|
Japan11285 Posts
On July 02 2016 17:50 ppp87 wrote: Is there a way to see these games? I know there are some in the "recommended pro game post kespa" thread but how to watch the other ones? Here you go
|
among other things, terrans here seemingly forget you can queue 5 relatively cheap marines or vultures or sometimes even goliaths and tanks to be non-stop produced in a single barrack or a factory on a single screen size whereas zerg can't queue new units to be produced and has multiple screens and bases to manage at all times of the game.
|
On July 02 2016 20:43 LRM)TechnicS wrote: among other things, terrans here seemingly forget you can queue 5 relatively cheap marines or vultures or sometimes even goliaths and tanks to be non-stop produced in a single barrack or a factory on a single screen size whereas zerg can't queue new units to be produced and has multiple screens and bases to manage at all times of the game. I don't think we forget that. Because the difference is, if Terran/Protoss queue they could have had more units or structures at the end in the same time, basically getting punished for bad macro, whereas as Zerg you can skip a round or two with the new larva for military units and still getting the same amount of units at the end at the same time. The only thing that is harder for zerg macro wise is having to use two rally points for main/nat and 3rd/4th, other than that all single hatchery bases can all be hotkeyed as you don't need to hotkey scan and additional macro hatcheries can also be fit into a single screen.
|
On July 02 2016 21:22 Cryoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 20:43 LRM)TechnicS wrote: among other things, terrans here seemingly forget you can queue 5 relatively cheap marines or vultures or sometimes even goliaths and tanks to be non-stop produced in a single barrack or a factory on a single screen size whereas zerg can't queue new units to be produced and has multiple screens and bases to manage at all times of the game. I don't think we forget that. Because the difference is, if Terran/Protoss queue they could have had more units or structures at the end in the same time, basically getting punished for bad macro, whereas as Zerg you can skip a round or two with the new larva for military units and still getting the same amount of units at the end at the same time. The only thing that is harder for zerg macro wise is having to use two rally points for main/nat and 3rd/4th, other than that all single hatchery bases can all be hotkeyed as you don't need to hotkey scan and additional macro hatcheries can also be fit into a single screen.
Yes, but only in early/mid game whereas in mid/late game you can queue rather easily and not sacrifice too much as you have a set number of producing facilities in a single screen most of the time - gateways/barracks and/or factories. Whereas with zerg in late game you cannot do that.
I specifically didn't talk about hotkeys as I am not sure whether that would fall into the macro or micromanagement category. With protoss and terran almost always you have all your producing in one screen size and can hotkey just 1 producing facility and when u tap it twice you are there to produce all your producings whereas with zerg you cannot hotkey 1 building but have to operate multiple screens and bases with rather diverse needs. With protoss and terran all your army can rather easily fit in 5 hotkeys and be 200/200, whereas with zerg in zvp all hotkeys are not enough for all the army most of the times even above 140/150 limit (at least for me) if you want to attack/back off an attack properly. With protoss and terran when you hotkey 5-0 your producing buildings you need to hit 1 key to produce, whereas with zerg you need to hit "s" and if you want to produce different armies to manually select which larvas to produce what. Also overlords are produced from larvas as well.
Also don't forget that terran's army has the longest range and it's significantly easier to set up your attacks, defences and back off when you don't want to engage without losing too much. With zerg you have to go super close, lose 20% of your army, realise it's not going to happen and then back off. Also setting up defences and attacks with zergs is significantly hard IMO. In ZvP I hotkey 1-0 units and have to have all of these well spread at all times and not near enemies armies if i don't want to fight. With terran you have sieges/mines/medics that help back off easily when you dont want to fight, with protoss you just psistorm your opponent. With zerg the defiler plague helps, but it's only in the latest game whereas you have the t/p units significantly earlier.
When you set up defences with protoss you build relatively cheap cannons that shoot ground, air and are detectors for a relatively cheap price and you don't need a hatchery near it so you can position your defences faster, on different positions such a cliff/edge or wherever you want. Setting up defences with zerg is more expensive and you cannot position them wherever you want. With terran you just build cheap turrets and lay mines almost free of price or a group of 6-7 marines/2 medics that you won't use for anything else (when you switched to mech vs z) and you are good to go wherever you are. The defences of zerg are more expensive and "immobile" which makes them rather not as useful as p/ts in mid and late game. Not to mention the power of the bunker in early game.
With terran and protoss you can sim city significantly easier.
With zerg when you set up medium to large attacks, even when you don't drop, there's a big chance you lose a lot of overlords. Yes, with terran you have splash damage on your own tanks, but does that really matter when zerg loses his limit to barely reach and kill 2-3 of 20 tanks?
Just curious, Cryoc have you played at least 100-200 games rather serious 1v1 games with zerg?
I have played plenty of T and really like playing against zerg. I dislike TvP so much that I feel you guys there.
But what I am arguing is that zerg's macro is definitely not easier than terran's and especially than protoss's. Also i am not sure if analyzing macro on its own in 1v1 competitive games will give us any real insights as we have to include micro, timings, variety of BOs used and other stuff I believe.
|
On July 02 2016 22:07 LRM)TechnicS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 21:22 Cryoc wrote:On July 02 2016 20:43 LRM)TechnicS wrote: among other things, terrans here seemingly forget you can queue 5 relatively cheap marines or vultures or sometimes even goliaths and tanks to be non-stop produced in a single barrack or a factory on a single screen size whereas zerg can't queue new units to be produced and has multiple screens and bases to manage at all times of the game. I don't think we forget that. Because the difference is, if Terran/Protoss queue they could have had more units or structures at the end in the same time, basically getting punished for bad macro, whereas as Zerg you can skip a round or two with the new larva for military units and still getting the same amount of units at the end at the same time. The only thing that is harder for zerg macro wise is having to use two rally points for main/nat and 3rd/4th, other than that all single hatchery bases can all be hotkeyed as you don't need to hotkey scan and additional macro hatcheries can also be fit into a single screen. Yes, but only in early/mid game whereas in mid/late game you can queue rather easily and not sacrifice too much as you have a set number of producing facilities in a single screen most of the time - gateways/barracks and/or factories. Whereas with zerg in late game you cannot do that. I specifically didn't talk about hotkeys as I am not sure whether that would fall into the macro or micromanagement category. With protoss and terran almost always you have all your producing in one screen size and can hotkey just 1 producing facility and when u tap it twice you are there to produce all your producings whereas with zerg you cannot hotkey 1 building but have to operate multiple screens and bases with rather diverse needs. With protoss and terran all your army can rather easily fit in 5 hotkeys and be 200/200, whereas with zerg in zvp all hotkeys are not enough for all the army most of the times even above 140/150 limit (at least for me) if you want to attack/back off an attack properly. With protoss and terran when you hotkey 5-0 your producing buildings you need to hit 1 key to produce, whereas with zerg you need to hit "s" and if you want to produce different armies to manually select which larvas to produce what. Also overlords are produced from larvas as well. Also don't forget that terran's army has the longest range and it's significantly easier to set up your attacks, defences and back off when you don't want to engage without losing too much. With zerg you have to go super close, lose 20% of your army, realise it's not going to happen and then back off. Also setting up defences and attacks with zergs is significantly hard IMO. In ZvP I hotkey 1-0 units and have to have all of these well spread at all times and not near enemies armies if i don't want to fight. With terran you have sieges/mines/medics that help back off easily when you dont want to fight, with protoss you just psistorm your opponent. With zerg the defiler plague helps, but it's only in the latest game whereas you have the t/p units significantly earlier. When you set up defences with protoss you build relatively cheap cannons that shoot ground, air and are detectors for a relatively cheap price and you don't need a hatchery near it so you can position your defences faster, on different positions such a cliff/edge or wherever you want. Setting up defences with zerg is more expensive and you cannot position them wherever you want. With terran you just build cheap turrets and lay mines almost free of price or a group of 6-7 marines/2 medics that you won't use for anything else (when you switched to mech vs z) and you are good to go wherever you are. The defences of zerg are more expensive and "immobile" which makes them rather not as useful as p/ts in mid and late game. Not to mention the power of the bunker in early game. With terran and protoss you can sim city significantly easier. With zerg when you set up medium to large attacks, even when you don't drop, there's a big chance you lose a lot of overlords. Yes, with terran you have splash damage on your own tanks, but does that really matter when zerg loses his limit to barely reach and kill 2-3 of 20 tanks? Just curious, Cryoc have you played at least 100-200 games rather serious 1v1 games with zerg? I have played plenty of T and really like playing against zerg. I dislike TvP so much that I feel you guys there. But what I am arguing is that zerg's macro is definitely not easier than terran's and especially than protoss's. Also i am not sure if analyzing macro on its own in 1v1 competitive games will give us any real insights as we have to include micro, timings, variety of BOs used and other stuff I believe. I guess we can agree to disagree on the macro part. If both are maxed and a battle happens, you are right, Terran doesn't have to go macro because the queues will continue by themselves whereas Zerg has to go back to macro. But even if you waste the time of one larva spawn time, because the battle isn't over yet or whatever, due to the stacked larva you would still get more units out after the battle, so I don't share your opinion that Zerg macro is hard. You can even box select larvas from multiple hatcheries and build 24 zerglings with one click, which I would say is much more frequently the case than selecting one larva to build a defiler. I don't want to argue that micro is harder for Zerg in general, just that they have the inherent advantage that they can invest more time to make the battle more even without them falling at the macro side. And I don't want to argue about anything ZvP related, for me P is the most overpowered race in existance regardless of the matchup.
I played Zerg 1-2 full seasons with more than 100 games 5 years ago and got to the same rank (C+), I was as Terran back then. Dunno if you consider that serious or relevant. All I really remember from that time was ZvT was like never attack, only some harrass with mutas, and after defiler you wait for Ultras on 4 bases and then a-move to victory. ZvP was like 90% wins with 6lings from an overpool because all Protoss at that level seemed to think, they are bisu and one cannon is enough to defend. The rest was mostly losing to DTs or storm. But using L for selecting larva in the German version is really annoying and was one of the reasons I stopped playing Zerg.
|
On July 02 2016 09:44 Cryoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 06:35 B-royal wrote:On July 02 2016 02:21 kogeT wrote:On July 02 2016 01:33 B-royal wrote: Zerg macro is harder than terran and protoss' macro. If you are not utlizing a larva as soon as it spawns and you have resources to either build a drone or a unit, you are losing out.
Besides this, you actually have to know when it's possible to invest in drones and when to invest in fighting units as opposed to protoss and terran for which the process is much more streamlined. Imagine the horror of not being able to use a barracks even if you have the money.
Also KogeT no offense but I don't really know you but you never played at a competitive level. You have no idea what it's like to play at Hero/Effort/Zero's level so you can't act as a figure of authority.
Zerg's (ultimate) army control is also just a lot harder in my opinion.
- 12 zerglings per control group
- Lurkers having to burrow before being able to attack
- Defilers not being a flying unit and having a really big collision size.
- Mutalisks require the most amount of micro to be effective. (Corsairs just get stronger the higher their number aside from when plague comes into play)
- Placing mines and sieging up tanks is a cakewalk compared to effectively setting up an attack against a sieged position.
I'm not making any claims in regarding to brood war's balance, but it is clear that there's a ton of potential for zerg units that is almost impossible for a human to take advantage of.
It's also fairly evident that zerg would be the strongest race when controlled by a prescient supercomputer. Exponential economy, perfect micro, perfect flanks. You're so far from any truth that it makes any discussion nearly impossible. I'll just take few points: idle larva is same as any idle building from T or P = you don't use it, you are losing out (cc, barrack, factory doesn't matter). Also remember that you're really losing out only when there are 3 larvas, giving you a lot of time when you can skip macroing. Knowledge of when to invest in drones vs making units is exactly same for T and P - both races have to cut worker production in early and mid game to have right amount of units or invest in tech. Fact is that zerg is more exposed to it, as if you somehow make too few drones you may find yourself in a position when you'll never be able to produce them (as you'll have to make units constantly and not have a chance to add additional hatchery, e.g 2 hath muta example on 2 drones at exp). From purely "mathematical" thinking this also applies to P and T but in real life is rarely seen. Rest of your post is not related to the topic, e.g micro management etc. Different discussion that doesn't at all support your arguments, as it was about what is the full potential of zerg vs t/p macro wise. (nothing about which race is more difficult, as obviously each race difficulty exceeds what humans can do) As for benchmarking me vs programers and saying "Hero/Zero/Effort" that just makes your argument even less interesting as I'm quite sure you never got close to my level, and if that is a measure, makes your statements redundant. Nah you're so far from the truth it's inconceivable. One idle larva does hurt. I don't understand why you would even claim otherwise. Get this in your head: A larva spawns every 13-14 seconds and hatcheries aren't synced. Having 8 barracks all synced up can't even be fucking compared to having 6-7 hatcheries with larva spawning every 13-14 seconds at different times. Do you get it?? Micro management is obviously related to the topic at hand because we're talking about zergs struggling WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY related to the fact that micro managing all zerg units to equal effectiveness/cost effecieny as a terran's units is MUCH HARDER. if not downright impossible. I'm already closing in on your level despite only having been playing this game for less than a year vs your 12 (lmao). Talk to me again in one year or two when I will consistently beat you. The only instance where one idle larva hurts, is the lost mining time when you build a drone. The same is true for not building an SCV on time. In all other instances, you will have the same amount of units whether you use every larva instantly or wait until 3 stacked up. So Zerg can micro for 40sec without doing any macro and still have the same amount of units. This obviously makes it much easier for zerg to micro. I didn't know that Terran buildings always finish, when one round of units finished to sync up perfectly. Being condescending to someone you cannot even beat but thinking you know it all is surely the best way to discuss.
No.
One idle larva hurts almost always unless you're being defensive and there are no engagements going on. An example: a very aggressive 5 hatch hydra build against protoss where every hydra counts (versus zealots, cannons and storm).
Losing mining time like that is incredibly significant. Mining efficiency of 1 drone is roughly 72 minerals/minute.
Larva spawn every 13 seconds and it takes roughly the same amount of time to morph a drone. This means:
Situation A: Saving up larva till 3
1. To get to 3 larva on a new hatchery, you would have to wait around 26-28 seconds since the first larva spawns immediately.
2. You'd then morph 3 drones at the same time, taking you another 13.5 seconds.
3. 40.5 seconds after the completion of your hatchery, you'd then have 3 drones ready to start mining.
Situation B: Using larva immediately
1. Drones will spawn roughly every 13.5 seconds.
2. 1st drone finishes when 2nd larva spawns, 2nd drone finishes when 3rd larva spawns, from this point onwards situations converge.
3. Thus, you have 1 drone mining for 13.5 seconds and then 2 drones mining for 13.5 seconds (or 3*13.5 seconds = 40.5 seconds of mining time for a single drone)
4. 40.5/60 = roughly 0.66 minutes thus 0.66 * 72 minerals = 47.52 minerals
This means that in situation B you win almost 50 minerals.
And as soon as you have 3 larva at any hatchery, every second not spend on using them is delaying your next larva. This is much more significant than you think.
Zerg typically has 3-4 locations to macro from whereas terran and protoss only have 1 location to macro from, which is significantly easier. Zerg also has to select larva first and even manage the larva to make different units as needed, which is especially the case versus terran in the mid game before and after defilers come into play.
Terran and protoss players pretty much always macro in sync from a single location. The only exceptions are very early game, 1 base builds and ultimately uber late game if they get a new main.
"So Zerg can micro for 40sec without doing any macro and still have the same amount of units." Oh man wait till I alert Effort, Hero, Zero and co. and tell them this new secret.
My condescending attitude was in response to his.
|
On July 02 2016 16:17 puppykiller wrote: ZvT got a lot better for a while after Effort came back. It was the first time I started seeing zergs (Effort) take games off of Terrans consistently versus late game mech.
Also I was watching some games of Flash vs Effort the other day and Flash was losing like everyone of them. I think Larva and Zero are blowing up Flashes %'s.
ehh not really. flash has a ridiculous win rate vs effort anyways. the fact that effort and zero have a seriously low losing record against dish washers like sharp or mong speak volume. i mean they were the top 4 zeros during peak skill of bw.
|
Hmmm I dont think it's so much of a balance thing really.
Generally it's always been Z > P > T > Z and comparing macro between terran and zerg is very hard, you can't simply isolate the macro part of a game.
Given the relatively higher dominance for Terrans in the past, it leads me to believe that Terran has the highest cap but is ridiculously hard to master and have the most skillbased mirror-matchup. This have led to most of the bonjwas being terran while non-S class terrans have been struggling in the big leagues. Same arguement holds for why we very rarely see foreign terrans on top in foreign tournaments.
The current dominance is in my oppinion mostly due to meta, where zergs have a hard time dealing with +1 4rax into mech. We need someone like Jaedong to show the way;) Also we have relatively fewer Zerg ex-pros playing right?
|
On July 02 2016 23:42 Cryoc wrote:
I played Zerg 1-2 full seasons with more than 100 games 5 years ago and got to the same rank (C+), I was as Terran back then. Dunno if you consider that serious or relevant.
Yeah I think that's good to go.
On off-topic I will side with Baku that zergs don't utilize 100% of zerg's macro potential nowadays. Not sure what 100% macro potential for a race even means? Is that when a terran/protoss builds pylons/depots at exactly the right times to have exactly 1 unit being produced at all times in a producing facility (a worker or a fighting/spell unit) while also having the right amount of producing facilities while executing everything else? If that is so - then zergs will have to utilize each larva the moment it's spawned and i don't believe anyone expects any zerg to do that at all times. Also should build order calibration be taken into account? If that is so - with zergs build order calibrations often could be pretty subtle so should we factor in the risk that a drone could not lay the 2nd/3rd expo hatch because of a scouting worker? Because most of the games that a scouting worker could significantly disrupt the macro of the opponent is when a zerg is being scouted at the right time to not lay the hatch, not when the p or t is scouted to make a cc/nexus.
Also, as perhaps Baku would like to point out, korean's style of play of SC:BW is not the only style to play BW 1v1 competitively.
|
On July 03 2016 00:35 B-royal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 09:44 Cryoc wrote:On July 02 2016 06:35 B-royal wrote:On July 02 2016 02:21 kogeT wrote:On July 02 2016 01:33 B-royal wrote: Zerg macro is harder than terran and protoss' macro. If you are not utlizing a larva as soon as it spawns and you have resources to either build a drone or a unit, you are losing out.
Besides this, you actually have to know when it's possible to invest in drones and when to invest in fighting units as opposed to protoss and terran for which the process is much more streamlined. Imagine the horror of not being able to use a barracks even if you have the money.
Also KogeT no offense but I don't really know you but you never played at a competitive level. You have no idea what it's like to play at Hero/Effort/Zero's level so you can't act as a figure of authority.
Zerg's (ultimate) army control is also just a lot harder in my opinion.
- 12 zerglings per control group
- Lurkers having to burrow before being able to attack
- Defilers not being a flying unit and having a really big collision size.
- Mutalisks require the most amount of micro to be effective. (Corsairs just get stronger the higher their number aside from when plague comes into play)
- Placing mines and sieging up tanks is a cakewalk compared to effectively setting up an attack against a sieged position.
I'm not making any claims in regarding to brood war's balance, but it is clear that there's a ton of potential for zerg units that is almost impossible for a human to take advantage of.
It's also fairly evident that zerg would be the strongest race when controlled by a prescient supercomputer. Exponential economy, perfect micro, perfect flanks. You're so far from any truth that it makes any discussion nearly impossible. I'll just take few points: idle larva is same as any idle building from T or P = you don't use it, you are losing out (cc, barrack, factory doesn't matter). Also remember that you're really losing out only when there are 3 larvas, giving you a lot of time when you can skip macroing. Knowledge of when to invest in drones vs making units is exactly same for T and P - both races have to cut worker production in early and mid game to have right amount of units or invest in tech. Fact is that zerg is more exposed to it, as if you somehow make too few drones you may find yourself in a position when you'll never be able to produce them (as you'll have to make units constantly and not have a chance to add additional hatchery, e.g 2 hath muta example on 2 drones at exp). From purely "mathematical" thinking this also applies to P and T but in real life is rarely seen. Rest of your post is not related to the topic, e.g micro management etc. Different discussion that doesn't at all support your arguments, as it was about what is the full potential of zerg vs t/p macro wise. (nothing about which race is more difficult, as obviously each race difficulty exceeds what humans can do) As for benchmarking me vs programers and saying "Hero/Zero/Effort" that just makes your argument even less interesting as I'm quite sure you never got close to my level, and if that is a measure, makes your statements redundant. Nah you're so far from the truth it's inconceivable. One idle larva does hurt. I don't understand why you would even claim otherwise. Get this in your head: A larva spawns every 13-14 seconds and hatcheries aren't synced. Having 8 barracks all synced up can't even be fucking compared to having 6-7 hatcheries with larva spawning every 13-14 seconds at different times. Do you get it?? Micro management is obviously related to the topic at hand because we're talking about zergs struggling WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY related to the fact that micro managing all zerg units to equal effectiveness/cost effecieny as a terran's units is MUCH HARDER. if not downright impossible. I'm already closing in on your level despite only having been playing this game for less than a year vs your 12 (lmao). Talk to me again in one year or two when I will consistently beat you. The only instance where one idle larva hurts, is the lost mining time when you build a drone. The same is true for not building an SCV on time. In all other instances, you will have the same amount of units whether you use every larva instantly or wait until 3 stacked up. So Zerg can micro for 40sec without doing any macro and still have the same amount of units. This obviously makes it much easier for zerg to micro. I didn't know that Terran buildings always finish, when one round of units finished to sync up perfectly. Being condescending to someone you cannot even beat but thinking you know it all is surely the best way to discuss. No. One idle larva hurts almost always unless you're being defensive and there are no engagements going on. An example: a very aggressive 5 hatch hydra build against protoss where every hydra counts (versus zealots, cannons and storm). Losing mining time like that is incredibly significant. Mining efficiency of 1 drone is roughly 72 minerals/minute. Larva spawn every 13 seconds and it takes roughly the same amount of time to morph a drone. This means: Situation A: Saving up larva till 31. To get to 3 larva on a new hatchery, you would have to wait around 26-28 seconds since the first larva spawns immediately. 2. You'd then morph 3 drones at the same time, taking you another 13.5 seconds. 3. 40.5 seconds after the completion of your hatchery, you'd then have 3 drones ready to start mining. Situation B: Using larva immediately1. Drones will spawn roughly every 13.5 seconds. 2. 1st drone finishes when 2nd larva spawns, 2nd drone finishes when 3rd larva spawns, from this point onwards situations converge. 3. Thus, you have 1 drone mining for 13.5 seconds and then 2 drones mining for 13.5 seconds (or 3*13.5 seconds = 40.5 seconds of mining time for a single drone) 4. 40.5/60 = roughly 0.66 minutes thus 0.66 * 72 minerals = 47.52 minerals This means that in situation B you win almost 50 minerals. And as soon as you have 3 larva at any hatchery, every second not spend on using them is delaying your next larva. This is much more significant than you think. Zerg typically has 3-4 locations to macro from whereas terran and protoss only have 1 location to macro from, which is significantly easier. Zerg also has to select larva first and even manage the larva to make different units as needed, which is especially the case versus terran in the mid game before and after defilers come into play. Terran and protoss players pretty much always macro in sync from a single location. The only exceptions are very early game, 1 base builds and ultimately uber late game if they get a new main. "So Zerg can micro for 40sec without doing any macro and still have the same amount of units." Oh man wait till I alert Effort, Hero, Zero and co. and tell them this new secret. My condescending attitude was in response to his. I already said, that it hurts to save larvas, when you are building drones so you don't have to calculate the loss for it. But that is the only case where you actually have less stuff in the long run. And Terran has to build SCVs from different locations, too, so for that case it is the same for both. So in case of perfect macro, Zerg has the inherent disadvantage of needing time to select and build a drone (~1s). That means Zerg loses ~1.2 minerals per drone. But you also have the advantage that Zerg mines ~5% more efficient than Terran (see here), that gives you ~3 minerals more per minute, in my eyes a pretty good trade-off.
The production from T/P is only synced because of bad macro, otherwise they would build stuff from new buildings as soon as possible and not wait for other units to finish. And if Zerg opens 3 Hatch Muta, they do basically the same, after they morph their 9 mutas all hatches are synced up.
Of course you should always use your larvas as soon as possible especially when going for some sort of timing. But compare the following scenarios: 1) Terran goes for some M&M timing with 4 Rax and forgets to build marines for 13 seconds and then builds 4. At his timing he will have 4 marines less and 200minerals in the bank he can use for another barracks or whatever. If he waits for another 4 marines, he will still have 4 less marines compared to perfect macro. Terran delays timing and hurt push strength with bad macro.
2) Zerg goes for some Muta&Ling timing on 3hatch and forgets to build Zerglings for 13 seconds and then starts building them. But he can build 12 Zerglings and will have zero bank and no need for additional structures to compensate for bad macro. Zerg therefore only delays timing but will not hurt push strength with bad macro. I don't know, but if there would exist Zerg but with Terran units, I knew what race I would be playing, only one building needed for every unit and the same macro cycle time to automate for every unit.
|
Bisu destroying PvZ, Flash destroying everyone but BeSt in PvT, sounds about 2009.
|
On July 03 2016 02:02 Cryoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2016 00:35 B-royal wrote:On July 02 2016 09:44 Cryoc wrote:On July 02 2016 06:35 B-royal wrote:On July 02 2016 02:21 kogeT wrote:On July 02 2016 01:33 B-royal wrote: Zerg macro is harder than terran and protoss' macro. If you are not utlizing a larva as soon as it spawns and you have resources to either build a drone or a unit, you are losing out.
Besides this, you actually have to know when it's possible to invest in drones and when to invest in fighting units as opposed to protoss and terran for which the process is much more streamlined. Imagine the horror of not being able to use a barracks even if you have the money.
Also KogeT no offense but I don't really know you but you never played at a competitive level. You have no idea what it's like to play at Hero/Effort/Zero's level so you can't act as a figure of authority.
Zerg's (ultimate) army control is also just a lot harder in my opinion.
- 12 zerglings per control group
- Lurkers having to burrow before being able to attack
- Defilers not being a flying unit and having a really big collision size.
- Mutalisks require the most amount of micro to be effective. (Corsairs just get stronger the higher their number aside from when plague comes into play)
- Placing mines and sieging up tanks is a cakewalk compared to effectively setting up an attack against a sieged position.
I'm not making any claims in regarding to brood war's balance, but it is clear that there's a ton of potential for zerg units that is almost impossible for a human to take advantage of.
It's also fairly evident that zerg would be the strongest race when controlled by a prescient supercomputer. Exponential economy, perfect micro, perfect flanks. You're so far from any truth that it makes any discussion nearly impossible. I'll just take few points: idle larva is same as any idle building from T or P = you don't use it, you are losing out (cc, barrack, factory doesn't matter). Also remember that you're really losing out only when there are 3 larvas, giving you a lot of time when you can skip macroing. Knowledge of when to invest in drones vs making units is exactly same for T and P - both races have to cut worker production in early and mid game to have right amount of units or invest in tech. Fact is that zerg is more exposed to it, as if you somehow make too few drones you may find yourself in a position when you'll never be able to produce them (as you'll have to make units constantly and not have a chance to add additional hatchery, e.g 2 hath muta example on 2 drones at exp). From purely "mathematical" thinking this also applies to P and T but in real life is rarely seen. Rest of your post is not related to the topic, e.g micro management etc. Different discussion that doesn't at all support your arguments, as it was about what is the full potential of zerg vs t/p macro wise. (nothing about which race is more difficult, as obviously each race difficulty exceeds what humans can do) As for benchmarking me vs programers and saying "Hero/Zero/Effort" that just makes your argument even less interesting as I'm quite sure you never got close to my level, and if that is a measure, makes your statements redundant. Nah you're so far from the truth it's inconceivable. One idle larva does hurt. I don't understand why you would even claim otherwise. Get this in your head: A larva spawns every 13-14 seconds and hatcheries aren't synced. Having 8 barracks all synced up can't even be fucking compared to having 6-7 hatcheries with larva spawning every 13-14 seconds at different times. Do you get it?? Micro management is obviously related to the topic at hand because we're talking about zergs struggling WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY related to the fact that micro managing all zerg units to equal effectiveness/cost effecieny as a terran's units is MUCH HARDER. if not downright impossible. I'm already closing in on your level despite only having been playing this game for less than a year vs your 12 (lmao). Talk to me again in one year or two when I will consistently beat you. The only instance where one idle larva hurts, is the lost mining time when you build a drone. The same is true for not building an SCV on time. In all other instances, you will have the same amount of units whether you use every larva instantly or wait until 3 stacked up. So Zerg can micro for 40sec without doing any macro and still have the same amount of units. This obviously makes it much easier for zerg to micro. I didn't know that Terran buildings always finish, when one round of units finished to sync up perfectly. Being condescending to someone you cannot even beat but thinking you know it all is surely the best way to discuss. No. One idle larva hurts almost always unless you're being defensive and there are no engagements going on. An example: a very aggressive 5 hatch hydra build against protoss where every hydra counts (versus zealots, cannons and storm). Losing mining time like that is incredibly significant. Mining efficiency of 1 drone is roughly 72 minerals/minute. Larva spawn every 13 seconds and it takes roughly the same amount of time to morph a drone. This means: Situation A: Saving up larva till 31. To get to 3 larva on a new hatchery, you would have to wait around 26-28 seconds since the first larva spawns immediately. 2. You'd then morph 3 drones at the same time, taking you another 13.5 seconds. 3. 40.5 seconds after the completion of your hatchery, you'd then have 3 drones ready to start mining. Situation B: Using larva immediately1. Drones will spawn roughly every 13.5 seconds. 2. 1st drone finishes when 2nd larva spawns, 2nd drone finishes when 3rd larva spawns, from this point onwards situations converge. 3. Thus, you have 1 drone mining for 13.5 seconds and then 2 drones mining for 13.5 seconds (or 3*13.5 seconds = 40.5 seconds of mining time for a single drone) 4. 40.5/60 = roughly 0.66 minutes thus 0.66 * 72 minerals = 47.52 minerals This means that in situation B you win almost 50 minerals. And as soon as you have 3 larva at any hatchery, every second not spend on using them is delaying your next larva. This is much more significant than you think. Zerg typically has 3-4 locations to macro from whereas terran and protoss only have 1 location to macro from, which is significantly easier. Zerg also has to select larva first and even manage the larva to make different units as needed, which is especially the case versus terran in the mid game before and after defilers come into play. Terran and protoss players pretty much always macro in sync from a single location. The only exceptions are very early game, 1 base builds and ultimately uber late game if they get a new main. "So Zerg can micro for 40sec without doing any macro and still have the same amount of units." Oh man wait till I alert Effort, Hero, Zero and co. and tell them this new secret. My condescending attitude was in response to his. + Show Spoiler +I already said, that it hurts to save larvas, when you are building drones so you don't have to calculate the loss for it. But that is the only case where you actually have less stuff in the long run. And Terran has to build SCVs from different locations, too, so for that case it is the same for both. So in case of perfect macro, Zerg has the inherent disadvantage of needing time to select and build a drone (~1s). That means Zerg loses ~1.2 minerals per drone. But you also have the advantage that Zerg mines ~5% more efficient than Terran (see here), that gives you ~3 minerals more per minute, in my eyes a pretty good trade-off. The production from T/P is only synced because of bad macro, otherwise they would build stuff from new buildings as soon as possible and not wait for other units to finish. And if Zerg opens 3 Hatch Muta, they do basically the same, after they morph their 9 mutas all hatches are synced up. Of course you should always use your larvas as soon as possible especially when going for some sort of timing. But compare the following scenarios: 1) Terran goes for some M&M timing with 4 Rax and forgets to build marines for 13 seconds and then builds 4. At his timing he will have 4 marines less and 200minerals in the bank he can use for another barracks or whatever. If he waits for another 4 marines, he will still have 4 less marines compared to perfect macro. Terran delays timing and hurt push strength with bad macro. 2) Zerg goes for some Muta&Ling timing on 3hatch and forgets to build Zerglings for 13 seconds and then starts building them. But he can build 12 Zerglings and will have zero bank and no need for additional structures to compensate for bad macro. Zerg therefore only delays timing but will not hurt push strength with bad macro. I don't know, but if there would exist Zerg but with Terran units, I knew what race I would be playing, only one building needed for every unit and the same macro cycle time to automate for every unit.
Yes I agree. Thank you for your non-biased post. Your previous posts just contained a lot of exaggerations such as zerg not having to macro for 40 seconds and supposedly being fine.
Also, considering that a terran and protoss generally only have to macro from maximally two places (two different mains) and having the luxury of queuing units (which even the best of the best do in late game!!), I don't think zerg being able to box select larva can be seen as bigger advantage.
In theory if zerg has 5 bases, he should macro from 5 bases whereas terran and protoss almost always don't have to do that.
|
On July 03 2016 02:02 Cryoc wrote:So in case of perfect macro, Zerg has the inherent disadvantage of needing time to select and build a drone (~1s). That means Zerg loses ~1.2 minerals per drone. But you also have the advantage that Zerg mines ~5% more efficient than Terran (see here), that gives you ~3 minerals more per minute, in my eyes a pretty good trade-off. I would not trust that article at all as it appears to be based entirely on information which is either plain wrong or has no source. (collision size of CCs is bigger than of Nex, which in turn is bigger than Hatch/Lair/Hive; and how were those mining rate values determined? Without knowledge about testing method and sample size, the whole thing is but a worthless claim out of thin air)
|
On July 03 2016 08:15 Freakling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2016 02:02 Cryoc wrote:So in case of perfect macro, Zerg has the inherent disadvantage of needing time to select and build a drone (~1s). That means Zerg loses ~1.2 minerals per drone. But you also have the advantage that Zerg mines ~5% more efficient than Terran (see here), that gives you ~3 minerals more per minute, in my eyes a pretty good trade-off. I would not trust that article at all as it appears to be based entirely on information which is either plain wrong or has no source. (collision size of CCs is bigger than of Nex, which in turn is bigger than Hatch/Lair/Hive; and how were those mining rate values determined? Without knowledge about testing method and sample size, the whole thing is but a worthless claim out of thin air)
I just did a test on fighting spirit:
For the 3 different races, let 9 workers mine for 10 minutes at the same location, see how many minerals are mined and divide sum by 90 (9 workers * 10 min):
This corrects for different efficiency of the various mineral patches, here are the results:
+ Show Spoiler +First column is the number of minerals left for each patch (x), second colum is amount of minerals mined (1500 - x)
Protoss worker: 68.4minerals/min
Zerg worker: 66.0 minerals/min
Terran worker: 66.1 minerals/min
I only tested it once though but I can't imagine there being a big difference between different tests.
|
On July 03 2016 08:15 Freakling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2016 02:02 Cryoc wrote:So in case of perfect macro, Zerg has the inherent disadvantage of needing time to select and build a drone (~1s). That means Zerg loses ~1.2 minerals per drone. But you also have the advantage that Zerg mines ~5% more efficient than Terran (see here), that gives you ~3 minerals more per minute, in my eyes a pretty good trade-off. I would not trust that article at all as it appears to be based entirely on information which is either plain wrong or has no source. (collision size of CCs is bigger than of Nex, which in turn is bigger than Hatch/Lair/Hive; and how were those mining rate values determined? Without knowledge about testing method and sample size, the whole thing is but a worthless claim out of thin air) I remembered reading posts, where people specifically tested mining rates (for example in general or on python) and Terran was always at last place so I just linked the wiki article. Looking at the numbers for python it might deviate between a 1.5%-5% advantage for Zerg, but the point still stands.
|
On July 02 2016 20:14 c3rberUs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 17:50 ppp87 wrote: Is there a way to see these games? I know there are some in the "recommended pro game post kespa" thread but how to watch the other ones? Here you go
damn that sites sick, cheers
|
On July 02 2016 20:14 c3rberUs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 17:50 ppp87 wrote: Is there a way to see these games? I know there are some in the "recommended pro game post kespa" thread but how to watch the other ones? Here you go
aaah thank you
|
On July 03 2016 12:47 B-royal wrote:I only tested it once though but I can't imagine there being a big difference between different tests.
- There will be a difference between different locations and between different mineral formation, however.
- Then there is the problems of comsats (or other buildings) placed to influence mining rates (not a factor for basic measurements, but certainly a non-negligible factor in a real game).
- There is also a problem that worker paths to mineral patches can have either of these properties:
- they can be metastable, meaning there is more than one stable path for a worker to take, some of them may be more optimal than others
- they may be bugged or periodic, meaning workers on certain patches take longer than normal to mine or worker path cycles through a number of different paths during a series of mining trips. Note that a worker path being bugged for one race does not necessarily imply its being bugged for either of the others, or more generally: workers of the three races do not generally follow the same mining paths (which of course is the root of all the problems listed here ; because all the town halls have a different size, they all have a different effect on pathfinding)
Bottom line: Doing some kind of quick and naïve test tells you absolutely nothing. Your error interval is ± 8 mineralsny the way. That's ± 72 for 9 patches. That is enough to eat up most of your measured differences in a worst-case scenario.
And that's not even starting on the matter of statistic significance.
Your results are not the same as the ones stated in the article, by the way. Your maximal relative deviation is only 3.6%, only 1/5 of the 18% claimed by the article, and quite a bit less than the up to ~10% difference I have found between different mains on some former Kespa maps.
On July 03 2016 19:05 Cryoc wrote:I remembered reading posts, where people specifically tested mining rates (for example in general or on python) and Terran was always at last place so I just linked the wiki article. Looking at the numbers for python it might deviate between a 1.5%-5% advantage for Zerg, but the point still stands. One is from 2005, when most people just started to realize the very significant differences in gas mining rates between different geyser position (even this is a complex problem on its own!). The other is, as you can imagine, map specific and no general conclusions can be drawn from it at all.
Basically, generating reliable and statistically significant results is a task for some massive data mining. My plan is actually to make a simple BWAPI bot that does just that. Unfortunately I don't really have the time to take on a prohject like that right now (I am not even much of a programmer...). So if you want to help out with that, contact me.
|
@Freakling is it factually correct that acceleration/deceleration of workers are the same for all races? there are vague notions and "urban legends" that many players usually hold, like how scvs decelerate slower than drone/probe (look at the scv page in the liquipedia for instance, full of such statements, that you can rapidly tap scvs on minerals to speed up their mining etc) some clarification to settle this once and for all would be nice.
|
It seems like it. If you take SCVs to mine with a Nexus, they seem to act like the Probes would. However, I have no hard data on that, so I am not going to make any definite claim right now.
I can go into the mechanics of it a bit, though. Hovering units (like workers) are distinguished by the fact that (just like flying units) they have acceleration and decelarion phases in their movement behaviour, i.e. they do not just stop on the spot or go at full speed immediately. This fact alone can make a lot of difference in the duration of a mining trip. Assuming otherwise identical worker movement behaviour, we get the following to cases:
worst case: After finishing mining, the worker accelerates towards the town hall, decelerates, dumps its load, accelerates again, goes back to the mineral patch, decelerates and starts mining again. best case: After finishing mining, the worker accelerates towards the town hall, bumps into it, delivering its load and immediately turning around to return to the mineral patch, bumping into it and starting mining immediately. (so you save one acceleration and two deceleration phases with the worker travelling at full speed most of the time)
So these differences alone can account for a significant difference in mining rates between different mineral patches or different races (i.e. differently sized town halls) when mining from the same patch. If you closely watch workers on different mineral patches you will probably be able to make out the differences (though you wil hardly encounter any of the extremes, especially not the best case scenario, but mostly various in-between stages).
|
|
|
|