|
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
You can't, like, 4OC on Ohana and hold a Roach all-in. You're just gonna die. This shit only works on huge maps like Metropolis against opponents you know are going to play extremely greedily.
|
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?
One thing I will never understand why people here consider an absolutely brilliant player being dominant a problem to be rectified with faction balance. To make a parallel to fighting games where most of you have less emotional investment, a Japanese guy called Daigo Umehara was very, very good and he played Ryu. He just won stupidly much. But the smart people did not cry "Nerf Ryu": They recognized it was simply Daigo being awesome.*
Similarily, at this year's EVO (biggest most prestigious fighting game event), a Korean player called Infiltration just demolished everyone. And I mean absolutely everyone. He was utterly untouchable, defeating players like Daigo (who's at a normal high end pro level or so atm if you ask me) 2-0 first game, 2-0 second one in the top8. He just made everyone look free.
Again, are there cries to nerf Akuma, who is already regarded as one of the best characters in the game with very few bad matchups? No. People rightly recognized that it was just Infiltration being a monster, something that has been seen from time to time with different players and different characters. If some poor schmuck won with Oni (who is quite bad)? Well, yeah, perhaps there is still something in there to explore. But instantly "Oni is okay, no problems there"? Not a chance.
Similarily, people sometimes win ridiculously bad matchups by being very, very good, but those matchups do not cease to be horrible. Current TvZ has all the traits of a bad matchup that I have ever seen, and the game is an RTS where balance is much more keenly felt in gameplay than an equal imbalance ever could in a fighting game.
So, fellow zergies, get some goddamn perspective already. That perspective includes the idea that "pressing sddd without a care about anything not-heavily-allin" is actually not balanced, but broken.
* Make no mistake, there were nerf Ryu cries still, and those cries were quite justified - Ryu was indeed pretty goddamn stupid in some gameplay related things. If you've ever thought of warpgates, fungal or forcefields being retarded, you know the kind of annoying design that was the cause. But still people were able to separate Ryu's power from Daigo's power, which is the point here.
On August 13 2012 00:20 superstartran wrote:
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.
And very safe thirds and naturals on super huge maps with free Ferrarilord parking spots are not bad in the other direction?
|
On August 13 2012 00:36 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:26 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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 don't get it. rethink. i am calculating the cost (roughly) what i would need to get the same effect like a macro oc.
|
On August 13 2012 00:41 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:26 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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 You can't, like, 4OC on Ohana and hold a Roach all-in. You're just gonna die. This shit only works on huge maps like Metropolis against opponents you know are going to play extremely greedily.
you can counter greedy play with more macro OC's. that's what the pros do and that's what you should do. There is no 100% safe opening, get over it.
|
On August 13 2012 00:48 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:36 Thrombozyt wrote:On August 13 2012 00:26 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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 don't get it. rethink. i am calculating the cost (roughly) what i would need to get the same effect like a macro oc.
I just did your math in this post on the last page:
On August 13 2012 00:37 submarine wrote:
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.
This calculation proofs that building just OCs instead of scvs in early game is bad. Very bad in fact. You fail to interpret your own calculation.
|
On August 13 2012 00:18 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 23:22 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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.
Ahaha, now that is really flawed: ofc you have to build 1,3 supply depots less if you get a macro OC. And since the mule income is equal to ~4 scv's you also can skip 4 scv's. I am calculating what a macro OC's costs you more when compared to 'usual' play.
Just to mention: once you mineral line is saturated with 16 scv's, each additional scv only gets you ~20 extra mins, so as soon your mineral line is saturated, a macro OC probably is more cost efficient than oversaturating your scv line.
Becaus your cost math is flawed, your 'payback horizon' (I'd call that ROI) is also flawed. However it is longer, that's why macro OC's are riskier.
|
On August 13 2012 00:50 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:41 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 00:26 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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 You can't, like, 4OC on Ohana and hold a Roach all-in. You're just gonna die. This shit only works on huge maps like Metropolis against opponents you know are going to play extremely greedily. you can counter greedy play with more macro OC's. that's what the pros do and that's what you should do. There is no 100% safe opening, get over it.
zerg openings are safe since the queen patch
|
On August 13 2012 00:56 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:48 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 13 2012 00:36 Thrombozyt wrote:On August 13 2012 00:26 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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 don't get it. rethink. i am calculating the cost (roughly) what i would need to get the same effect like a macro oc. I just did your math in this post on the last page: Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:37 submarine wrote:
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.
This calculation proofs that building just OCs instead of scvs in early game is bad. Very bad in fact. You fail to interpret your own calculation.
It's not bad, its risky. You take a risk early to profit later on (no oversaturation, need fewer bases in concurrent). That's like a zerg going 3 hatches 50 drones 2 lings. I did not tell to only build OC's, i just think they are underused by a lot of terrans (except gumiho and taeja)
|
On August 13 2012 00:58 Rain.100 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:50 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 13 2012 00:41 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 00:26 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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 You can't, like, 4OC on Ohana and hold a Roach all-in. You're just gonna die. This shit only works on huge maps like Metropolis against opponents you know are going to play extremely greedily. you can counter greedy play with more macro OC's. that's what the pros do and that's what you should do. There is no 100% safe opening, get over it. zerg openings are safe since the queen patch
they are safer now, thanks god. Wasn't fun before that for zergs. Zergs are forced to get their economy up, so they were forced to gamble.
Anyway its not like a well micro'd bunker rush/proxy rax or banshee/hellions cannot inflict heavy damage.
|
On August 13 2012 00:50 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:41 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 00:26 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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 You can't, like, 4OC on Ohana and hold a Roach all-in. You're just gonna die. This shit only works on huge maps like Metropolis against opponents you know are going to play extremely greedily. you can counter greedy play with more macro OC's. that's what the pros do and that's what you should do. There is no 100% safe opening, get over it.
Yeah there is a 100% safe opening, or pretty close to it: the current Zerg metagame. You can't just "get more OCs" when you don't know exactly what your opponent is doing. Right now, most Terrans on ladder are 3OCing because that's the only way they can keep up economically. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to counter Roach all-ins and the like with that style of play, which is why a lot of people are still 1rax FEing. If you actually watch the pros, you'll see that they play way differently against different people. Go watch MKP play through the MLG open bracket. He doesn't open blind CC first into 3OC every game. He plays completely standard, because he knows that someone might all-in him. Conversely, when he plays against, say, DRG, who almost never all-ins in ZvT, he knows that he can play a little more greedily.
|
On August 13 2012 01:03 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:58 Rain.100 wrote:On August 13 2012 00:50 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 13 2012 00:41 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 00:26 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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 You can't, like, 4OC on Ohana and hold a Roach all-in. You're just gonna die. This shit only works on huge maps like Metropolis against opponents you know are going to play extremely greedily. you can counter greedy play with more macro OC's. that's what the pros do and that's what you should do. There is no 100% safe opening, get over it. zerg openings are safe since the queen patch they are safer now, thanks god. Wasn't fun before that for zergs. Zergs are forced to get their economy up, so they were forced to gamble. Anyway its not like a well micro'd bunker rush/proxy rax or banshee/hellions cannot inflict heavy damage.
I don't get you, in the last pages you post some incredibly anti-Terran biased calculations, that can basically summed up as: go gamble Terrans and on the same page you say it was needed that Zerg can now pretty much go greedy without the need to gamble? This doesn't make sense at all o.O (except to the most extreme Zerg fanboys, I guess).
|
On August 13 2012 01:03 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:58 Rain.100 wrote:On August 13 2012 00:50 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 13 2012 00:41 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 00:26 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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 You can't, like, 4OC on Ohana and hold a Roach all-in. You're just gonna die. This shit only works on huge maps like Metropolis against opponents you know are going to play extremely greedily. you can counter greedy play with more macro OC's. that's what the pros do and that's what you should do. There is no 100% safe opening, get over it. zerg openings are safe since the queen patch they are safer now, thanks god. Wasn't fun before that for zergs. Zergs are forced to get their economy up, so they were forced to gamble. Anyway its not like a well micro'd bunker rush/proxy rax or banshee/hellions cannot inflict heavy damage.
Yeah, Zerg players were gambling so much that DRG managed to win a GSL and MLG. I guess that means the game was balanced at the highest level? If you actually read DRG's interview, he says straight up that for him it wasn't a gamble. He knew how to scout well enough that he almost never had to gamble. Why, then, was there a need for the Queen/Overlord buff if the game was balanced at the highest level?
|
On August 13 2012 00:57 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:18 Thrombozyt wrote:On August 12 2012 23:22 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Ahaha, now that is really flawed: ofc you have to build 1,3 supply depots less if you get a macro OC. And since the mule income is equal to ~4 scv's you also can skip 4 scv's. I am calculating what a macro OC's costs you more when compared to 'usual' play. Just to mention: once you mineral line is saturated with 16 scv's, each additional scv only gets you ~20 extra mins, so as soon your mineral line is saturated, a macro OC probably is more cost efficient than oversaturating your scv line. Becaus your cost math is flawed, your 'payback horizon' (I'd call that ROI) is also flawed. However it is longer, that's why macro OC's are riskier.
Seriously... you have no clue about economics it seems. If you factor in the cost of 4 SCVs, then you have to subtract the income those 4 SCV.
If you want to see how long it takes, until an OC pays for itself, then you take the income the building generates (180 min/minute). You then check how long it takes for the income to cover the initial costs of the investment. If you deduct the cost of 4 SCVs, then you assume, that the OC is built in the place of those workers. As a result, you ALSO have to reduce the income rate by that generated by 4 SCVs. I which case you divide whatever amount you calculated by 20 minerals per minute.
This isn't a hard concept. You subtract 250 minerals (4 SCVs and half a depot) from the OC cost, because you assume those aren't made. Yet you count them as present, when you calculate the income.
That is why I made the drone example using you economic logic:
1 drone costs 50 minerals and 1 supply.
But you save 50 minerals and 1 supply it replaces one drone.
Thus the drone you make is free.
|
@ Schnullerbacke:
Maybe you should stop embarrassing yourself. Your calculations and your conclusions are just plain wrong. Maybe you should learn the general rules of starcraft 2 first:
1) Ohana means family
2) Dustin doesn't like tanks
3) You can't outgreed zerg
|
On August 13 2012 00:50 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:41 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 00:26 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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 You can't, like, 4OC on Ohana and hold a Roach all-in. You're just gonna die. This shit only works on huge maps like Metropolis against opponents you know are going to play extremely greedily. you can counter greedy play with more macro OC's. that's what the pros do and that's what you should do. There is no 100% safe opening, get over it.
Zergs 6queen is safe against pretty much anything earlygame ZvT.
Edit: Also you dont seem to understand math.
|
On August 13 2012 00:59 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:56 submarine wrote:On August 13 2012 00:48 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 13 2012 00:36 Thrombozyt wrote:On August 13 2012 00:26 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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 don't get it. rethink. i am calculating the cost (roughly) what i would need to get the same effect like a macro oc. I just did your math in this post on the last page: On August 13 2012 00:37 submarine wrote:
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.
This calculation proofs that building just OCs instead of scvs in early game is bad. Very bad in fact. You fail to interpret your own calculation. It's not bad, its risky. You take a risk early to profit later on (no oversaturation, need fewer bases in concurrent). That's like a zerg going 3 hatches 50 drones 2 lings. I did not tell to only build OC's, i just think they are underused by a lot of terrans (except gumiho and taeja)
Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. No one builds OCs instead of scvs in the early game. You yourself calculated why. It costs more, over all and especially if you consider opportunity cost. Pros do not cut scvs and build OCs instead, because its bad. They build macro orbitals to build even more earlier scvs with them.
|
On August 13 2012 00:43 Coffee Zombie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 23:23 Assirra 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". 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? One thing I will never understand why people here consider an absolutely brilliant player being dominant a problem to be rectified with faction balance. To make a parallel to fighting games where most of you have less emotional investment, a Japanese guy called Daigo Umehara was very, very good and he played Ryu. He just won stupidly much. But the smart people did not cry "Nerf Ryu": They recognized it was simply Daigo being awesome.* Similarily, at this year's EVO (biggest most prestigious fighting game event), a Korean player called Infiltration just demolished everyone. And I mean absolutely everyone. He was utterly untouchable, defeating players like Daigo (who's at a normal high end pro level or so atm if you ask me) 2-0 first game, 2-0 second one in the top8. He just made everyone look free. Again, are there cries to nerf Akuma, who is already regarded as one of the best characters in the game with very few bad matchups? No. People rightly recognized that it was just Infiltration being a monster, something that has been seen from time to time with different players and different characters. If some poor schmuck won with Oni (who is quite bad)? Well, yeah, perhaps there is still something in there to explore. But instantly "Oni is okay, no problems there"? Not a chance. Similarily, people sometimes win ridiculously bad matchups by being very, very good, but those matchups do not cease to be horrible. Current TvZ has all the traits of a bad matchup that I have ever seen, and the game is an RTS where balance is much more keenly felt in gameplay than an equal imbalance ever could in a fighting game. So, fellow zergies, get some goddamn perspective already. That perspective includes the idea that "pressing sddd without a care about anything not-heavily-allin" is actually not balanced, but broken. * Make no mistake, there were nerf Ryu cries still, and those cries were quite justified - Ryu was indeed pretty goddamn stupid in some gameplay related things. If you've ever thought of warpgates, fungal or forcefields being retarded, you know the kind of annoying design that was the cause. But still people were able to separate Ryu's power from Daigo's power, which is the point here. Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:20 superstartran wrote:
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. And very safe thirds and naturals on super huge maps with free Ferrarilord parking spots are not bad in the other direction?
What? When did I say safe 3rds on super huge maps with tons of dead air space were good? I'm merely pointing out that anyone trying to utilize the FD situation to this one is completely wrong and likely ignorant and dumb all at the same time. FD was dealing with very bad maps for Z, in a metagame that heavily was biased against Z due to the fact that the game was so young at this point. Anyone trying to say otherwise needs to just stop posting.
Taeja is playing when the game is much more fully developed, to the point where we are no longer going to see massive metagame shifts due to maps, new builds, new timing attacks, etc. like we could have during the FD era. This is why alot of Terran players were telling Zerg players to shut up and deal with it, because the game hadn't reached a point where it was anywhere near done yet. Alot of the cheesy things Terran were doing were because of the MAPS not any inherent imbalance in the game itself. Things like 3 rax Reaper, Siege Tank cliff dropping, Thor drops, Medivac race car suicide squads, etc. were actually problems due to the incredibly short rush distances and bad gimmicky things with the maps themselves. High yield minerals was another map issue, not an inherent game balance issue. Alot of people forget that in BW, most balance issues were solved by making better maps, not by bitching and moaning for free buffs, something alot of Z players tend to forget that they got for free.
That's not to say Terran players weren't guilty of this either. They were in fact the catalyst for the buff for the Infestor in the first place. I remember Link came onto these very forums bitching about not being able to do a 1-1-1 expand opening against a Protoss that opened 3 gate probe cut Stalker/VR all-in with minimal Marine building. As we all know, today, even with far better execution now adays, a 3 Gate/VR all in is pretty easy to hold if you see it coming, and you utilize the correct build. However, of course, Link, Maka, and a few other Terran players went crying directly to Dustin, David Kim, and the rest of the balance team that this was in fact broken, when the 3 Gate/VR all-in hadn't even made a single appearance in GSL or MLG. There was no time given to Terran players to adapt to the opening, they were just given a free get out of jail free card. It wasn't until Protoss players continually busted Terrans with 4 gates, 3 Gate/Immortal play, and other 2 base 6-8 Gate variations that Terran players stopped being dumb and stopped the whole 1-1-1 = > Expand type of opening. 1-1-1 was no longer a staple, it became a relic of the past unless it was an all-in.
So what happened? The VR got changed. In a very, very, very bad way. The removal of the speed buff and the lethality of an all-in forced Blizzard to try and make the VR do something more creative. It became an anti-massive unit. Everyone thought it would be fine and dandy. Except somebody figured out that VRs actually compliment the Protoss Stalker/Colossus ball pretty well, to the point where you had nothing but P players going 200/200 deathballs. Alot of P players continued to just clown on Z players badly with this 200/200 deathball all over the place, while Z players continued to attempt to play ultra greedy and not aggressive (I actually got into an argument with many high level players on this forum that a Z player should be doing a 3 Hatch aggression before the P hits critical mass, killing off their 3rd because there's an actual window where they can do such a thing; many high level Z players dismissed this and just said "GAME IS BROKEN"). Fair enough; maybe it isn't fair Z couldn't match that P deathball (even though Z had ample opportunity to pretty much crunch on a P player badly before critical mass deathball hit). What happens though? Infestor buff. And we all know what happened here. You had idiotic matches where people would do nothing but make 20+ Infestors and just simply run you over.
So what's the point of my hilariously long dragged out post? It's that people bitched and moaned too much early on for changes. Everyone did. Protoss players, Zerg players, Terran players, everyone did. Alot of the stuff that you saw back in the day wasn't even legitimately broken; it was mainly due to the way the maps were designed with dumb shit like high yield minerals, rocks at 3rd, rocks in dumb places, incredibly short rush distances, close map positions, cliffs above expansions, etc. What happened was that the so called "great" Starcraft community forced Blizzard's hand (both amateurs and professionals had a hand in this) into creating this terrible boring meta where both T and P are forced to all-in Z's because of various reasons (P no longer has any mobility in HT to counter Muta play, so hitting a Z before he hits critical mass Infestors or Mutas is in the P's favor; T got nerfed to kingdom come due to various dumb reasons).
|
On August 13 2012 01:28 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:59 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 13 2012 00:56 submarine wrote:On August 13 2012 00:48 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 13 2012 00:36 Thrombozyt wrote:On August 13 2012 00:26 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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 don't get it. rethink. i am calculating the cost (roughly) what i would need to get the same effect like a macro oc. I just did your math in this post on the last page: On August 13 2012 00:37 submarine wrote:
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.
This calculation proofs that building just OCs instead of scvs in early game is bad. Very bad in fact. You fail to interpret your own calculation. It's not bad, its risky. You take a risk early to profit later on (no oversaturation, need fewer bases in concurrent). That's like a zerg going 3 hatches 50 drones 2 lings. I did not tell to only build OC's, i just think they are underused by a lot of terrans (except gumiho and taeja) Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. No one builds OCs instead of scvs in the early game. You yourself calculated why. It costs more, over all and especially if you consider opportunity cost. Pros do not cut scvs and build OCs instead, because its bad. They build macro orbitals to build even more earlier scvs with them.
wtf, all i ever said is that macro OC's are underused, and i tried to calculate the extra cost of an OC. i never said to only build OC's or cut early scv's in favor of that. By the numbers it looks like a macro OC is to favor as soon you get oversaturation. And ofc it speeds up scv production (however you need no OC for that). Additional a macro OC has long term value (may want to mass them for lategame).
|
On August 13 2012 01:09 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:57 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 13 2012 00:18 Thrombozyt wrote:On August 12 2012 23:22 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Ahaha, now that is really flawed: ofc you have to build 1,3 supply depots less if you get a macro OC. And since the mule income is equal to ~4 scv's you also can skip 4 scv's. I am calculating what a macro OC's costs you more when compared to 'usual' play. Just to mention: once you mineral line is saturated with 16 scv's, each additional scv only gets you ~20 extra mins, so as soon your mineral line is saturated, a macro OC probably is more cost efficient than oversaturating your scv line. Becaus your cost math is flawed, your 'payback horizon' (I'd call that ROI) is also flawed. However it is longer, that's why macro OC's are riskier. Seriously... you have no clue about economics it seems. If you factor in the cost of 4 SCVs, then you have to subtract the income those 4 SCV. If you want to see how long it takes, until an OC pays for itself, then you take the income the building generates (180 min/minute). You then check how long it takes for the income to cover the initial costs of the investment. If you deduct the cost of 4 SCVs, then you assume, that the OC is built in the place of those workers. As a result, you ALSO have to reduce the income rate by that generated by 4 SCVs. I which case you divide whatever amount you calculated by 20 minerals per minute. This isn't a hard concept. You subtract 250 minerals (4 SCVs and half a depot) from the OC cost, because you assume those aren't made. Yet you count them as present, when you calculate the income. That is why I made the drone example using you economic logic: 1 drone costs 50 minerals and 1 supply. But you save 50 minerals and 1 supply it replaces one drone. Thus the drone you make is free.
you are right, its correct to subtract the scv and supply cost when comparing the cost, but in order to compute the ROI it is nonsense to subtract those costs ..
|
On August 13 2012 02:04 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 01:09 Thrombozyt wrote:On August 13 2012 00:57 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 13 2012 00:18 Thrombozyt wrote:On August 12 2012 23:22 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Ahaha, now that is really flawed: ofc you have to build 1,3 supply depots less if you get a macro OC. And since the mule income is equal to ~4 scv's you also can skip 4 scv's. I am calculating what a macro OC's costs you more when compared to 'usual' play. Just to mention: once you mineral line is saturated with 16 scv's, each additional scv only gets you ~20 extra mins, so as soon your mineral line is saturated, a macro OC probably is more cost efficient than oversaturating your scv line. Becaus your cost math is flawed, your 'payback horizon' (I'd call that ROI) is also flawed. However it is longer, that's why macro OC's are riskier. Seriously... you have no clue about economics it seems. If you factor in the cost of 4 SCVs, then you have to subtract the income those 4 SCV. If you want to see how long it takes, until an OC pays for itself, then you take the income the building generates (180 min/minute). You then check how long it takes for the income to cover the initial costs of the investment. If you deduct the cost of 4 SCVs, then you assume, that the OC is built in the place of those workers. As a result, you ALSO have to reduce the income rate by that generated by 4 SCVs. I which case you divide whatever amount you calculated by 20 minerals per minute. This isn't a hard concept. You subtract 250 minerals (4 SCVs and half a depot) from the OC cost, because you assume those aren't made. Yet you count them as present, when you calculate the income. That is why I made the drone example using you economic logic: 1 drone costs 50 minerals and 1 supply. But you save 50 minerals and 1 supply it replaces one drone. Thus the drone you make is free. you are right, its correct to subtract the scv and supply cost when comparing the cost, but in order to compute the ROI it is nonsense to subtract those costs ..
So you agree, that it takes at least 5 minutes until an OC has repayed for itself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
