|
Alright so I'm gonna try to explain a little something here, its called losing vs losing out.
Losing implies I have something and then it is gone.
Losing out implies I have the ability to obtain something, but do not.
Terrans using energy to scan means they are losing out on the 270 minerals, they are not actually losing anything apart from energy, they also gain sight (lol at those saying the sight is small, a Zerg base is always compact anyways).
Zerg sacrifices an Overlord (go in the name of science!) in order to see what the Terran has, now since the Zerg already has the Overlord it obviously means they are losing it, but thats not all they are losing.
They lose 9 supply and 100 minerals right off the bat, but it doesn't end there.
They also lose an additional 100 minerals and 1 larva, why you might ask? Well because that 9 supply is important, and without it they don't get an army. Hence they will probably need to replace it and fast.
So in total Zerg loses 200 minerals and 1 larva (or 100 minerals and 9 supply if they choose to not replace it). I could go on to how that 1 larva could become a drone and earn X minerals in its life but I feel thats not really needed.
Terran loses out on 270 minerals or the ability to gain 8 supply.
The Zerg also loses double in the case of using two overlords.
Now for those of you who still don't understand I will use a metaphor, mainly because they are fun.
I am a Terran player and I go to a tree, it has 3 fruit - an apple, a banana and an orange - I can only choose 1, I choose the orange and miss out on the other two fruit.
Now I am a Zerg player, in my hand I have a half-eaten apple, I then proceed to throw that apple at the Terran player and laugh, I now have lost that apple.
Hopefully that clears things up for you.
|
You can't count both the value already invested and the cost of a new ol. That makes no sense. But the additional larvae is another cost. And you're basically talking about the economic term alternative cost and sunk cost.
|
On September 03 2010 15:09 killa_robot wrote:
Alright so I'm gonna try to explain a little something here, its called losing vs losing out.
Losing implies I have something and then it is gone.
Losing out implies I have the ability to obtain something, but do not.
Terrans using energy to scan means they are losing out on the 270 minerals, they are not actually losing anything apart from energy, they also gain sight (lol at those saying the sight is small, a Zerg base is always compact anyways).
Zerg sacrifices an Overlord (go in the name of science!) in order to see what the Terran has, now since the Zerg already has the Overlord it obviously means they are losing it, but thats not all they are losing.
They lose 9 supply and 100 minerals right off the bat, but it doesn't end there.
They also lose an additional 100 minerals and 1 larva, why you might ask? Well because that 9 supply is important, and without it they don't get an army. Hence they will probably need to replace it and fast.
So in total Zerg loses 200 minerals and 1 larva (or 100 minerals and 9 supply if they choose to not replace it). I could go on to how that 1 larva could become a drone and earn X minerals in its life but I feel thats not really needed.
Terran loses out on 270 minerals or the ability to gain 8 supply.
The Zerg also loses double in the case of using two overlords.
Now for those of you who still don't understand I will use a metaphor, mainly because they are fun.
I am a Terran player and I go to a tree, it has 3 fruit - an apple, a banana and an orange - I can only choose 1, I choose the orange and miss out on the other two fruit.
Now I am a Zerg player, in my hand I have a half-eaten apple, I then proceed to throw that apple at the Terran player and laugh, I now have lost that apple.
Hopefully that clears things up for you.
ON TOP OF THIS, mules make you mine out your main faster, you STILL get those minerals the mule would have mined if the game goes on long enough, so its not even like they are "lost" you just get them later.
|
On September 04 2010 07:17 nybbas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 15:09 killa_robot wrote:
Alright so I'm gonna try to explain a little something here, its called losing vs losing out.
Losing implies I have something and then it is gone.
Losing out implies I have the ability to obtain something, but do not.
Terrans using energy to scan means they are losing out on the 270 minerals, they are not actually losing anything apart from energy, they also gain sight (lol at those saying the sight is small, a Zerg base is always compact anyways).
Zerg sacrifices an Overlord (go in the name of science!) in order to see what the Terran has, now since the Zerg already has the Overlord it obviously means they are losing it, but thats not all they are losing.
They lose 9 supply and 100 minerals right off the bat, but it doesn't end there.
They also lose an additional 100 minerals and 1 larva, why you might ask? Well because that 9 supply is important, and without it they don't get an army. Hence they will probably need to replace it and fast.
So in total Zerg loses 200 minerals and 1 larva (or 100 minerals and 9 supply if they choose to not replace it). I could go on to how that 1 larva could become a drone and earn X minerals in its life but I feel thats not really needed.
Terran loses out on 270 minerals or the ability to gain 8 supply.
The Zerg also loses double in the case of using two overlords.
Now for those of you who still don't understand I will use a metaphor, mainly because they are fun.
I am a Terran player and I go to a tree, it has 3 fruit - an apple, a banana and an orange - I can only choose 1, I choose the orange and miss out on the other two fruit.
Now I am a Zerg player, in my hand I have a half-eaten apple, I then proceed to throw that apple at the Terran player and laugh, I now have lost that apple.
Hopefully that clears things up for you. ON TOP OF THIS, mules make you mine out your main faster, you STILL get those minerals the mule would have mined if the game goes on long enough, so its not even like they are "lost" you just get them later.
You are losing them. Stop trying to make some kind of nit picky argument that a MULE doesn't cost T any minerals.
If you want to still use that argument, then don't ignore the fact that you are losing out on supply drop which can be DIRECTLY correlated with an overlord... except using your (biased and unlogical) definition, Z does NOT lose minerals, while T LOSES 100 minerals.
Any way you try to spin it, T does lose out on minerals when scanning.
|
I think the biggest difference is:
Terran uses energy, he can either gain 270 minerals or scan as a bonus or 8 supply as a bonus to what already is going on. Sure its helps them, but if they let that energy adds up it doesn't hurt them terribly.
Zerg has to essentially sacrifice an overlord, 100 minerals and 9 supply, meaning if they dont want to get supply capped they have to build extras, which is 2 drones or 4 lings. If they dont have extras they go into the red and have to replace it, which takes time.
Terran is not directly penalized for anything he uses out of the CC. Zerg is penalized for scouting by losing 100 minerals and supply. When I play the minerals are usually not a huge deal, but the larva and the supply lost and time loss is huge.
In summary, scan/mules are a bonus to terran, something that is there to be utilized for a specific reason. Scouting with an overlord feels like a penalty to zerg because of the supply loss and what feel like a huge limiting factor to your economy.
But in actuality, its is quite the similar loses for both races. Just that scan is instant and unstoppable but an overlord takes forever to get there and is wasy to stop.
|
On September 03 2010 15:09 killa_robot wrote:
Alright so I'm gonna try to explain a little something here, its called losing vs losing out.
Losing implies I have something and then it is gone.
Losing out implies I have the ability to obtain something, but do not.
Terrans using energy to scan means they are losing out on the 270 minerals, they are not actually losing anything apart from energy, they also gain sight (lol at those saying the sight is small, a Zerg base is always compact anyways).
Zerg sacrifices an Overlord (go in the name of science!) in order to see what the Terran has, now since the Zerg already has the Overlord it obviously means they are losing it, but thats not all they are losing.
They lose 9 supply and 100 minerals right off the bat, but it doesn't end there.
They also lose an additional 100 minerals and 1 larva, why you might ask? Well because that 9 supply is important, and without it they don't get an army. Hence they will probably need to replace it and fast.
So in total Zerg loses 200 minerals and 1 larva (or 100 minerals and 9 supply if they choose to not replace it). I could go on to how that 1 larva could become a drone and earn X minerals in its life but I feel thats not really needed.
Terran loses out on 270 minerals or the ability to gain 8 supply.
The Zerg also loses double in the case of using two overlords.
Now for those of you who still don't understand I will use a metaphor, mainly because they are fun.
I am a Terran player and I go to a tree, it has 3 fruit - an apple, a banana and an orange - I can only choose 1, I choose the orange and miss out on the other two fruit.
Now I am a Zerg player, in my hand I have a half-eaten apple, I then proceed to throw that apple at the Terran player and laugh, I now have lost that apple.
Hopefully that clears things up for you.
The Zerg loses 100 minerals, 1 larva, and 8 supply when they sac an overlord. I'm not really sure how you came to the conclusion that you did, but it probably involved adding the cost of the replacement to the original, which is incorrect to do.
Also, when scanning, the Terran doesn't get to use supply drop either, which is exactly analogous to losing an overlord except that it doesn't cost a larva because Terran don't have those. The real difference is that a scan is almost guaranteed to see the Zerg's tech, because it can cover a very large part of the Zerg's creep (if not, a second scan will for certain). Meanwhile, sacrificing an overlord doesn't have nearly as good of odds versus a skilled Terran, and even sacrificing 2 simultaneously (from different angles) doesn't make any sort of guarantee that you see their tech if they're actively trying to hide it.
|
Zerg scouting is not a problem. Zerg may have issues, but zerg has it better in the scouting department early game than protoss does. A simple fact right there.
|
On September 03 2010 15:09 killa_robot wrote:
Zerg sacrifices an Overlord (go in the name of science!) in order to see what the Terran has, now since the Zerg already has the Overlord it obviously means they are losing it, but thats not all they are losing.
They lose 9 supply and 100 minerals right off the bat, but it doesn't end there.
They also lose an additional 100 minerals and 1 larva, why you might ask? Well because that 9 supply is important, and without it they don't get an army. Hence they will probably need to replace it and fast.
What the hell. This is some funny math. An Ovie costs 100. When you lose one, that's what you lose. You don't somehow lose double I mean WTF.
When the ovie dies, you don't lose 100 minerals. You lose 100 minerals worth of units. You only lose 100 minerals when you replace the unit, but in return you get .. 100 minerals worth of units. You now have the same mineral amount of units. At the end you have a net loss of 100 minerals. That's all. Not 200 good grief.
|
Now tell me how this situation is any different from BW scouting? I think it's the same and no one complained. Maybe people didn't have so many [dangerous] openings or what?
|
On September 04 2010 07:47 slimshady wrote:
Now tell me how this situation is any different from BW scouting? I think it's the same and no one complained. Maybe people didn't have so many [dangerous] openings or what?
Big part of it is you dont get a cost effective air defense till lair tech. If you rush lair tech when he is going for an early push you will die. If you dont get lair tech and he is going air, something early like banshee you die.
Furthermore, overlords are not detectors, you need lair to morph them to overseer. So scouting and knowing whether your opponent is teching to something that will require you to have lair tech to defend is extremely important.
I think SC2 zerg scouting and reacting is more part of the game than it was in BW.
|
On August 14 2010 12:46 Selenium wrote:
Btw
What is the difference between sc1 and sc2 in terms of zerg's scouting ability?
nothing but i would say there is a much larger importance early game as Z to know what is coming. Sc1 hydras were t1 anti air and overlords were also detectors making it easier to deal with those type of harassment. That being said hydra's are not an optimal investment unless you know 100% a banshee is coming because quite frankly they are useless against any other T build. In Sc1 they where a stepping stone to lurkers. Its not so much that scouting is more difficult its that information in the early stages seems to be more critical to not losing the game in the next 3 minutes.
That being said I dont think there is a large problem with zerg scouting, because you can often fill in the blanks with partial information. Also to the op its strange for him to go mara, marine, then get a banshee, as it delays(if it has cloak) the banshee to the point where your spire should be complete.
|
On September 04 2010 07:20 oxxo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2010 07:17 nybbas wrote:On September 03 2010 15:09 killa_robot wrote:
Alright so I'm gonna try to explain a little something here, its called losing vs losing out.
Losing implies I have something and then it is gone.
Losing out implies I have the ability to obtain something, but do not.
Terrans using energy to scan means they are losing out on the 270 minerals, they are not actually losing anything apart from energy, they also gain sight (lol at those saying the sight is small, a Zerg base is always compact anyways).
Zerg sacrifices an Overlord (go in the name of science!) in order to see what the Terran has, now since the Zerg already has the Overlord it obviously means they are losing it, but thats not all they are losing.
They lose 9 supply and 100 minerals right off the bat, but it doesn't end there.
They also lose an additional 100 minerals and 1 larva, why you might ask? Well because that 9 supply is important, and without it they don't get an army. Hence they will probably need to replace it and fast.
So in total Zerg loses 200 minerals and 1 larva (or 100 minerals and 9 supply if they choose to not replace it). I could go on to how that 1 larva could become a drone and earn X minerals in its life but I feel thats not really needed.
Terran loses out on 270 minerals or the ability to gain 8 supply.
The Zerg also loses double in the case of using two overlords.
Now for those of you who still don't understand I will use a metaphor, mainly because they are fun.
I am a Terran player and I go to a tree, it has 3 fruit - an apple, a banana and an orange - I can only choose 1, I choose the orange and miss out on the other two fruit.
Now I am a Zerg player, in my hand I have a half-eaten apple, I then proceed to throw that apple at the Terran player and laugh, I now have lost that apple.
Hopefully that clears things up for you. ON TOP OF THIS, mules make you mine out your main faster, you STILL get those minerals the mule would have mined if the game goes on long enough, so its not even like they are "lost" you just get them later. You are losing them. Stop trying to make some kind of nit picky argument that a MULE doesn't cost T any minerals. If you want to still use that argument, then don't ignore the fact that you are losing out on supply drop which can be DIRECTLY correlated with an overlord... except using your (biased and unlogical) definition, Z does NOT lose minerals, while T LOSES 100 minerals. Any way you try to spin it, T does lose out on minerals when scanning.
then P loses minerals every time they use a chronoboost on a non-nexus, and Z loses minerals if they make a creep tumor instead of spawn larva
(you're not very discerning)
|
I think a bigger problem with scouting is zerg lack of options and lack of units that can hit air before they get a lair.
before lair they have: ling, roach, bling
T has: reaper, marauder, marine
P has: zealot, sentry, stalker
Seems like the other 2 races have more options and a more balanced T1/1.5 unit comp than zerg does.
|
On September 04 2010 07:36 travis wrote:
Zerg scouting is not a problem. Zerg may have issues, but zerg has it better in the scouting department early game than protoss does. A simple fact right there.
Just because zerg scouting is better than protoss scouting does not mean it is not flawed when zerg is far more reactionary than protoss can ever be. Zerg needs to have the best scouting of all three races, hands down, and right now there's a huge gap at the most critical time in the game.
Your logic is flawed.
|
Hmm.. I would, as soon as you saw those banshees, put out 2 queens at each base while your hydra den was building, just something I would do, or Spore Crawlers, either one works, good luck!
|
On September 04 2010 08:24 StupidFatHobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2010 07:36 travis wrote:
Zerg scouting is not a problem. Zerg may have issues, but zerg has it better in the scouting department early game than protoss does. A simple fact right there. Just because zerg scouting is better than protoss scouting does not mean it is not flawed when zerg is far more reactionary than protoss can ever be. Zerg needs to have the best scouting of all three races, hands down, and right now there's a huge gap at the most critical time in the game. Your logic is flawed.
so u admit zerg already has better scouting than protoss but your solution to zerg woes is to give them EVEN BETTER scouting. clearly the issue couldn't maybe, just maybe, be something other than the scouting.
also, i didn't even display any logic in my post. i just posted 2 statements, one of opinion and one of fact. so i don't know what logic it is that is flawed.
|
On September 04 2010 08:29 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2010 08:24 StupidFatHobbit wrote:On September 04 2010 07:36 travis wrote:
Zerg scouting is not a problem. Zerg may have issues, but zerg has it better in the scouting department early game than protoss does. A simple fact right there. Just because zerg scouting is better than protoss scouting does not mean it is not flawed when zerg is far more reactionary than protoss can ever be. Zerg needs to have the best scouting of all three races, hands down, and right now there's a huge gap at the most critical time in the game. Your logic is flawed. so u admit zerg already has better scouting than protoss but your solution to zerg woes is to give them EVEN BETTER scouting. clearly the issue couldn't maybe, just maybe, be something other than the scouting. also, i didn't even display any logic in my post. i just posted 2 statements, one of opinion and one of fact. so i don't know what logic it is that is flawed.
What sucks is any balance issues really get muddled when scouting becomes an issue in RTS games. When people blindly go into strats it skews results quite a bit. Not only that but because Terran is so flexible with even its first tier of units, its hard for them to go wrong even without scouting at all.
|
I wrote this in the other crappy thread that was closed:
Hey top rated diamond here, but I could be the best in the world if I played more.
Sacking an overlord is often a very stupid move. It's not desirable whatsoever. It's only useful if you scout a tech heavy all-inish sort of build (read 2port banshee, cliff drop etc).
If you sack an overlord to an aggressive unit heavy 1base build (which you will be doing about 1/3 of the time because you're gambling like a moron by sacking the overlord in the first place), you might as well gg. You just decreased your chances of winning from ~50% to ~20%.
Important note: SC2 is such a sped up game, that scouting information has decreased in value compared to broodwar. Macro mechanics speed up timings so much that the overlord needs to be sacked at an unhealthily early timing for any sort of adaptation to occur (that's why bw-coaches whine about sc2 being "too fast"). Even if you scout early warp gate research and 4 gates, the changes you will be able to make to your strat in the short, boosted, time between your scouting and the time of the incoming attack are largely insignificant.
Sure there might be a real difference between expecting an expansion and a 4gate. But generally it is not hard to anticipate a multigate "all-in". It's simply that the time differential between absolute knowledge of the build and the incoming attack is too short. There's hardly any major difference in preparing for a 4gate and any other normal build (up until a critical point which optimally is the latest point possible, after you've made as many drones as possible without losing valuable mining time with any of them by pushing out spines and roaches too early).
You simply cannot start producing units earlier, or your economy will be too bad. There is not enough room to change or modify your strategy in SC2.
Same story with terran. Sloppy terrans will always reveal their strats by building their buildings in stupid places. But 3rax all-ins simply can't be defended if you don't have both metabolic boost and roaches ready. Any sort of slight delay on speedling research, any sort of lair before speed build, any sort of lair before roach warren build, WILL die regardless if you scout the build or not.
Same with 2-3rax/1fac MM/hellion+scv rush. It doesn't matter if you scout it. The timings at which you would have to decide for speedlings, roaches, and (most importantly) the construction of your baneling's nest are really really early. Pre "when it makes economic sense to sack an overlord"-timing.
If you want to supply block yourself at 24/18 supply vs a 1base build, go ahead be my guest, mr. progamer.
Same crap with Lair timings vs banshee openings. You have to commit to ling speed/roaches blindly in more than 50% of your ZvT games. You will only ever scout a banshee opening without having to sack an overlord vs a bad terran.
The rest of your games. Simply have fun guessing or flip the coin and sack your overlord anyway, while praying to god your opponent isn't doing a unit heavy 1base rush.
I don't believe in giving zerg better scouting as a solution. I think the game needs to be redesigned for HotS and all timings be delayed. This game will just keep sucking and be random as hell as long as its as fast paced as it is now. A game needs some "dead air" and build up time for good playhers to be able to adapt.
|
On September 04 2010 07:36 travis wrote:
Zerg scouting is not a problem. Zerg may have issues, but zerg has it better in the scouting department early game than protoss does. A simple fact right there.
Agreed, Zerg scouting is not that much of a problem. Zerg can also establish a lot of map control, more so then the Terran or Protoss player.
Although it would be nice to see Changeling buffed ( Changelings are so super obvious, ffs if you click on them it says "Changeling") I don't think it's necessary.
I can't comment on wether or not Zerg players scouting is stronger or weaker then Protoss, but I don't feel like Zerg has scouting issues.
Zerg has issues, just not with scouting.
On September 04 2010 09:13 LaLuSh wrote:
I wrote this in the other crappy thread that was closed:
Hey top rated diamond here, but I could be the best in the world if I played more.
Sacking an overlord is often a very stupid move. It's not desirable whatsoever. It's only useful if you scout a tech heavy all-inish sort of build (read 2port banshee, cliff drop etc).
If you sack an overlord to an aggressive unit heavy 1base build (which you will be doing about 1/3 of the time because you're gambling like a moron by sacking the overlord in the first place), you might as well gg. You just decreased your chances of winning from ~50% to ~20%.
Important note: SC2 is such a sped up game, that scouting information has decreased in value compared to broodwar. Macro mechanics speed up timings so much that the overlord needs to be sacked at an unhealthily early timing for any sort of adaptation to occur (that's why bw-coaches whine about sc2 being "too fast"). Even if you scout early warp gate research and 4 gates, the changes you will be able to make to your strat in the short, boosted, time between your scouting and the time of the incoming attack are largely insignificant.
Sure there might be a real difference between expecting an expansion and a 4gate. But generally it is not hard to anticipate a multigate "all-in". It's simply that the time differential between absolute knowledge of the build and the incoming attack is too short. There's hardly any major difference in preparing for a 4gate and a normal build up until a critical point (which preferably is the latest point possible), where you start panick pushing out spines and roaches.
You simply can't start producing units earlier, or your economy will be too bad. There is not enough room to change or modify your strategy.
Same story with terran. Sloppy terrans will always reveal their strats by building their buildings in stupid places. But 3rax all-ins simply can't be defended if you don't have both metabolic boost and roaches ready. Any sort of slight delay on speedling research, any sort of lair before speed build, any sort of lair before roach warren build, WILL die regardless if you scout the build or not.
Same with 2-3rax/1fac MM/hellion+scv rush. It doesn't matter if you scout it. The timings at which you would have to decide for speedlings, roaches, and (most importantly) the construction of your baneling's nest are really really early. Pre "when it makes economic sense to sack an overlord"-timing.
If you want to supply block yourself at 24/18 supply vs a 1base build, go ahead be my guest, mr. progamer.
Same crap with Lair timings vs banshee openings. You have to commit to ling speed/roaches blindly in more than 50% of your ZvT games. You will only ever scout a banshee opening without having to sack an overlord vs a bad terran.
The rest of your games. Simply have fun guessing or flip the coin and sack your overlord anyway, while praying to god your opponent isn't doing a unit heavy 1base rush.
I don't believe in giving zerg better scouting as a solution. I think the game needs to be redesigned for HotS and all timings be delayed. This game will just keep sucking and be random as hell as long as its as fast paced as it is now. A game needs some "dead air" and build up time for good playhers to be able to adapt.
Yea really the timings in SC2 are so fucking random, but it may just be the fact that the meta game is not as developed as Brood War yet.
It really does feel like things are waay to sped up in Sc2, which is why we are having the feeling that "scouting" is the problem as there's a very small window of opportunity to react to certain things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
