|
On August 13 2012 02:01 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 01:28 submarine wrote: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).
If you don't cut scvs your calculation makes even less sense. Why would you subtract the cost of 4 scvs if you do not cut them? This discussion is a waste of time.
|
On August 13 2012 01:09 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 01:03 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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).
No, i think the need for risk-taking is now more evenly spread. Before the patch, Zerg had to take way more risks. Now since terrans are forced to play more macro centric, they face similar decisions like other races. You need to scout and guess (and take risk, yes). I'd like to point out that a lot of Terrans are not used to that, so it will take some time until things even out. Terran has a lot of options to play defensively (wall off, bunkers), so even now I think zerg requires still way more reactive play.
|
On August 13 2012 01:38 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 00:43 Coffee Zombie wrote: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. 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).
Some of this is true, but some of it (3rax reaper, thor drops) was legitimately imbalanced.
|
On August 13 2012 02:19 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 02:01 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On August 13 2012 01:28 submarine wrote: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). If you don't cut scvs your calculation makes even less sense. Why would you subtract the cost of 4 scvs if you do not cut them? This discussion is a waste of time.
What's so hard to understand ? I compare the cost of building macro OC's with the cost of NOT building macro OC's. A macro OC replaces ~4 scv's and 1,3 depots. When i remove the cost for those then i get roughly the extra minerals i pay when building macro OCs. End of story.
|
On August 13 2012 02:23 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 01:09 ACrow wrote:On August 13 2012 01:03 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: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). No, i think the need for risk-taking is now more evenly spread. Before the patch, Zerg had to take way more risks. Now since terrans are forced to play more macro centric, they face similar decisions like other races. You need to scout and guess (and take risk, yes). I'd like to point out that a lot of Terrans are not used to that, so it will take some time until things even out. Terran has a lot of options to play defensively (wall off, bunkers), so even now I think zerg requires still way more reactive play.
Lol? So it's balanced when Terran has to do gambling and risks, but when Zerg had to do it, it warranted changing the entire matchup? Not that I accept for a second that Zerg had to do any gambling that necessitated a Queen buff, but this hypocrisy is astounding.
When DRG wins a GSL and MLG without Queen/Overlord buffs, it doesn't exactly scream to me that the race needs to be buffed.
|
On August 13 2012 02:23 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
No, i think the need for risk-taking is now more evenly spread. Before the patch, Zerg had to take way more risks. Now since terrans are forced to play more macro centric, they face similar decisions like other races. You need to scout and guess (and take risk, yes). I'd like to point out that a lot of Terrans are not used to that, so it will take some time until things even out. Terran has a lot of options to play defensively (wall off, bunkers), so even now I think zerg requires still way more reactive play.
Can we get this guy to Comedy Central or something? Pray tell, what RISKS did Zerg have to take before the patch? Apart from the universal burden of scouting all-ins and defending them accordingly, there was only due diligence to be done. If you don't defend Hellions or whatever and just press sdddd, of course you are going to die. That's pretty much the definition of misplay. Zerg could all-in Terrans just fine, and still can. Terrans don't just shrug those things off. You know why T doesn't terribly care if a couple lings or Roaches show up outside their door? They make units. Units kill units. Any non-all-in things could be defended just by making a few units (and you'd usually still end up equal at least in economy). The risk you are taking when not making units is your choice entirely, not something you ever were forced to do. Whether to play fair and make both units and workers or try to go for sddd and thus broken economy was completely a choice. Terrans could just force your hand so both played fair. Because, you know, they needed to.
Now Z just makes 2+4 Queens which costs the same number of resources as a Warren and 4 Roaches, is better in combat (more resilient against Marauders too), spreads creep, uses up no larvae, uses up no gas (so the minerals used for the extractor can be turned into another mineral drone because the gas is needed later), and shoots up so air based openers are less effective too. And Reapers are even more of a joke. There is nothing reactive about it, you just make the Queens and they defend anything that isn't an all-in. If an all-in comes, oh dear you have to react. That is the same for EVERYONE. For Terran, for Toss, for Magical Tooth Fairies from Fancyland. To say that it is some undue risk is ridiculous hogwash.
In short: You are wrong, please either examine your thinking and correct it so it matches reality or shut the hell up.
|
On August 13 2012 02:40 Coffee Zombie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 02:23 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
No, i think the need for risk-taking is now more evenly spread. Before the patch, Zerg had to take way more risks. Now since terrans are forced to play more macro centric, they face similar decisions like other races. You need to scout and guess (and take risk, yes). I'd like to point out that a lot of Terrans are not used to that, so it will take some time until things even out. Terran has a lot of options to play defensively (wall off, bunkers), so even now I think zerg requires still way more reactive play. Can we get this guy to Comedy Central or something? Pray tell, what RISKS did Zerg have to take before the patch? Apart from the universal burden of scouting all-ins and defending them accordingly, there was only due diligence to be done. If you don't defend Hellions or whatever and just press sdddd, of course you are going to die. That's pretty much the definition of misplay. Zerg could all-in Terrans just fine, and still can. Terrans don't just shrug those things off. You know why T doesn't terribly care if a couple lings or Roaches show up outside their door? They make units. Units kill units. Any non-all-in things could be defended just by making a few units (and you'd usually still end up equal at least in economy). The risk you are taking when not making units is your choice entirely, not something you ever were forced to do. Whether to play fair and make both units and workers or try to go for sddd and thus broken economy was completely a choice. Terrans could just force your hand so both played fair. Because, you know, they needed to. There is nothing reactive about it, you just make the Queens and they defend anything that isn't an all-in. If an all-in comes, oh dear you have to react. That is the same for EVERYONE. For Terran, for Toss, for Magical Tooth Fairies from Fancyland. To say that it is some undue risk is ridiculous hogwash. In short: You are wrong, please either examine your thinking and correct it so it matches reality or shut the hell up.
I bolded the important (Stupid) part :
Zerg need the econ advantage to keep up with a T, SDDD isnt a choice but a necessity, the choice remaining is about when do you SDDD hard depending on what you scout, or do you want to go all-in.
Also, if you were suggesting Z to "Constantly stream unit just as terran do", please stop posting because this is the worst thing to do, you dont keep up on macro and you're not safe against everything.
Zerg is not as reactive as it used to be, but it's still the most reactive race.
|
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics?
|
On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics?
No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT.
|
On August 13 2012 02:24 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 01:38 superstartran wrote:On August 13 2012 00:43 Coffee Zombie wrote: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. 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). Some of this is true, but some of it (3rax reaper, thor drops) was legitimately imbalanced.
Thor drops and 3 Rax Reaper only worked on maps that allowed them to do so. On a bigger map, 3 rax Reaper would be much weaker. Already on a map like Scrapyard it wasn't as effective because there are only so many positions a reaper can go up, and it's a much harder map for a Reaper to get around on. Thor drops worked well in particular due to close position and close air position maps. You put old Terran on the current maps and I seriously doubt they would have been imbalanced as they were on the old maps. A large portion of the reason why half of these strategies worked were because of BAD maps.
Not just that, 3 Rax Reaper was incredibly weak on maps that didn't have a Reaper backdoor. This meant that they were insanely strong on something like Metal where they could do a 3 pronged attack on you, but on a map like Scrap it was difficult since there's really only way one way in. You could easily defend that natural, and still get even because the 3 Rax Reaper guy although ahead on economy has expended a large portion of his gas on virtually useless early game tech when going into the mid game.
|
On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT.
So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying?
Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran?
My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically.
|
On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically.
Well, yes and no. The point is that Zerg needs to expand earlier than the Terran, but the question is about how much earlier. At the start of the game, Zergs usually Hatch first...and Terrans usually take a fairly fast natural. This doesn't mean that Zerg needs to immediately have a third base. It means they will need to get one sooner than if the Terran hasn't expanded. The idea that Zerg needs to always be a base up on everyone else is actually just wrong. They can maintain equal bases for a few minutes until they're ready to transition. Hell, ZvT was 2 base vs 2 base pre Queen buff, and Zergs were doing fine.
|
you can't realistically saturate more than 3 bases anyway, the only extra benefit is the additional gas and an production facility.
|
On August 13 2012 03:37 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically. Well, yes and no. The point is that Zerg needs to expand earlier than the Terran, but the question is about how much earlier. At the start of the game, Zergs usually Hatch first...and Terrans usually take a fairly fast natural. This doesn't mean that Zerg needs to immediately have a third base. It means they will need to get one sooner than if the Terran hasn't expanded. The idea that Zerg needs to always be a base up on everyone else is actually just wrong. They can maintain equal bases for a few minutes until they're ready to transition. Hell, ZvT was 2 base vs 2 base pre Queen buff, and Zergs were doing fine.
A one-base zerg is definitely going to be all in, but zerg can stay on 2base for a little bit without needing to get a third base, even if terran gets their third up earlier. The reason is that on one base, there is not enough production available to stay competitive with a 1base terran/toss, but two base with a macro hatch has enough income and production. Even if they take the third behind terran, they can quickly saturate the third base because of injects whereas terran/toss have worker production limited to the number of CC/Nexus. The best example of this was before the queen buff. Terran would be able to get their natural up safely, and start their third before zerg could break out, but zerg were for the most part still fine. Once they broke out, they had units that held map control, so they could take the third and safely put 21 drones on it with their next production cycle since they had the inbase macro hatch usually.
EDIT: Didn't realize I was quoting someone who answered the question instead of the question. In any case, I agree with the quoted post.
|
On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics?
yes
it's because good zerg units are serious gas sinks and zerglings aren't so good until they have every single upgrade
acquiring a mineral only is least useful to bw zerg out of all 3 races. the reasons why are extremely complex and you could write a chapter of a book on it. zerg in bw generally doesn't need to hit full saturation on their mineral lines, and can't even if they wanted to, because larva are so scarce, but needs as many geysers as possible.
|
On August 13 2012 03:45 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? yes it's because good zerg units are serious gas sinks and zerglings aren't so good until they have every single upgrade acquiring a mineral only is least useful to bw zerg out of all 3 races. the reasons why are extremely complex and you could write a chapter of a book on it. zerg in bw generally doesn't need to hit full saturation on their mineral lines, and can't even if they wanted to, because larva are so scarce, but needs as many geysers as possible.
In short, without shit like Mutas/Defilers/Lurkers/etc. you were gonna be real boned vs a standard M&M army.
|
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
You can't treat time-dependent values as constants, it doesn't work that way. If I take an extra command center and just use it for MULEs, my economy is affected differently at different points in time. I'll go ahead and list chronologically.
When you start the extra CC: You are now 400 minerals behind. You pay the cost right when the CC goes down, but don't get the benefit until minutes later.
When the CC finishes: Assuming you start the OC right away, you are now 550 minerals behind where you would have been if you hadn't built the extra CC.
Next time you would have needed a supply depot: Once your CC is done you get to skip your next supply depot. The CC offers more supply than a depot, but only by 3. At this point you are 450 minerals behind (and your next depot after that gets delayed by 3 supply, so when that happens you are ~410 minerals behind.
When the OC finishes and you drop your first MULE: Assuming you've gotten to skip about a supply depot and a half by now, when the MULE drops you are still 410 minerals behind. But the MULE gives you an extra 180 minerals per minute, so you catch up 2 minutes and some odd seconds after the OC completes. At this point you break even. All extra income gained after this point is gravy.
So there is a specific time at which you are 215 minerals behind, but it's a pretty arbitrary point in time. The cost of the extra OC is different at different points in time, and treating it as though all those different points can sum to a single cost is pretty meaningless.
Other effects to consider of an extra OC (that are difficult to quantify in "minerals behind"):
-The extra OC gives you extra SCV production capacity. That means you'll be even more minerals behind in the short run, but you'll gain extra mining from those extra SCVs.
-The extra OC's energy could be used for scan or supply call down instead of MULEs. This delays your "breaking even" point but can obviously be beneficial in other ways.
-Getting the OC delays other production buildings, making them less efficient since production time is lost. For example, if you would have gotten 3 barracks instead of that CC, and those 3 barracks are now one minute late, you have lost 3 minutes worth of barracks production time. You may need to get an extra barracks or two just to get out the same number of marines by a given time.
On August 12 2012 23:34 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
Taking a fast third for a Zerg is always a big risk for a Zerg. Even hatch first is.
Hatch first is not risky in ZvT. If "risky" has the very broad and inclusive definition of "a strategy that will be reliably beaten by a certain other strategy, assuming the other player had before-hand knowledge that the given strategy would be used," hatch first is STILL not risky. Zerg can go hatch first ten games out of ten without worrying about getting "metagamed," because there is no Terran "build order counter" to hatch first. The only builds that would come out fast enough are barracks builds, and while 2-rax may be a pain in the ass, it is completely defendable. TLO-style 5-rax all-in comes out too late and the new queens can shut it down (at any rate, the hatch first finishes and pays off by then; if you lose to it, it wasn't because you went hatch first).
If anyone discovers any 3- or 4-rax builds that can reliably kill a hatch first, I'd love to hear about it. That would radically change the ZvT metagame (and if it didn't, Terrans could collect a lot of free wins).
|
On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically.
This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss.
|
On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically. This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss.
well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore.
precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly.
i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off.
the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents.
|
On August 13 2012 05:17 RogerChillingworth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 04:46 SolidMoose wrote:On August 13 2012 03:31 MasterFischer wrote:On August 13 2012 03:21 Shiori wrote:On August 13 2012 03:17 MasterFischer wrote:
I got a sort of related question to this debate... Concerning brood war..
Were Zergs considered to be just as behind, if left on equal bases versus p and t as they do in Starcraft 2 ?
I mean... It's always bugged me little bit, that Zerg basically HAS to expand and be greedy, otherwise, they are all-in from the start of the match basically. Was this the case in brood war, and if so, was it just as profoundly implemented in the game mechanics? No idea about BW, but it's not even really true in Sc2. It's grossly exaggerated how many bases Zergs need to be competitive. Yes, eventually they need to expand, but they don't need to do it as greedily as they do now for them to be even. A 4 minute third isn't necessary in ZvT. So 1base zerg is equally as good as 1base terran, is that what you're saying? Or 2base zerg vs 2base Terran? My understanding is that, zerg always needs to be at least 1base ahead of their opponnent to NOT be all-in, basically. This is IMO one of the biggest misunderstandings of the entire game. Zerg really does not to be one base up, you can do a lot on even bases with macro hatches. The simple fact is more bases = more money, so Zerg will always have an advantage with extra mining bases, just like Terran and Protoss. well, it's more about the 3 base dynamic than anything else, which the game revolves around. if p or t is on 3 base you need 4-5 as zerg. i'ts just the way it works with gas and tech. sc2 isn't exclusively a 2-base game anymore. precisely why the game can be stressful for zerg, units aren't nearly as good at feigning aggression and then taking a third like protoss, or the triple/quad cc shit. the pivotal part of this whole thing is t and p scout if zerg is taking that fast third or not, and can respond accordingly. i don't think there are imbalances in the match-up, it's just that people don't have the unit control at lower levels to maximize terran's strengths. the way we saw taeja win unwinnable engangements with pure micro alone, because that's what you're allowed to do with terran. it's just really challenging to pull off. the way zerg has an unlimited skill ceiling with macro, terran has it with unit control. nothing new, but to me it's the reason terrans struggle outside of korea vs top tier opponents.
Zerg pretty much always takes a fast third base. Please let me know when you figure out what us Protoss players are supposed to do to react to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
