|
On January 06 2012 09:33 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote:
Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
StarCraft II consists of games and sets of games; that is, you can think within the context of a single game, or within the context of your overall win-loss ratio. To me, it seems that you're more concerned with the latter than the former, and that truly bothers me. A good player should be able to, with rather strong consistency, beat someone significantly worse than himself (if only by one league or so.) For instance, a solid platinum player should almost always win against a solid gold player because the platinum player is simply more refined and all-together better at the game. But, your guides seem to be focused on builds for which this is not true. Let me discuss this specific guide in that way:
You suggest that you should have "8 roaches and 16+ lings at the 7:15 mark" when executing this build. Lets look at the cost of that, assuming the minimum number of zerglings.
1 roach = 75 minerals, 25 gas, 2 supply and 1 larva
1 zergling = 25 minerals, 0.5 supply and 0.5 larvae
8 roaches = 600 minerals, 200 gas, 16 supply and 8 larvae
16 zerglings = 400 minerals, 8 supply and 8 larvae
Subtotal = 1000 minerals, 200 gas, 24 supply and 16 larvae
4 gas = 5 minerals (based on value of one resource return)
200 gas = 250 minerals
Total = 1250 minerals, 24 supply and 16 larvae
That's 16 drones with 800 minerals (not including what those extra drones mine) and 8 supply left over (the exact value of one overlord, so 100 minerals worth)
So, what you are suggesting is that we sacrifice 16 drones worth of mining and 900 minerals for this attack. In order for it to pay for itself relative to simply droning up, as is safe to do with rather minimal defense, we'd have to kill:
More than 12 supply depots,
25 marines, or
25 SCV's
or some combination thereof. Note that these numbers STILL don't include the huge count of minerals that the extra 16 drones mine up to this point.
I think you're crazy if you think you can deal that much damage reliably. Therefore, the only way this build is any good when compared to a macro zerg style is if it wins, right then and there. "Significant damage" won't cut it because there's simply no way that you could deal enough damage for this to pay for itself and not win outright.
The reason this works for you is because you beat some players with it, and that percentage is high enough to keep you at your admittedly impressive ladder ranking. However, you are just as likely to lose to a platinum player with the correct counter in hand (even a blind counter) as you are to beat a master player who was just a little too greedy.
I don't like that.
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones As DarkForce said recently, it's really hard to be aggressive as Zerg in SC2 without being semi all in or all in.
I don't want to disagree with DarkForce, because he's sick lol. But to say there aren't ways to be aggressive as Zerg isn't true. Even top players like Leenock, Nestea, JulyZerg, IdrA, and Nerchio execute aggressive timing attacks.
|
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote:
Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
~~~Calculations~~~~
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
At first, these calculations made sense, but if you look closely, its not nearly as bad as you say it is, and you do not have to do as much damage as you say  Why?
FIRST OF ALL: Most zergs already opt for the 100 gas upgrade, so that is 125 minerals off already
Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs. That's being ahead in 10 workers! (although not uncommon in a zvt).
But making only workers at that stage of the game is too hopeful/coin flip. You failed to include the fact that zerg would either already make lings or spines, which would cut into drone production anyways! This attack also stops any drones that would die to some light hellion harass, and the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide).
When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important), and most likely delay his expo. If he does not have alot of defences, you are bound to do some damage. If Terran has a lot of defenses, it means you already have the units to defend his counter push . You dont need to kill 25 scvs because you will be making the drones anyways, and remember the larva mechanic allows zerg to make quadrillion at a time.
FINNALY : When attacking, you give yourself, the opportunity to drone up. So those 16 drones will be made EVENTUALLY, meaning its really only the mining time that you are loosing in the first place. That means you're not "sacrificing" those drones, because they will be made later on. Of course, earlier drones is better in terms of mining time, but the advantages of this push in my opinion outweigh the minerals that would have been gained.
tldr;
- making those 16 drones "sacrificed" actually puts you ahead
- normally zerg already forced to make units to defend hellion pressure anyways.
- push gives map control, free to drone up
- droning up remakes those 16 drones lost, just alittle later, so some mining time is lost, no need to kill 25 supply depots! Larva mechanic allows remaking those drones much faster too
|
On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote:
Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
~~~Calculations~~~~
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones At first, these calculations made sense, but if you look closely, its not nearly as bad as you say it is, and you do not have to do as much damage as you say Why? FIRST OF ALL: Most zergs already opt for the 100 gas upgrade, so that is 125 minerals off already Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs. That's being ahead in 10 workers! (although not uncommon in a zvt). But making only workers at that stage of the game is too hopeful/coin flip. You failed to include the fact that zerg would either already make lings or spines, which would cut into drone production anyways! This attack also stops any drones that would die to some light hellion harass, and the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide). When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important), and most likely delay his expo. If he does not have alot of defences, you are bound to do some damage. If Terran has a lot of defenses, it means you already have the units to defend his counter push . You dont need to kill 25 scvs because you will be making the drones anyways, and remember the larva mechanic allows zerg to make quadrillion at a time. FINNALY : When attacking, you give yourself, the opportunity to drone up. So those 16 drones will be made EVENTUALLY, meaning its really only the mining time that you are loosing in the first place. That means you're not "sacrificing" those drones, because they will be made later on. Of course, earlier drones is better in terms of mining time, but the advantages of this push in my opinion outweigh the minerals that would have been gained. tldr; - making those 16 drones "sacrificed" actually puts you ahead - normally zerg already forced to make units to defend hellion pressure anyways. - push gives map control, free to drone up - droning up remakes those 16 drones lost, just a little later, so some mining time is lost, no need to kill 25 supply depots! Larva mechanic allows remaking those drones much faster too
I agree. Calculations guy was looking at it far too literally. (Literally isn't the right word, but like, there's more going on in a game than hard numbers that can be calculated.) I think Tang has it right here. And he's not trying to say that you will necessarily be way ahead after this, but that you can execute it and almost always come out not at a big disadvantage, which to me seems to hold true. While you may have been more ahead if you had made greedy drones and then luckily held off aggression, you would have also taken a greater risk. This build is safer at home, with a chance to do damage and you won't end up super behind if it fails.
|
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Expand_Roach_(vs._Terran)
I use this build on occasion but a bunker behind the helions completely negates it. Ling speed is a necessity if you want to do a ton of damage as the reinforcing lings won't make it before the rewall. These type of builds work well against banshee builds as well.
|
On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote:
Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
~~~Calculations~~~~
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones At first, these calculations made sense, but if you look closely, its not nearly as bad as you say it is, and you do not have to do as much damage as you say Why? FIRST OF ALL: Most zergs already opt for the 100 gas upgrade, so that is 125 minerals off already Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs. That's being ahead in 10 workers! (although not uncommon in a zvt). But making only workers at that stage of the game is too hopeful/coin flip. You failed to include the fact that zerg would either already make lings or spines, which would cut into drone production anyways! This attack also stops any drones that would die to some light hellion harass, and the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide). When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important), and most likely delay his expo. If he does not have alot of defences, you are bound to do some damage. If Terran has a lot of defenses, it means you already have the units to defend his counter push . You dont need to kill 25 scvs because you will be making the drones anyways, and remember the larva mechanic allows zerg to make quadrillion at a time. FINNALY : When attacking, you give yourself, the opportunity to drone up. So those 16 drones will be made EVENTUALLY, meaning its really only the mining time that you are loosing in the first place. That means you're not "sacrificing" those drones, because they will be made later on. Of course, earlier drones is better in terms of mining time, but the advantages of this push in my opinion outweigh the minerals that would have been gained. tldr; - making those 16 drones "sacrificed" actually puts you ahead - normally zerg already forced to make units to defend hellion pressure anyways. - push gives map control, free to drone up - droning up remakes those 16 drones lost, just alittle later, so some mining time is lost, no need to kill 25 supply depots! Larva mechanic allows remaking those drones much faster too
Okay, no offense meant by this, but your first couple points there really were a FindMuck; they are utterly wrong.
1. The "100 gas upgrade" you're referring to is surely metabolic boost, no? I did NOT include the cost of metabolic boost in my calculations, as I did in fact assume you'd be getting it anyway (which is indeed not always true.) 100% of the gas costs in my calculations were from roaches.
On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote:
Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs.
2. What? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that you made a mistake by writing this paragraph, rather than simply not understanding basic logic. If Tang cuts drones at around 24, that means Tang would be at 24 drones vs. Terran's ~30 SCV's (Not sure where you got that number, 30, but it may be correct.) That puts Tang at a severe economic disadvantage, strongly exacerbated by the existence of MULE's. This necessitates a LOT of damage to be dealt by Tang to come out even with his opponent, as like you said a solid 10 drone lead or so is quite common in ZvT, and it happens to be considered quite even at this point in the game.
3. You ARE correct that my calculations did not account for defensively built units. However, it is my experience at the master level (and it is confirmed in pro-level play) that very minimal defenses are usually adequate up to the point in the game Tang's push, and thus my calculations, are performed at. I would argue that two queens (which you do have anyway,) one spine (100 minerals and a single drone,) and no more than six zerglings (150 minerals) can hold off even the most dedicated of non-all-in or semi-all-in TvZ aggression plays up to this point, when the defense is executed well.
That shaves 250 minerals off of my calculations. You're right, it may not be 12.5 supply depots (and it was 12.5, not the 25 you state in your post); only 10. Whoop-dee-doo.
On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote:
the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide).
4. Map control is a nigh-valueless resource in early game ZvT. Because Terran is sealed inside his base before he is ready to either attack or expand, lest he be overrun by Zerg's flexible production should he come out too early, the only "map control" of real value is a single zergling outside of your opponent's base, to scout for his expansion or attack as soon as it comes out. Cautious players may even wish to take the Xel'Naga tower(s) as well, but they are hardly a necessity if early game scouting is good. Erring on the side of caution, that means just two zerglings must be out on the map to be completely aware of your opponent's movements at this stage of ZvT. Hardly something 8 roaches and 16 zerglings do much better.
On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote:
When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important),
5. When you arrive at Terran's base, dear lord, please tell me you've already scouted him! There are innumerable hard counters to this build that I only let slide because they can be scouted early enough to cancel the aggression. If your opponent goes for fast marauders or siege tanks and you still commit to this attack, you are most likely screwed and will surely deal very little damage. If he goes 2 port banshee, you are most likely screwed and will surely deal very little damage. If he has a bunker or two up, or simply good sim-city such that he may be safe from a baneling bust, you are most likely screwed and will surely deal very little damage. The only scouting information of value I can possibly imagine you getting by the time your push is at his base is whether or not it's going to work. If it won't, too bad you've already committed to it.
6. You DO need to deal the amount of damage concluded by my calculations, in fact, because those lost resource and drone numbers were based on what you had ALREADY sacrificed in order to make the push, and nowhere do I assume that you never make drones again. Remember, just because your economy can be increasing while you're attacking your opponent doesn't mean his can't too: Terran production doesn't require a decision between units and workers to be made, as Zerg's does. Also, because of the innate income Terran players get from simply having extra orbitals lying about (in the form of both increased worker production and increase MULE's,) delaying a Terran expansion is hardly valuable in the long run. It will slightly decrease their income by forcing them to over-saturate their main, but at 7:30 many Terrans who are planning on expanding already may not have full one base saturation quite yet. Not to mention the fact that MULE's don't contribute to saturation, meaning a "fully saturated" mining base with three workers per patch could still support eight MULE's at full mining capacity.
7. This point may tie in with the one above it, but I also want to note that I did NOT include the resources that those drones that were never built in order to make the push occur would've mined. I simply haven't preformed the calculations as they'd be too lengthy and variable for me to care much for. Needless to say, it's several hundred minerals at least. Yes, these drones that you propose making once you've already started pushing out at your opponent will start to mine, but the amount of money that the earlier drones would've mined before these new drones would catch up to them is very large and should technically be added to the opportunity cost of making the push. If I had to make my best educated guess at the matter I'd say the opportunity cost is closer to 2250 minerals or so, up from the 1250 I had stated before. Make it 45 marines or SCV's, or over 22 supply depots.
On January 06 2012 14:03 scarymeerkat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote:On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote:
Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
~~~Calculations~~~~
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones At first, these calculations made sense, but if you look closely, its not nearly as bad as you say it is, and you do not have to do as much damage as you say Why? FIRST OF ALL: Most zergs already opt for the 100 gas upgrade, so that is 125 minerals off already Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs. That's being ahead in 10 workers! (although not uncommon in a zvt). But making only workers at that stage of the game is too hopeful/coin flip. You failed to include the fact that zerg would either already make lings or spines, which would cut into drone production anyways! This attack also stops any drones that would die to some light hellion harass, and the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide). When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important), and most likely delay his expo. If he does not have alot of defences, you are bound to do some damage. If Terran has a lot of defenses, it means you already have the units to defend his counter push . You dont need to kill 25 scvs because you will be making the drones anyways, and remember the larva mechanic allows zerg to make quadrillion at a time. FINNALY : When attacking, you give yourself, the opportunity to drone up. So those 16 drones will be made EVENTUALLY, meaning its really only the mining time that you are loosing in the first place. That means you're not "sacrificing" those drones, because they will be made later on. Of course, earlier drones is better in terms of mining time, but the advantages of this push in my opinion outweigh the minerals that would have been gained. tldr; - making those 16 drones "sacrificed" actually puts you ahead - normally zerg already forced to make units to defend hellion pressure anyways. - push gives map control, free to drone up - droning up remakes those 16 drones lost, just a little later, so some mining time is lost, no need to kill 25 supply depots! Larva mechanic allows remaking those drones much faster too I agree. Calculations guy was looking at it far too literally. (Literally isn't the right word, but like, there's more going on in a game than hard numbers that can be calculated.) I think Tang has it right here. And he's not trying to say that you will necessarily be way ahead after this, but that you can execute it and almost always come out not at a big disadvantage, which to me seems to hold true. While you may have been more ahead if you had made greedy drones and then luckily held off aggression, you would have also taken a greater risk. This build is safer at home, with a chance to do damage and you won't end up super behind if it fails.
8. Building more units is always "safer" in the short run, no matter what. However, StarCraft II is NOT about being as safe as possible at all points, its about being as ahead as possible at all points. Tang's build attempts to get ahead by dealing damage; it is unreliable and, for all the reasons I've stated in these last two posts, very bad in my opinion. My approach is to instead take advantage of the freedom to drone in relative safety and to simply gain as much of an advantage as I can through the use of the larvae mechanic to increase my economy as quickly as possible when I can be relatively sure that I am already safe, and to only build units as needed. When executed correctly, both builds put us ahead in the long run (Terran almost always attempts to take advantage of the small army associated with my style in some timing window to make the game more even; games are often won or lost on holding off that aggression with minimal losses,) but mine does so based on MY skill and ability to play, and does NOT rely on my opponent's inability to counter my frankly poorly thought out aggression, as does Tang's.
I daresay this has been the longest post I've ever written... I wonder if anyone will actually read and internalize the entire thing.
"How do you like 'dem apples?"
EDIT: Revising some simple typos and mistakes I made in the editing process.
EDIT2: Added quotes for some paragraphs where before it may have been unclear what I was responding to.
|
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote:
Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
StarCraft II consists of games and sets of games; that is, you can think within the context of a single game, or within the context of your overall win-loss ratio. To me, it seems that you're more concerned with the latter than the former, and that truly bothers me. A good player should be able to, with rather strong consistency, beat someone significantly worse than himself (if only by one league or so.) For instance, a solid platinum player should almost always win against a solid gold player because the platinum player is simply more refined and all-together better at the game. But, your guides seem to be focused on builds for which this is not true. Let me discuss this specific guide in that way:
You suggest that you should have "8 roaches and 16+ lings at the 7:15 mark" when executing this build. Lets look at the cost of that, assuming the minimum number of zerglings.
1 roach = 75 minerals, 25 gas, 2 supply and 1 larva
1 zergling = 25 minerals, 0.5 supply and 0.5 larvae
8 roaches = 600 minerals, 200 gas, 16 supply and 8 larvae
16 zerglings = 400 minerals, 8 supply and 8 larvae
Subtotal = 1000 minerals, 200 gas, 24 supply and 16 larvae
4 gas = 5 minerals (based on value of one resource return)
200 gas = 250 minerals
Total = 1250 minerals, 24 supply and 16 larvae
That's 16 drones with 800 minerals (not including what those extra drones mine) and 8 supply left over (the exact value of one overlord, so 100 minerals worth)
So, what you are suggesting is that we sacrifice 16 drones worth of mining and 900 minerals for this attack. In order for it to pay for itself relative to simply droning up, as is safe to do with rather minimal defense, we'd have to kill:
More than 12 supply depots,
25 marines, or
25 SCV's
or some combination thereof. Note that these numbers STILL don't include the huge count of minerals that the extra 16 drones mine up to this point.
I think you're crazy if you think you can deal that much damage reliably. Therefore, the only way this build is any good when compared to a macro zerg style is if it wins, right then and there. "Significant damage" won't cut it because there's simply no way that you could deal enough damage for this to pay for itself and not win outright.
The reason this works for you is because you beat some players with it, and that percentage is high enough to keep you at your admittedly impressive ladder ranking. However, you are just as likely to lose to a platinum player with the correct counter in hand (even a blind counter) as you are to beat a master player who was just a little too greedy.
I don't like that.
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
These posts are the ones that makem me angry.
You have to understand that doing theorycrafting isn't something anybody can do. It is not so simple.
You simply do not take into account a lot of important data. For example, you have this example where you say that instead of attacking he could make X drones, but you never talk about map control, you never talk about the damage you do to your opponent's ecomomy.
You never talk about the fact that you can't ACTUALLY go pure drone against hellions but you need spines, queens and lots of lings (and you didn't take their cost into account), and you didn't take into account the mind part, where someone could say that an early attack can throw someone off of his game, as it is known that pressure makes the opponent make more mistakes.
You didn't take into account that the zerg can get a fast third if they do this attack, and get an optimal creep spread because no hellions will kill your tumors, you didn't take into account that it might force your opponent into a tech that he doesn't really wan (marauders).
And i'm sure i missed a lot more data which i can't think about right now.
Show me a game where you can make 16 drones instead of this timing and still survive the same build by your opponent, and then you may have a point, but even if you do, you still might not be right.
TL;DL I think that you didn't take into account enough data for your post, and i hope nobody takes it to seriously because it doesn't respect the whole truth
|
This looks like a good all in, how long will it be delayed if you were to bring some banelings? They complicate the defense a metric f*ckton. When your going all in anyways, I think roach, ling, bane is the worst to deal with.
|
On January 06 2012 18:46 Asolmanx wrote:
These posts are the ones that makem me angry.
You have to understand that doing theorycrafting isn't something anybody can do. It is not so simple.
You simply do not take into account a lot of important data. For example, you have this example where you say that instead of attacking he could make X drones, but you never talk about map control, you never talk about the damage you do to your opponent's ecomomy.
You never talk about the fact that you can't ACTUALLY go pure drone against hellions but you need spines, queens and lots of lings (and you didn't take their cost into account), and you didn't take into account the mind part, where someone could say that an early attack can throw someone off of his game, as it is known that pressure makes the opponent make more mistakes.
You didn't take into account that the zerg can get a fast third if they do this attack, and get an optimal creep spread because no hellions will kill your tumors, you didn't take into account that it might force your opponent into a tech that he doesn't really wan (marauders).
And i'm sure i missed a lot more data which i can't think about right now.
Show me a game where you can make 16 drones instead of this timing and still survive the same build by your opponent, and then you may have a point, but even if you do, you still might not be right.
TL;DL I think that you didn't take into account enough data for your post, and i hope nobody takes it to seriously because it doesn't respect the whole truth
That doesn't make his point any less valid, though. Those 16 drones would be a solid investment, and you could the proceed to produce units in a more reactionary way. You will most definitely be behind, should you not do sufficient damage to make your economical sacrifice worthwhile. It's a semi-blind build and if it gets countered then you're worse off than you would be if you just spent those minerals droning.
Ofcourse there are benefits as you mention, but it seems irrelevant if you're discussing whether these types of aggressive builds are solid or not - which is what he is arguing that it isn't.
|
To respond to the last post by uminotsuki;
I think you're overestimating 1 spine, 2 queens and 6 lings against 6+ hellions, especially on some maps (TDA springs to mind, maybe xfire and metal too)
About 2port banshee, it's not always scouted - the T can hide tech, you can scout him last on a big map and not see 2 gas go up and you can get unlucky with your overlord path over his base. If you do an attack of this kind, either his banshees have to turn round or stay at home if they havent left yet (thus buying you time to queen and spore up) or you get into his base and kill most of his scvs and maybe the starports too because he simply wont be able to defend at home without all the money he put into his banshees being there.
Reactor hellion play delays your third whether you're going for an aggresive Tang push or macro game. If you do a roach/ling push you can take a 3rd the moment it leaves your base. If you don't do a push of this kind then yes you have more drones, but you're gonna have to make something at some point to deal with those hellions and then take your third.
What I'm trying to say is that the difference between standard macro and a roach/ling push is:
2 bases saturated but later 3rd - 2 bases not quite saturated but earlier 3rd + creep spread
That's ignoring the possibility of damage, delaying T's natural and the fact that any units you kill now are better than units killed later (as T gets more cost-efficient with more units in army while z gets relatively less)
I'm not saying you should roach/ling a terran every single game, but it's not a bad build to have up your sleeve.
|
On January 06 2012 19:14 Pharnax wrote:
That doesn't make his point any less valid, though. Those 16 drones would be a solid investment, and you could the proceed to produce units in a more reactionary way. You will most definitely be behind, should you not do sufficient damage to make your economical sacrifice worthwhile. It's a semi-blind build and if it gets countered then you're worse off than you would be if you just spent those minerals droning.
Ofcourse there are benefits as you mention, but it seems irrelevant if you're discussing whether these types of aggressive builds are solid or not - which is what he is arguing that it isn't.
Pretty sure we've all seen players like DRG, Leenock, and NesTea frequently use similar aggressive styles (DRG vs. MMA from Providence is the first game that comes to mind). The argument for 16 drones was made completely in an unrealistic manner by claiming you will constantly make drones without spines or slings to defend against early pushes, or even hellions. This build temporarily sacrifices resources for aggression that can either A.) outright win the game, B.) damage your opponent significantly, C.) throw them off their game, etc.
I personally dislike the mentality that Z has to sit back and defend onslaught after onslaught until you can get a good "end game" going. The early game is as much a part of the game as the late game, and for those that call this "cheesy" you are just plain ignorant. If you switch up between being passive and aggressive it makes you that much more of a threat...
|
I think doing a good old bling bust is stronger than roach pushes.
reasons:
* roaches are slow, during the time they need to travel to the opponents base, they are a 'dead' investment. In general: the longer your army is on transport, the easier a push is to hold (longer preparation and you fight with your army of T-60 seconds against his T+0 seconds army)
* speedlings are much faster, so the initial punch can be stronger, since it results from your T-30 seconds economy.
* banelings can be morphed directly at the opponents base in case, this has somewhat the effect of a proxy pylon, since you can directly strengthen your army without having a traveling time (however banes need time to morph).
* you dont't lose a drone+resources to a roach warren (=200 mins = 8 slings)
* in case he has a strong defense, just don't morph banes (flexibility)
* in case he has not expanded, just block his nat, no need to bust (flexibility)
The only advantage of roaches is larvae efficiency, which might be the major reason why roach pushes are preferred in some scenarios.
|
On January 06 2012 11:24 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 09:33 Flonomenalz wrote:On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote:
Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
StarCraft II consists of games and sets of games; that is, you can think within the context of a single game, or within the context of your overall win-loss ratio. To me, it seems that you're more concerned with the latter than the former, and that truly bothers me. A good player should be able to, with rather strong consistency, beat someone significantly worse than himself (if only by one league or so.) For instance, a solid platinum player should almost always win against a solid gold player because the platinum player is simply more refined and all-together better at the game. But, your guides seem to be focused on builds for which this is not true. Let me discuss this specific guide in that way:
You suggest that you should have "8 roaches and 16+ lings at the 7:15 mark" when executing this build. Lets look at the cost of that, assuming the minimum number of zerglings.
1 roach = 75 minerals, 25 gas, 2 supply and 1 larva
1 zergling = 25 minerals, 0.5 supply and 0.5 larvae
8 roaches = 600 minerals, 200 gas, 16 supply and 8 larvae
16 zerglings = 400 minerals, 8 supply and 8 larvae
Subtotal = 1000 minerals, 200 gas, 24 supply and 16 larvae
4 gas = 5 minerals (based on value of one resource return)
200 gas = 250 minerals
Total = 1250 minerals, 24 supply and 16 larvae
That's 16 drones with 800 minerals (not including what those extra drones mine) and 8 supply left over (the exact value of one overlord, so 100 minerals worth)
So, what you are suggesting is that we sacrifice 16 drones worth of mining and 900 minerals for this attack. In order for it to pay for itself relative to simply droning up, as is safe to do with rather minimal defense, we'd have to kill:
More than 12 supply depots,
25 marines, or
25 SCV's
or some combination thereof. Note that these numbers STILL don't include the huge count of minerals that the extra 16 drones mine up to this point.
I think you're crazy if you think you can deal that much damage reliably. Therefore, the only way this build is any good when compared to a macro zerg style is if it wins, right then and there. "Significant damage" won't cut it because there's simply no way that you could deal enough damage for this to pay for itself and not win outright.
The reason this works for you is because you beat some players with it, and that percentage is high enough to keep you at your admittedly impressive ladder ranking. However, you are just as likely to lose to a platinum player with the correct counter in hand (even a blind counter) as you are to beat a master player who was just a little too greedy.
I don't like that.
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones As DarkForce said recently, it's really hard to be aggressive as Zerg in SC2 without being semi all in or all in. I don't want to disagree with DarkForce, because he's sick lol. But to say there aren't ways to be aggressive as Zerg isn't true. Even top players like Leenock, Nestea, JulyZerg, IdrA, and Nerchio execute aggressive timing attacks.
They don't do it blindly right? >.<
|
On January 06 2012 20:57 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
I think doing a good old bling bust is stronger than roach pushes.
reasons:
* roaches are slow, during the time they need to travel to the opponents base, they are a 'dead' investment. In general: the longer your army is on transport, the easier a push is to hold (longer preparation and you fight with your army of T-60 seconds against his T+0 seconds army)
* speedlings are much faster, so the initial punch can be stronger, since it results from your T-30 seconds economy.
* banelings can be morphed directly at the opponents base in case, this has somewhat the effect of a proxy pylon, since you can directly strengthen your army without having a traveling time (however banes need time to morph).
* you dont't lose a drone+resources to a roach warren (=200 mins = 8 slings)
* in case he has a strong defense, just don't morph banes (flexibility)
* in case he has not expanded, just block his nat, no need to bust (flexibility)
The only advantage of roaches is larvae efficiency, which might be the major reason why roach pushes are preferred in some scenarios.
banelings die after impact while roaches can still attack after 1 shot. Plus, they got 145 health and 1 armor making them survive more to make you drone or send reinforcements.
|
I have seen this quite a bit in s3. Used to have quite some trouble against it with greedy builds but:
rea-hellion x4 -> tl rax -> stim + add 2 rax -> starport -> use factory to build addon for sp (so banshee is a option, sp is underway when push comes, more common double medvac so terran has stim + medvac about a minute after rush hits) + a bunker when hellions scout first sign of roaches seems to always break even (with terribad micro) or come out ahead against it.
Core to if the terran expo gets delayed (assuming no blind bunkering) is the rush distance as you have to hit with enough force to break the terrans front before bunkers complete. 8 roaches + 16 lings > 4 rines 1 rauder 4 hellions (plausible terran forces when rush hits (with this opening), marauder as reponse to roaches pushing out), but not when a bunker + scvs come into play.
(build stolen from mvp :>)
It feels like the tech advantage the terran ends up with if he holds allows for forced cost effective trading (especially if the zerg took a 3rd) making it really hard to hold a 2-3 base followup push.
However, I've always felt that a roach warren on that timing and then deciding how many roaches to make based on scouting is pretty strong; they're great units early game.
|
On January 06 2012 18:46 Asolmanx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote:
Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
StarCraft II consists of games and sets of games; that is, you can think within the context of a single game, or within the context of your overall win-loss ratio. To me, it seems that you're more concerned with the latter than the former, and that truly bothers me. A good player should be able to, with rather strong consistency, beat someone significantly worse than himself (if only by one league or so.) For instance, a solid platinum player should almost always win against a solid gold player because the platinum player is simply more refined and all-together better at the game. But, your guides seem to be focused on builds for which this is not true. Let me discuss this specific guide in that way:
You suggest that you should have "8 roaches and 16+ lings at the 7:15 mark" when executing this build. Lets look at the cost of that, assuming the minimum number of zerglings.
1 roach = 75 minerals, 25 gas, 2 supply and 1 larva
1 zergling = 25 minerals, 0.5 supply and 0.5 larvae
8 roaches = 600 minerals, 200 gas, 16 supply and 8 larvae
16 zerglings = 400 minerals, 8 supply and 8 larvae
Subtotal = 1000 minerals, 200 gas, 24 supply and 16 larvae
4 gas = 5 minerals (based on value of one resource return)
200 gas = 250 minerals
Total = 1250 minerals, 24 supply and 16 larvae
That's 16 drones with 800 minerals (not including what those extra drones mine) and 8 supply left over (the exact value of one overlord, so 100 minerals worth)
So, what you are suggesting is that we sacrifice 16 drones worth of mining and 900 minerals for this attack. In order for it to pay for itself relative to simply droning up, as is safe to do with rather minimal defense, we'd have to kill:
More than 12 supply depots,
25 marines, or
25 SCV's
or some combination thereof. Note that these numbers STILL don't include the huge count of minerals that the extra 16 drones mine up to this point.
I think you're crazy if you think you can deal that much damage reliably. Therefore, the only way this build is any good when compared to a macro zerg style is if it wins, right then and there. "Significant damage" won't cut it because there's simply no way that you could deal enough damage for this to pay for itself and not win outright.
The reason this works for you is because you beat some players with it, and that percentage is high enough to keep you at your admittedly impressive ladder ranking. However, you are just as likely to lose to a platinum player with the correct counter in hand (even a blind counter) as you are to beat a master player who was just a little too greedy.
I don't like that.
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones These posts are the ones that makem me angry. You have to understand that doing theorycrafting isn't something anybody can do. It is not so simple. You simply do not take into account a lot of important data. For example, you have this example where you say that instead of attacking he could make X drones, but you never talk about map control, you never talk about the damage you do to your opponent's ecomomy. You never talk about the fact that you can't ACTUALLY go pure drone against hellions but you need spines, queens and lots of lings (and you didn't take their cost into account), and you didn't take into account the mind part, where someone could say that an early attack can throw someone off of his game, as it is known that pressure makes the opponent make more mistakes. You didn't take into account that the zerg can get a fast third if they do this attack, and get an optimal creep spread because no hellions will kill your tumors, you didn't take into account that it might force your opponent into a tech that he doesn't really wan (marauders). And i'm sure i missed a lot more data which i can't think about right now. Show me a game where you can make 16 drones instead of this timing and still survive the same build by your opponent, and then you may have a point, but even if you do, you still might not be right. TL;DL I think that you didn't take into account enough data for your post, and i hope nobody takes it to seriously because it doesn't respect the whole truth
posts like that make me more angry if anything, he responded to alot of those points in a post right above yours...
he mentioned the map control and including calculations of defense against hellions
|
On January 06 2012 14:03 scarymeerkat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote:On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote:
Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
~~~Calculations~~~~
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones At first, these calculations made sense, but if you look closely, its not nearly as bad as you say it is, and you do not have to do as much damage as you say Why? FIRST OF ALL: Most zergs already opt for the 100 gas upgrade, so that is 125 minerals off already Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs. That's being ahead in 10 workers! (although not uncommon in a zvt). But making only workers at that stage of the game is too hopeful/coin flip. You failed to include the fact that zerg would either already make lings or spines, which would cut into drone production anyways! This attack also stops any drones that would die to some light hellion harass, and the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide). When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important), and most likely delay his expo. If he does not have alot of defences, you are bound to do some damage. If Terran has a lot of defenses, it means you already have the units to defend his counter push . You dont need to kill 25 scvs because you will be making the drones anyways, and remember the larva mechanic allows zerg to make quadrillion at a time. FINNALY : When attacking, you give yourself, the opportunity to drone up. So those 16 drones will be made EVENTUALLY, meaning its really only the mining time that you are loosing in the first place. That means you're not "sacrificing" those drones, because they will be made later on. Of course, earlier drones is better in terms of mining time, but the advantages of this push in my opinion outweigh the minerals that would have been gained. tldr; - making those 16 drones "sacrificed" actually puts you ahead - normally zerg already forced to make units to defend hellion pressure anyways. - push gives map control, free to drone up - droning up remakes those 16 drones lost, just a little later, so some mining time is lost, no need to kill 25 supply depots! Larva mechanic allows remaking those drones much faster too I agree. Calculations guy was looking at it far too literally. (Literally isn't the right word, but like, there's more going on in a game than hard numbers that can be calculated.) I think Tang has it right here. And he's not trying to say that you will necessarily be way ahead after this, but that you can execute it and almost always come out not at a big disadvantage, which to me seems to hold true. While you may have been more ahead if you had made greedy drones and then luckily held off aggression, you would have also taken a greater risk. This build is safer at home, with a chance to do damage and you won't end up super behind if it fails.
So you think holding hellions early game is about luck? Then how about hatch first vs 2 rax? thats even harder to hold off. Still, good players will always go for hatch first instead of 11 overpool or 6pool.
Seriously, just make 3 queens. Ret holds everything with 3 queens and literally rushes to muta. Sometimes, it's about the players skill and not about the build they perform. Hell, you can even make 4 queens and spread the creep to his 3rd by 15 minutes on shakuras.
|
On January 06 2012 15:47 UmiNotsuki wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote:On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote:
Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
~~~Calculations~~~~
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones At first, these calculations made sense, but if you look closely, its not nearly as bad as you say it is, and you do not have to do as much damage as you say Why? FIRST OF ALL: Most zergs already opt for the 100 gas upgrade, so that is 125 minerals off already Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs. That's being ahead in 10 workers! (although not uncommon in a zvt). But making only workers at that stage of the game is too hopeful/coin flip. You failed to include the fact that zerg would either already make lings or spines, which would cut into drone production anyways! This attack also stops any drones that would die to some light hellion harass, and the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide). When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important), and most likely delay his expo. If he does not have alot of defences, you are bound to do some damage. If Terran has a lot of defenses, it means you already have the units to defend his counter push . You dont need to kill 25 scvs because you will be making the drones anyways, and remember the larva mechanic allows zerg to make quadrillion at a time. FINNALY : When attacking, you give yourself, the opportunity to drone up. So those 16 drones will be made EVENTUALLY, meaning its really only the mining time that you are loosing in the first place. That means you're not "sacrificing" those drones, because they will be made later on. Of course, earlier drones is better in terms of mining time, but the advantages of this push in my opinion outweigh the minerals that would have been gained. tldr; - making those 16 drones "sacrificed" actually puts you ahead - normally zerg already forced to make units to defend hellion pressure anyways. - push gives map control, free to drone up - droning up remakes those 16 drones lost, just alittle later, so some mining time is lost, no need to kill 25 supply depots! Larva mechanic allows remaking those drones much faster too Okay, no offense meant by this, but your first couple points there really were a FindMuck; they are utterly wrong. 1. The "100 gas upgrade" you're referring to is surely metabolic boost, no? I did NOT include the cost of metabolic boost in my calculations, as I did in fact assume you'd be getting it anyway (which is indeed not always true.) 100% of the gas costs in my calculations were from roaches. Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote:
Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs.
2. What? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that you made a mistake by writing this paragraph, rather than simply not understanding basic logic. If Tang cuts drones at around 24, that means Tang would be at 24 drones vs. Terran's ~30 SCV's (Not sure where you got that number, 30, but it may be correct.) That puts Tang at a severe economic disadvantage, strongly exacerbated by the existence of MULE's. This necessitates a LOT of damage to be dealt by Tang to come out even with his opponent, as like you said a solid 10 drone lead or so is quite common in ZvT, and it happens to be considered quite even at this point in the game. 3. You ARE correct that my calculations did not account for defensively built units. However, it is my experience at the master level (and it is confirmed in pro-level play) that very minimal defenses are usually adequate up to the point in the game Tang's push, and thus my calculations, are performed at. I would argue that two queens (which you do have anyway,) one spine (100 minerals and a single drone,) and no more than six zerglings (150 minerals) can hold off even the most dedicated of non-all-in or semi-all-in TvZ aggression plays up to this point, when the defense is executed well. That shaves 250 minerals off of my calculations. You're right, it may not be 12.5 supply depots (and it was 12.5, not the 25 you state in your post); only 10. Whoop-dee-doo. Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote:
the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide).
4. Map control is a nigh-valueless resource in early game ZvT. Because Terran is sealed inside his base before he is ready to either attack or expand, lest he be overrun by Zerg's flexible production should he come out too early, the only "map control" of real value is a single zergling outside of your opponent's base, to scout for his expansion or attack as soon as it comes out. Cautious players may even wish to take the Xel'Naga tower(s) as well, but they are hardly a necessity if early game scouting is good. Erring on the side of caution, that means just two zerglings must be out on the map to be completely aware of your opponent's movements at this stage of ZvT. Hardly something 8 roaches and 16 zerglings do much better. Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote:
When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important),
5. When you arrive at Terran's base, dear lord, please tell me you've already scouted him! There are innumerable hard counters to this build that I only let slide because they can be scouted early enough to cancel the aggression. If your opponent goes for fast marauders or siege tanks and you still commit to this attack, you are most likely screwed and will surely deal very little damage. If he goes 2 port banshee, you are most likely screwed and will surely deal very little damage. If he has a bunker or two up, or simply good sim-city such that he may be safe from a baneling bust, you are most likely screwed and will surely deal very little damage. The only scouting information of value I can possibly imagine you getting by the time your push is at his base is whether or not it's going to work. If it won't, too bad you've already committed to it. 6. You DO need to deal the amount of damage concluded by my calculations, in fact, because those lost resource and drone numbers were based on what you had ALREADY sacrificed in order to make the push, and nowhere do I assume that you never make drones again. Remember, just because your economy can be increasing while you're attacking your opponent doesn't mean his can't too: Terran production doesn't require a decision between units and workers to be made, as Zerg's does. Also, because of the innate income Terran players get from simply having extra orbitals lying about (in the form of both increased worker production and increase MULE's,) delaying a Terran expansion is hardly valuable in the long run. It will slightly decrease their income by forcing them to over-saturate their main, but at 7:30 many Terrans who are planning on expanding already may not have full one base saturation quite yet. Not to mention the fact that MULE's don't contribute to saturation, meaning a "fully saturated" mining base with three workers per patch could still support eight MULE's at full mining capacity. 7. This point may tie in with the one above it, but I also want to note that I did NOT include the resources that those drones that were never built in order to make the push occur would've mined. I simply haven't preformed the calculations as they'd be too lengthy and variable for me to care much for. Needless to say, it's several hundred minerals at least. Yes, these drones that you propose making once you've already started pushing out at your opponent will start to mine, but the amount of money that the earlier drones would've mined before these new drones would catch up to them is very large and should technically be added to the opportunity cost of making the push. If I had to make my best educated guess at the matter I'd say the opportunity cost is closer to 2250 minerals or so, up from the 1250 I had stated before. Make it 45 marines or SCV's, or over 22 supply depots. Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 14:03 scarymeerkat wrote:On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote:On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote:
Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
~~~Calculations~~~~
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones At first, these calculations made sense, but if you look closely, its not nearly as bad as you say it is, and you do not have to do as much damage as you say Why? FIRST OF ALL: Most zergs already opt for the 100 gas upgrade, so that is 125 minerals off already Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs. That's being ahead in 10 workers! (although not uncommon in a zvt). But making only workers at that stage of the game is too hopeful/coin flip. You failed to include the fact that zerg would either already make lings or spines, which would cut into drone production anyways! This attack also stops any drones that would die to some light hellion harass, and the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide). When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important), and most likely delay his expo. If he does not have alot of defences, you are bound to do some damage. If Terran has a lot of defenses, it means you already have the units to defend his counter push . You dont need to kill 25 scvs because you will be making the drones anyways, and remember the larva mechanic allows zerg to make quadrillion at a time. FINNALY : When attacking, you give yourself, the opportunity to drone up. So those 16 drones will be made EVENTUALLY, meaning its really only the mining time that you are loosing in the first place. That means you're not "sacrificing" those drones, because they will be made later on. Of course, earlier drones is better in terms of mining time, but the advantages of this push in my opinion outweigh the minerals that would have been gained. tldr; - making those 16 drones "sacrificed" actually puts you ahead - normally zerg already forced to make units to defend hellion pressure anyways. - push gives map control, free to drone up - droning up remakes those 16 drones lost, just a little later, so some mining time is lost, no need to kill 25 supply depots! Larva mechanic allows remaking those drones much faster too I agree. Calculations guy was looking at it far too literally. (Literally isn't the right word, but like, there's more going on in a game than hard numbers that can be calculated.) I think Tang has it right here. And he's not trying to say that you will necessarily be way ahead after this, but that you can execute it and almost always come out not at a big disadvantage, which to me seems to hold true. While you may have been more ahead if you had made greedy drones and then luckily held off aggression, you would have also taken a greater risk. This build is safer at home, with a chance to do damage and you won't end up super behind if it fails. 8. Building more units is always "safer" in the short run, no matter what. However, StarCraft II is NOT about being as safe as possible at all points, its about being as ahead as possible at all points. Tang's build attempts to get ahead by dealing damage; it is unreliable and, for all the reasons I've stated in these last two posts, very bad in my opinion. My approach is to instead take advantage of the freedom to drone in relative safety and to simply gain as much of an advantage as I can through the use of the larvae mechanic to increase my economy as quickly as possible when I can be relatively sure that I am already safe, and to only build units as needed. When executed correctly, both builds put us ahead in the long run (Terran almost always attempts to take advantage of the small army associated with my style in some timing window to make the game more even; games are often won or lost on holding off that aggression with minimal losses,) but mine does so based on MY skill and ability to play, and does NOT rely on my opponent's inability to counter my frankly poorly thought out aggression, as does Tang's. I daresay this has been the longest post I've ever written... I wonder if anyone will actually read and internalize the entire thing. "How do you like 'dem apples?" EDIT: Revising some simple typos and mistakes I made in the editing process. EDIT2: Added quotes for some paragraphs where before it may have been unclear what I was responding to.
This guy definately knows what he's talking about.
NB: a drone mines 45 minerals every minute if it's mining 100% efficient. I think that by delaying the drones he delays a good 300 minerals+ (someone mentioned 16 drones, 2 cycles of larva inject to produce lings and roaches. In the end its gonna be like 2 minute delay of those drones.)
|
It's not necessarily all in depending on how you define it, but it's extremely risky and coinflippy. If they did certain things that you could not possibly know they were doing, you will automatically lose. For example, some terrans get a banshee or two to delay the third base. If they do that, you're in a horrible spot while going for roach ling aggression. Such is the nature of almost all early zerg aggression, which is why I consider it "abusive" and risky, and I generally stay away from it.
|
as soon as terran sees that you didnt get a spinecrawler he should build 2 bunkers (1 main 1 down the ramp or so) and he should be fine. if he went for a greedy build he just retreats up the ramp behind the wallin and waits for siegemode to finish. that should not set him far behind if at all, as zerg sacrifices alot of economy.
overall this kind of build surely works well on lower levels, but against good players i think its crap.
personally i think the roach ling baneling push that you see in GSL sometimes is way better.
|
On January 06 2012 20:57 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
I think doing a good old bling bust is stronger than roach pushes.
reasons:
* roaches are slow, during the time they need to travel to the opponents base, they are a 'dead' investment. In general: the longer your army is on transport, the easier a push is to hold (longer preparation and you fight with your army of T-60 seconds against his T+0 seconds army)
* speedlings are much faster, so the initial punch can be stronger, since it results from your T-30 seconds economy.
* banelings can be morphed directly at the opponents base in case, this has somewhat the effect of a proxy pylon, since you can directly strengthen your army without having a traveling time (however banes need time to morph).
* you dont't lose a drone+resources to a roach warren (=200 mins = 8 slings)
* in case he has a strong defense, just don't morph banes (flexibility)
* in case he has not expanded, just block his nat, no need to bust (flexibility)
The only advantage of roaches is larvae efficiency, which might be the major reason why roach pushes are preferred in some scenarios.
I prefer roach/ling due to the amount of players that open with hellion expand. Roaches are much stronger against hellions, and also you can use roaches defensively if they counter attack later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
