58 Shiori wrote:On August 12 2012 09:21 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
watch teaja closely, terrans lategame strength is .. mules = unlimited macro. no zerg nerf required, just adjust your strategy. its not like teaja has insane micro, his main strength is macro+strategy Oh shut up. None of the games Taeja has played against Zerg have been anywhere near standard. Most of them have been the Zerg failing at metagaming him or Baneling Busting. If you try to 4CC on ladder you're going to get smashed. I still think Teaja's OC-heavy style is key. You don't go 22-3 just by being a superior player. Teaja outmacros with OC's + mules, so he can fight zerg late game with a macro advantage. Mules are insane, as you do not have oversaturation. You can mine 4000 minerals from one base if you have enough OC's, so you have to cover only few bases and don't lose supply to scv's. The problem is reaching this point safely on a map that isn't Metropolis or Atlantis Spaceship. Most zergs will push the advantage when they get to hive tech. If all other things are equal but you've invested thousands of minerals into extra CC's, there's no way to hold the typical BL push for example. It really was the failed early aggression that won Taeja those games, along with the maps that make greedy play so much easier to pull off. Well, ofc this is not easy, you have to do this reactively (scouting required  ) same as a droning zerg. When the Zerg drones hard, you can build OC's, else better build army. You have to understand that an orbital takes far longer to pay for itself compared to a round of drones. Terran is not designed to play reactive on that level. Terran can't build an army in 2 production cycles like zerg does. To have a certain army at a certain time you have to build the necessary infrastructure far ahead in time. If zerg builds a fast 3rd he can choose to use it to produce an army with it. An OC does not offer that kind of flexibility. I understand that, however OC's a re still good  . The time for ROI (return on investment) of drones is about 1,5 to 2 minutes (build time 17s + walk to minerals line [depends] + 75 seconds of mining). Roi of Macro Orbital: it takes les than one mule to mine the net cost of 215. so 100s for macro cc+35s for orbital+~75s = 210s for ROI. that's significantly longer. However long term OC's seem of enormous value to me .. How did you manage to land on 215 minerals? Thats some serious magic math^^. Please just stop this hardcore theory crafting and at least try those builds in a build order tester. Yes, mules and OCs are great but they have limits and cost a lot of minerals. You can not just build OCs instead of scvs. That does not work.
i did the calculation a few posts above. Show me where my calculation is wrong or accept the result .. (Note: as one poster correctly mentioned, this calculation does not include opportunity cost, however this is hard to calculate exactly. Short spoken, you have about 1 minute higher exposure to rush's compared to SCV building).
|
On August 12 2012 22:50 zmansman17 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 09:58 Shiori wrote:On August 12 2012 09:21 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
watch teaja closely, terrans lategame strength is .. mules = unlimited macro. no zerg nerf required, just adjust your strategy. its not like teaja has insane micro, his main strength is macro+strategy Oh shut up. None of the games Taeja has played against Zerg have been anywhere near standard. Most of them have been the Zerg failing at metagaming him or Baneling Busting. If you try to 4CC on ladder you're going to get smashed. I love how so many Zergs point to Taeja and say "Do that." That's like saying: "Play perfectly and register an average of 300 apm".
So? The game should be balanced for the top and not lower.
Lets say we buff terran till everyone here is happy, any idea how powerful Teaja will be then considering how he is now?
|
On August 12 2012 23:12 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 22:50 zmansman17 wrote:On August 12 2012 09:58 Shiori wrote:On August 12 2012 09:21 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
watch teaja closely, terrans lategame strength is .. mules = unlimited macro. no zerg nerf required, just adjust your strategy. its not like teaja has insane micro, his main strength is macro+strategy Oh shut up. None of the games Taeja has played against Zerg have been anywhere near standard. Most of them have been the Zerg failing at metagaming him or Baneling Busting. If you try to 4CC on ladder you're going to get smashed. I love how so many Zergs point to Taeja and say "Do that." That's like saying: "Play perfectly and register an average of 300 apm". There are tons of pros with a similar APM and even better micro. Taeja+Gumiho do well because they discovered some effective Strategies. One important aspect is obviously the use of macro OC's. And when watching lower level terrans (< GM) it is also obvious they do not make use OC's full potential.
Considering half of the Zergs in GM Roach all-in since most of the maps are smaller than Atlantis Spaceship, you can barely 3OC safely. 4OC? You will die because of your lack of production.
Zergs fail to account for the fact that when Terran completes an Orbital, they don't get a production boost until they make more Barracks. Zerg gets the production the instant it comes up, which makes mass expanding more viable.
|
On August 12 2012 23:21 Qikz wrote:
The thing people need to realise is this situation is exactly the same as the Fruitdealer situation.
Fruitdealer at a point was the only zerg to be able to do anything as (at the time) he was playing Zerg the best way anyone could. He made use of things others didn't and won the first GSL. The same thing is happening with Taeja in the fact he's playing perfectly, but he shouldn't be used as the majority as no-one is anywhere near as good as him. Look at his TvP's yesterday. His Micro is something that many people will never be able to pull off and he was winning engagements he probably shouldn't have.
he was far from a 22:3 record. fruitdealer played very very risky, this worked for exactly one tourney.
|
On August 12 2012 23:23 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 22:50 zmansman17 wrote:On August 12 2012 09:58 Shiori wrote:On August 12 2012 09:21 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
watch teaja closely, terrans lategame strength is .. mules = unlimited macro. no zerg nerf required, just adjust your strategy. its not like teaja has insane micro, his main strength is macro+strategy Oh shut up. None of the games Taeja has played against Zerg have been anywhere near standard. Most of them have been the Zerg failing at metagaming him or Baneling Busting. If you try to 4CC on ladder you're going to get smashed. I love how so many Zergs point to Taeja and say "Do that." That's like saying: "Play perfectly and register an average of 300 apm". So? The game should be balanced for the top and not lower. Lets say we buff terran till everyone here is happy, any idea how powerful Teaja will be then considering how he is now?
Okay, so you're alright with reverting every buff that occurred since the FruitDealer era? After all, he was the top level back then, so I guess Zerg wasn't overpowered. I guess we'll also be reverting the Overlord and Queen buffs because DRG said he didn't need them and that he already had scouting down pat.
Care to reevaluate your statement?
|
On August 12 2012 23:26 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 23:21 Qikz wrote:
The thing people need to realise is this situation is exactly the same as the Fruitdealer situation.
Fruitdealer at a point was the only zerg to be able to do anything as (at the time) he was playing Zerg the best way anyone could. He made use of things others didn't and won the first GSL. The same thing is happening with Taeja in the fact he's playing perfectly, but he shouldn't be used as the majority as no-one is anywhere near as good as him. Look at his TvP's yesterday. His Micro is something that many people will never be able to pull off and he was winning engagements he probably shouldn't have. he was far from a 22:3 record. fruitdealer played very very risky, this worked for exactly one tourney.
Going 4CC is extremely risky.
|
On August 12 2012 23:25 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 23:12 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 12 2012 22:50 zmansman17 wrote:On August 12 2012 09:58 Shiori wrote:On August 12 2012 09:21 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
watch teaja closely, terrans lategame strength is .. mules = unlimited macro. no zerg nerf required, just adjust your strategy. its not like teaja has insane micro, his main strength is macro+strategy Oh shut up. None of the games Taeja has played against Zerg have been anywhere near standard. Most of them have been the Zerg failing at metagaming him or Baneling Busting. If you try to 4CC on ladder you're going to get smashed. I love how so many Zergs point to Taeja and say "Do that." That's like saying: "Play perfectly and register an average of 300 apm". There are tons of pros with a similar APM and even better micro. Taeja+Gumiho do well because they discovered some effective Strategies. One important aspect is obviously the use of macro OC's. And when watching lower level terrans (< GM) it is also obvious they do not make use OC's full potential. Considering half of the Zergs in GM Roach all-in since most of the maps are smaller than Atlantis Spaceship, you can barely 3OC safely. 4OC? You will die because of your lack of production. Zergs fail to account for the fact that when Terran completes an Orbital, they don't get a production boost until they make more Barracks. Zerg gets the production the instant it comes up, which makes mass expanding more viable.
well given that the current TvZ is ~45%:55% some minor tweaks in playstyle and strategy might swing that back to the historical 60:40. Despite the massive Terran QQ 45:55 is not that imbalanced and a zerg nerf will most probably overcompensate. I think Terrans partially got used to their race advantage a bit
|
On August 12 2012 23:28 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 23:26 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 12 2012 23:21 Qikz wrote:
The thing people need to realise is this situation is exactly the same as the Fruitdealer situation.
Fruitdealer at a point was the only zerg to be able to do anything as (at the time) he was playing Zerg the best way anyone could. He made use of things others didn't and won the first GSL. The same thing is happening with Taeja in the fact he's playing perfectly, but he shouldn't be used as the majority as no-one is anywhere near as good as him. Look at his TvP's yesterday. His Micro is something that many people will never be able to pull off and he was winning engagements he probably shouldn't have. he was far from a 22:3 record. fruitdealer played very very risky, this worked for exactly one tourney. Going 4CC is extremely risky.
If you do this blind .. yes. Anyway starcraft is designed that way: You have to take a risk to get ahead, that's why scouting and "starsense" is that important. Since Terran had (imho IMBA) harrass opportunities early game befor getting nerfed, terran was not exposed to that fact. Taking a fast third for a Zerg is always a big risk for a Zerg. Even hatch first is. Terrans need to re-think, as because of big maps and nerfs the harrass-no-risk strats are history (thanks god)
|
On August 12 2012 23:30 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 23:25 Shiori wrote:On August 12 2012 23:12 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 12 2012 22:50 zmansman17 wrote:On August 12 2012 09:58 Shiori wrote:On August 12 2012 09:21 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
watch teaja closely, terrans lategame strength is .. mules = unlimited macro. no zerg nerf required, just adjust your strategy. its not like teaja has insane micro, his main strength is macro+strategy Oh shut up. None of the games Taeja has played against Zerg have been anywhere near standard. Most of them have been the Zerg failing at metagaming him or Baneling Busting. If you try to 4CC on ladder you're going to get smashed. I love how so many Zergs point to Taeja and say "Do that." That's like saying: "Play perfectly and register an average of 300 apm". There are tons of pros with a similar APM and even better micro. Taeja+Gumiho do well because they discovered some effective Strategies. One important aspect is obviously the use of macro OC's. And when watching lower level terrans (< GM) it is also obvious they do not make use OC's full potential. Considering half of the Zergs in GM Roach all-in since most of the maps are smaller than Atlantis Spaceship, you can barely 3OC safely. 4OC? You will die because of your lack of production. Zergs fail to account for the fact that when Terran completes an Orbital, they don't get a production boost until they make more Barracks. Zerg gets the production the instant it comes up, which makes mass expanding more viable. well given that the current TvZ is ~45%:55% some minor tweaks in playstyle and strategy might swing that back to the historical 60:40. Despite the massive Terran QQ 45:55 is not that imbalanced and a zerg nerf will most probably overcompensate. I think Terrans partially got used to their race advantage a bit
Tbh, maybe it's not imbalanced but honestly can anyone here say for real that they are actually facing fair amount of Terrans on the ladder compared to Zerg or Protoss opponents?
|
On August 12 2012 23:30 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 23:25 Shiori wrote:On August 12 2012 23:12 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 12 2012 22:50 zmansman17 wrote:On August 12 2012 09:58 Shiori wrote:On August 12 2012 09:21 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
watch teaja closely, terrans lategame strength is .. mules = unlimited macro. no zerg nerf required, just adjust your strategy. its not like teaja has insane micro, his main strength is macro+strategy Oh shut up. None of the games Taeja has played against Zerg have been anywhere near standard. Most of them have been the Zerg failing at metagaming him or Baneling Busting. If you try to 4CC on ladder you're going to get smashed. I love how so many Zergs point to Taeja and say "Do that." That's like saying: "Play perfectly and register an average of 300 apm". There are tons of pros with a similar APM and even better micro. Taeja+Gumiho do well because they discovered some effective Strategies. One important aspect is obviously the use of macro OC's. And when watching lower level terrans (< GM) it is also obvious they do not make use OC's full potential. Considering half of the Zergs in GM Roach all-in since most of the maps are smaller than Atlantis Spaceship, you can barely 3OC safely. 4OC? You will die because of your lack of production. Zergs fail to account for the fact that when Terran completes an Orbital, they don't get a production boost until they make more Barracks. Zerg gets the production the instant it comes up, which makes mass expanding more viable. well given that the current TvZ is ~45%:55% some minor tweaks in playstyle and strategy might swing that back to the historical 60:40. Despite the massive Terran QQ 45:55 is not that imbalanced and a zerg nerf will most probably overcompensate. I think Terrans partially got used to their race advantage a bit
No point arguing with you, then. Once your awful argument is defeated you just fall back on 'oh it's metagame.' Yeah, okay. That's why every successful Terran right now is basically cheesing or doing some ultra-aggressive strat every game while every good Zerg is doing pretty much the same build because it defends against anything.
|
On August 12 2012 23:35 Rokoz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 23:30 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 12 2012 23:25 Shiori wrote:On August 12 2012 23:12 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 12 2012 22:50 zmansman17 wrote:On August 12 2012 09:58 Shiori wrote:On August 12 2012 09:21 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
watch teaja closely, terrans lategame strength is .. mules = unlimited macro. no zerg nerf required, just adjust your strategy. its not like teaja has insane micro, his main strength is macro+strategy Oh shut up. None of the games Taeja has played against Zerg have been anywhere near standard. Most of them have been the Zerg failing at metagaming him or Baneling Busting. If you try to 4CC on ladder you're going to get smashed. I love how so many Zergs point to Taeja and say "Do that." That's like saying: "Play perfectly and register an average of 300 apm". There are tons of pros with a similar APM and even better micro. Taeja+Gumiho do well because they discovered some effective Strategies. One important aspect is obviously the use of macro OC's. And when watching lower level terrans (< GM) it is also obvious they do not make use OC's full potential. Considering half of the Zergs in GM Roach all-in since most of the maps are smaller than Atlantis Spaceship, you can barely 3OC safely. 4OC? You will die because of your lack of production. Zergs fail to account for the fact that when Terran completes an Orbital, they don't get a production boost until they make more Barracks. Zerg gets the production the instant it comes up, which makes mass expanding more viable. well given that the current TvZ is ~45%:55% some minor tweaks in playstyle and strategy might swing that back to the historical 60:40. Despite the massive Terran QQ 45:55 is not that imbalanced and a zerg nerf will most probably overcompensate. I think Terrans partially got used to their race advantage a bit Tbh, maybe it's not imbalanced but honestly can anyone here say for real that they are actually facing fair amount of Terrans on the ladder compared to Zerg or Protoss opponents?
Agree, Terran is strong at the very low end (because marines+stim counter nearly anything), however in mid to higher mid level it is hard to play, as most players do not have the apm and micro to play Terran effectively. So its mostly a game design issue, not a balance issue. Maybe more mid.level terrans should stick to mech play against zerg. Bio requires a lot of map awareness, micro and multitasking.
|
On August 12 2012 22:45 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
Boah, never did the math ..
1 OC costs 400+150 (OC)
you save:
100 for a depot
200 for 4 scv (1 mule ~ 4 scv's)
resulting cost ~250 minerals.
if you turtle well early game, it should not be a problem to get 4 early OC's safely. with 10 OC's you have the mineral income roughly equal to a 3 base zerg with ~50 drones on minerals, while only requiring one mining base.
EDIT: subtract another ~35 as you also save the 4 supply that 4 SCV's would require, so net cost is 215
This is madness. And i hope you know that. If not i'm sorry for you.
Even the numbers you chose make no fuckin sense. why 100 for depot? A OC gives 11 not 8 supply. 4 scvs need 4 supply, a supply depot provides 8. Why do you subtract 35? You also fail to mention build times and mining time lost for that.
On top of that:
The value you calculated is the cost you have to pay more compared to that you had to pay for the same utility provided by scvs and normal supply depots. You made a lot of errors in the calculations. And even if your 215 were right and opportunity cost did not matter: having 215 less is a noticeable difference in early game. You build macro OCs in early game to build scvs faster and mule on top of that. You build macro OCs in late game because you can free up supply with them. An economy based on scvs and mules can grow much faster compared to a pure mule OC eco.
If you still think that that cute idea of yours does work then please start a game and try it.Spoileralert: IT. DOES. NOT. WORK. !!!
|
On August 12 2012 23:41 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 23:35 Rokoz wrote:On August 12 2012 23:30 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 12 2012 23:25 Shiori wrote:On August 12 2012 23:12 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 12 2012 22:50 zmansman17 wrote:On August 12 2012 09:58 Shiori wrote:On August 12 2012 09:21 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
watch teaja closely, terrans lategame strength is .. mules = unlimited macro. no zerg nerf required, just adjust your strategy. its not like teaja has insane micro, his main strength is macro+strategy Oh shut up. None of the games Taeja has played against Zerg have been anywhere near standard. Most of them have been the Zerg failing at metagaming him or Baneling Busting. If you try to 4CC on ladder you're going to get smashed. I love how so many Zergs point to Taeja and say "Do that." That's like saying: "Play perfectly and register an average of 300 apm". There are tons of pros with a similar APM and even better micro. Taeja+Gumiho do well because they discovered some effective Strategies. One important aspect is obviously the use of macro OC's. And when watching lower level terrans (< GM) it is also obvious they do not make use OC's full potential. Considering half of the Zergs in GM Roach all-in since most of the maps are smaller than Atlantis Spaceship, you can barely 3OC safely. 4OC? You will die because of your lack of production. Zergs fail to account for the fact that when Terran completes an Orbital, they don't get a production boost until they make more Barracks. Zerg gets the production the instant it comes up, which makes mass expanding more viable. well given that the current TvZ is ~45%:55% some minor tweaks in playstyle and strategy might swing that back to the historical 60:40. Despite the massive Terran QQ 45:55 is not that imbalanced and a zerg nerf will most probably overcompensate. I think Terrans partially got used to their race advantage a bit Tbh, maybe it's not imbalanced but honestly can anyone here say for real that they are actually facing fair amount of Terrans on the ladder compared to Zerg or Protoss opponents? Agree, Terran is strong at the very low end (because marines+stim counter nearly anything).
False. Infestors, speedlings, and banelings destroy un-efficiently micro'd marines laughably easy. Cost for cost speedlings beat marines.
Marines at the low end aren't as strong because the Terran race requires significantly more micro/player ability than the Zerg.
|
On August 12 2012 23:22 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 23:12 submarine wrote:On August 12 2012 23:01 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 12 2012 22:50 submarine wrote:On August 12 2012 21:21 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 12 2012 19:49 Bagi wrote:On August 12 2012 17:45 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 12 2012 09:58 Shiori wrote:On August 12 2012 09:21 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
watch teaja closely, terrans lategame strength is .. mules = unlimited macro. no zerg nerf required, just adjust your strategy. its not like teaja has insane micro, his main strength is macro+strategy Oh shut up. None of the games Taeja has played against Zerg have been anywhere near standard. Most of them have been the Zerg failing at metagaming him or Baneling Busting. If you try to 4CC on ladder you're going to get smashed. I still think Teaja's OC-heavy style is key. You don't go 22-3 just by being a superior player. Teaja outmacros with OC's + mules, so he can fight zerg late game with a macro advantage. Mules are insane, as you do not have oversaturation. You can mine 4000 minerals from one base if you have enough OC's, so you have to cover only few bases and don't lose supply to scv's. The problem is reaching this point safely on a map that isn't Metropolis or Atlantis Spaceship. Most zergs will push the advantage when they get to hive tech. If all other things are equal but you've invested thousands of minerals into extra CC's, there's no way to hold the typical BL push for example. It really was the failed early aggression that won Taeja those games, along with the maps that make greedy play so much easier to pull off. Well, ofc this is not easy, you have to do this reactively (scouting required ) same as a droning zerg. When the Zerg drones hard, you can build OC's, else better build army. You have to understand that an orbital takes far longer to pay for itself compared to a round of drones. Terran is not designed to play reactive on that level. Terran can't build an army in 2 production cycles like zerg does. To have a certain army at a certain time you have to build the necessary infrastructure far ahead in time. If zerg builds a fast 3rd he can choose to use it to produce an army with it. An OC does not offer that kind of flexibility. I understand that, however OC's a re still good . The time for ROI (return on investment) of drones is about 1,5 to 2 minutes (build time 17s + walk to minerals line [depends] + 75 seconds of mining). Roi of Macro Orbital: it takes les than one mule to mine the net cost of 215. so 100s for macro cc+35s for orbital+~75s = 210s for ROI. that's significantly longer. However long term OC's seem of enormous value to me .. How did you manage to land on 215 minerals? Thats some serious magic math^^. Please just stop this hardcore theory crafting and at least try those builds in a build order tester. Yes, mules and OCs are great but they have limits and cost a lot of minerals. You can not just build OCs instead of scvs. That does not work. i did the calculation a few posts above. Show me where my calculation is wrong or accept the result .. (Note: as one poster correctly mentioned, this calculation does not include opportunity cost, however this is hard to calculate exactly. Short spoken, you have about 1 minute higher exposure to rush's compared to SCV building).
Math on the OC:
Cost: 550 minerals+67 minerals (lost mining from the building SCV)=617 minerals
If you don't have 200 supply limit yet you save: 125 minerals
Net cost: 492 minerals
MULE mines 180 minerals per minute, so it's about 2:20 game time needed to recoup the cost.
Thus the Payback horizon (because ROI is something else) is 2:45+1:40+0:35=5:00
If you already have 200 supply limit, the Payback horizon lengthens to about 5:40
Result: Your math is flawed.
Apart from that, your concept is also flawed, because time has a different value to terran due to their linear production.
|
On August 12 2012 23:21 Qikz wrote:
The thing people need to realise is this situation is exactly the same as the Fruitdealer situation.
Fruitdealer at a point was the only zerg to be able to do anything as (at the time) he was playing Zerg the best way anyone could. He made use of things others didn't and won the first GSL. The same thing is happening with Taeja in the fact he's playing perfectly, but he shouldn't be used as the majority as no-one is anywhere near as good as him. Look at his TvP's yesterday. His Micro is something that many people will never be able to pull off and he was winning engagements he probably shouldn't have.
This is not the same situation at all; not even remotely close. FD was playing on bad maps, when the game was still young and developing. This is a completely different situation.
|
On August 12 2012 23:41 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 22:45 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
Boah, never did the math ..
1 OC costs 400+150 (OC)
you save:
100 for a depot
200 for 4 scv (1 mule ~ 4 scv's)
resulting cost ~250 minerals.
if you turtle well early game, it should not be a problem to get 4 early OC's safely. with 10 OC's you have the mineral income roughly equal to a 3 base zerg with ~50 drones on minerals, while only requiring one mining base.
EDIT: subtract another ~35 as you also save the 4 supply that 4 SCV's would require, so net cost is 215 This is madness. And i hope you know that. If not i'm sorry for you. Even the numbers you chose make no fuckin sense. why 100 for depot? A OC gives 11 not 8 supply. 4 scvs need 4 supply, a supply depot provides 8. Why do you subtract 35? You also fail to mention build times and mining time lost for that. On top of that: The value you calculated is the cost you have to pay more compared to that you had to pay for the same utility provided by scvs and normal supply depots. You made a lot of errors in the calculations. And even if your 215 were right and opportunity cost did not matter: having 215 less is a noticeable difference in early game. You build macro OCs in early game to build scvs faster and mule on top of that. You build macro OCs in late game because you can free up supply with them. An economy based on scvs and mules can grow much faster compared to a pure mule OC eco. If you still think that that cute idea of yours does work then please start a game and try it.Spoileralert: IT. DOES. NOT. WORK. !!!
Ok, i am not that familar with terran numbers, thought a depot was 11 supply
so correction (they get even better):
1 OC costs 550 minerals and gives 11 supply
you save:
~1,3 depots = 130 mins
~4 scv's = 200 mins + save 4 supply = 50 mins, sum: 250 mins
sum savings = 380 mins
subtract from cost of 550:
= 170 net cost (+opportunity cost) edit: +67 mins lost mining time (however you also would lose mining time when building 1,3 depots)
I am not telling you a "cute idea" like going blindly 4 OC.
I just want to mention that OC's are pretty effective and probably underused, and that for some reason successful terran players seem to make heavy use of macro OC's  , especially use them as counter to greedy zerg openings
|
On August 13 2012 00:26 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 23:41 submarine wrote:On August 12 2012 22:45 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
Boah, never did the math ..
1 OC costs 400+150 (OC)
you save:
100 for a depot
200 for 4 scv (1 mule ~ 4 scv's)
resulting cost ~250 minerals.
if you turtle well early game, it should not be a problem to get 4 early OC's safely. with 10 OC's you have the mineral income roughly equal to a 3 base zerg with ~50 drones on minerals, while only requiring one mining base.
EDIT: subtract another ~35 as you also save the 4 supply that 4 SCV's would require, so net cost is 215 This is madness. And i hope you know that. If not i'm sorry for you. Even the numbers you chose make no fuckin sense. why 100 for depot? A OC gives 11 not 8 supply. 4 scvs need 4 supply, a supply depot provides 8. Why do you subtract 35? You also fail to mention build times and mining time lost for that. On top of that: The value you calculated is the cost you have to pay more compared to that you had to pay for the same utility provided by scvs and normal supply depots. You made a lot of errors in the calculations. And even if your 215 were right and opportunity cost did not matter: having 215 less is a noticeable difference in early game. You build macro OCs in early game to build scvs faster and mule on top of that. You build macro OCs in late game because you can free up supply with them. An economy based on scvs and mules can grow much faster compared to a pure mule OC eco. If you still think that that cute idea of yours does work then please start a game and try it.Spoileralert: IT. DOES. NOT. WORK. !!! Ok, i am not that familar with terran numbers, thought a depot was 11 supply so correction (they get even better): 1 OC costs 550 minerals and gives 11 supply you save: ~1,3 depots = 130 mins ~4 scv's = 200 mins + save 4 supply = 50 mins, sum: 250 mins sum savings = 380 mins subtract from cost of 550: = 170 net cost (+opportunity cost) edit: +67 mins lost mining time (however you also would lose mining time when building 1,3 depots) I am not telling you a "cute idea" like going blindly 4 OC. I just want to mention that OC's are pretty effective and probably underused, and that for some reason successful terran players seem to make heavy use of macro OC's , especially use them as counter to greedy zerg openings
How on earth can you subtract the 4SCVs the MULE replaces without subtracting the income of 4SCVs when calculating what the MULE brings?
By that logic a drone is free!
Proof:
1 drone costs 50 minerals
you save:
~1 drone = 50 minerals
OMG! Drones ARE free! It's true!
|
You still do not understand. You pay 170 more for the same supply and mining capacity. Thats bad. THe opportunity cost makes it even worse (a lot in fact).
You neglect so much in your calculation. If you just build scvs instead of the OC they start to mine far earlier.
Pros and good players build early macro OCs to mule and build scvs with them. They don't build them only for the mules.
Building them only for the mules only makes sense if the supply cap is a problem. I already told you: Test it in the game and you may understand. I will now stop to talk about this. Its a waste of time.
Just to make clear what you calculated there (Note: Thats Schnullerbacke13s calculations, IMHO it makes no fuckin sense):
The utility you want to buy is: Mineral mining power of 4 scvs, +11 supply
To achieve this you have to invest:
With scvs and depot:
4*50+((11+4)/8)*100 = 387,5
With an OC:
400+150= 550
The OC solution costs 162,5 minerals more. NOTE: That is what schnullerbacke13 calculated.
IMHO this calculation makes no sense. You do not include cost for lost mining time or opportunity cost. Especially the opportunity cost is something you just can not ignore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
