Starcraft II Megathread V.1 'Hell, It's About Time' - Games

[QUOTE=acds;24161568]Second of all, if we go by that principle then each Creep Tumor costs me upwards of 1000 minerals each time I spawn one (because I could have spawned 4 larvae, which could have morphed into drones, which could have gathered a lot of minerals in the span of an entire match), [/QUOTE] That's just taking the comparison to the extreme. In the beginning of the game (when you spawn your first creep tumor), it's likely that you wouldn't even have been able to use those larvae in the first place. But you are right that spawning a creep tumor delays 4 units of your army, assuming you have the resources to spawn them. Same for drones. But you only spawn creep tumor once or twice per game.

[QUOTE=gparent;24162146]That's just taking the comparison to the extreme. In the beginning of the game (when you spawn your first creep tumor), it's likely that you wouldn't even have been able to use those larvae in the first place. But you are right that spawning a creep tumor delays 4 units of your army, assuming you have the resources to spawn them. Same for drones. But you only spawn creep tumor once or twice per game.[/QUOTE] I actually spawn 3 and then micro them all properly with an overlord and I can creep up a large portion of the map quickly while still maintaining my macro and only stopping to micro my army instead. :whatup:

[QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24162266]I actually spawn 3 and then micro them all properly with an overlord and I can creep up a large portion of the map quickly while still maintaining my macro and only stopping to micro my army instead. :whatup:[/QUOTE] I only do that in 2v2, because it's a waste of resources and time in many cases.

[QUOTE=gparent;24162307]I only do that in 2v2, because it's a waste of resources and time in many cases.[/QUOTE] Except with my build order I can't really benefit from early larvae spawning. Well unless I go for something silly like a 9-pool.

[QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24162407]Except with my build order I can't really benefit from early larvae spawning. Well unless I go for something silly like a 9-pool.[/QUOTE] I mean I don't need 3 queens, just 1 at my main and 1 at my natural. The natural queen poops the first creep tumor since I hardly need 8+6 larva at that point. From that point on, I don't need a dedicated queen to spawn tumors, just an overlord.

[QUOTE=gparent;24162461]I mean I don't need 3 queens, just 1 at my main and 1 at my natural. The natural queen poops the first creep tumor since I hardly need 8+6 larva at that point. From that point on, I don't need a dedicated queen to spawn tumors, just an overlord.[/QUOTE] Well I find that I don't really need the extra larva until I get close to T2 which by then I'll have enough energy in my queen to just make some tumors anyway. But It's not like I make them all originate in one spot, though. I space them out so that way it's like leapfrogging.

[QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24162674]Well I find that I don't really need the extra larva until I get close to T2 which by then I'll have enough energy in my queen to just make some tumors anyway. But It's not like I make them all originate in one spot, though. I space them out so that way it's like leapfrogging.[/QUOTE] I spawn more than 1 on maps with multiple paths. I create pretty impressive creep interstates sometimes.

[QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24162674]Well I find that I don't really need the extra larva until I get close to T2 which by then I'll have enough energy in my queen to just make some tumors anyway. But It's not like I make them all originate in one spot, though. I space them out so that way it's like leapfrogging.[/QUOTE] I just make a crap load of creep tumors cause the creep highway is awesome :o

[QUOTE=erie1555;24162833]I just make a crap load of creep tumors cause the creep highway is awesome :o[/QUOTE] [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3865912/SC2%202010-08-18%2012-31-19-41.png[/img] I was bored

Talk about [i]creepy[/i] :rimshot: [editline]04:07PM[/editline] wait is that an army of spine crawlers.

Rated artistic.

[QUOTE=acds;24161568]Nope, it doesn't work like that. Just because that 50 energy could have been used to call down a MULE it doesn't mean it costs 250, not at all. First of all you are losing a [B]potential[/B] 250 minerals over 90 seconds (and yes, the time it takes to get those 250 is [B]very[/B] relevant). Second of all, if we go by that principle then each Creep Tumor costs me upwards of 1000 minerals each time I spawn one (because I could have spawned 4 larvae, which could have morphed into drones, which could have gathered a lot of minerals in the span of an entire match), or each Zerg building costs me X minerals (like before, it could have been gathering instead). Also lets assume it's trua and it really costs 250 minerals, then: Terran need: 150 for barracks, then 250 minerals for a detecting insta-scan of any area of the map for 12 seconds. Zerg need: 100 minerals for the Overlord, 100/100 for the Lair, then X/X for the Overseer (can't remember the exact numbers), then move it to wherever they need to see, and not get it killed (which against a good player is hard, impossible if you want to see the middle of his base). Not only does it cost more (remember, gas is way more valuable than minerals), but it also takes ages more (and again, time is very important in Starcraft).[/QUOTE] This is incorrect on so many points I don't even know where to start. Have you tried playing Terran and wasting your energy on scans? It's impossible, because you need that early energy for mules. Your comparisons are absolutely ridiculous, because the Terran is forced to spend time building the Orbital Command instead of making SCVs. Regarding the tumours, don't you ever get two or three queens? Also, you should scout with overlords, not overseers. They cost 100 mins and 100/100 for the upgrade, which in the end will be much cheaper than for the Terran player, especially considering that the Terran has a much harder time expanding early. Why are you even including the 150/100 for lair tech? Do you think people get that only to scout? Edit: You can also get unlimited changelings for [I]free[/I] once you have an overseer.

Ten bucks they'll bring back lurkers in the Heart of the Swarm campaign.

[QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24161217]"ridiculously low hp." Zerglings have less and that's BEFORE armor shielding. 45 Is a shitload for the very first unit.[/QUOTE] You get two zerglings with 35 hp for the same price. Yep, that's 70. [QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24161217]"Zerg t1 AoE" Yes because a suicide unit that only works when they're humping their target is SO DANGEROUS. Oh wait by the time a zerg player has banelings the terran player has stimpacks and marauders and maybe combat shielding if he plays right.[/QUOTE] Either he has a lot of marines that will blow, or he has a few marines and marauders vs your many, many lings and banelings. Why is the baneling bust so often effective? It sure as hell isn't because marauders counter banes. [QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24161217]Until you get concussive rounds and then that stops the surround weakness. Throw in some marines with them (and stimpacks as you should obviously have them if you're any terran player worth your salt) and their only weakness is AoE which banelings can't even do because marauders counter them.[/QUOTE] Let's see here. A baneling costs 50/25. A marauder costs 100/25. Considering how many banes you will have, and that he probably isn't going to individually target each of them with his marauders, they will die. That is all. [QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24161217]If you're dumb enough to use nothing but a group of vikings then yes hydralisks with mutas will destroy them. BUT WAIT throw in some SUPPORT UNITS with them and SUDDENLY hydralisks are dead FAST while mutas get shot down by vikings. Vikings are the best Air-to-Air killer why would someone put mutalisks against them. Better yet I think I should be asking you why you would even THINK of putting vikings by themselves with no supporting units.[/QUOTE] Combined arms kills mutas? Well colour me surprised. The point of mutas isn't to kill your enemy, it's to make him lose map control and force him to get units that are easily counterable by zerg (thors, marines.)

[QUOTE=Krepps;24164638]This is incorrect on so many points I don't even know where to start. Have you tried playing Terran and wasting your energy on scans? It's impossible, because you need that early energy for mules. Your comparisons are absolutely ridiculous, because the Terran is forced to spend time building the Orbital Command instead of making SCVs. Regarding the tumours, don't you ever get two or three queens? Also, you should scout with overlords, not overseers. They cost 100 mins and 100/100 for the upgrade, which in the end will be much cheaper than for the Terran player, especially considering that the Terran has a much harder time expanding early. Why are you even including the 150/100 for lair tech? Do you think people get that only to scout? Edit: You can also get unlimited changelings for [I]free[/I] once you have an overseer.[/QUOTE] Changelings are only good to get past idiots who don't watch their front door/don't block off their ramps with stuff. I'd rather use an overseer to stop unit production. Also there has never been a time whenever I have played terran that 250 minerals in 90 seconds could be more worthwhile than 12 seconds of knowing exactly what the enemy is up to. [editline]04:46PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Krepps;24165033]Let's see here. A baneling costs 50/25. A marauder costs 100/25. [/QUOTE] This is stupid because first I have to spend 50m to get two zerglings and then 100/50 to turn both of those into banelings. It also costs more time to hop from larvae -> zerglings -> banelings than it does to train marauders, and in the end I spend more minerals than you. [editline]04:49PM[/editline] On a completely different matter, I finally discovered that a 14-pool is much more economy-friendly than my previous 10-pool.

[QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24165057]Changelings are only good to get past idiots who don't watch their front door/don't block off their ramps with stuff. I'd rather use an overseer to stop unit production.[/QUOTE] It's not the zerg's only way to scout, and also you can drop it in the back of his base. [QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24165057]Also there has never been a time whenever I have played terran that 250 minerals in 90 seconds could be more worthwhile than 12 seconds of knowing exactly what the enemy is up to.[/QUOTE] I don't even know what to say. [QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24165057]This is stupid because first I have to spend 50m to get two zerglings and then 100/50 to turn both of those into banelings. It also costs more time to hop from larvae -> zerglings -> banelings than it does to train marauders, and in the end I spend more minerals than you.[/QUOTE] No, a baneling costs 50/25 including the zergling cost. Not only that, but you can also make banelings much quicker. This is because you can make more of them simultaneously, and that is what will matter in the end - not the production time.

but now I end up with a shitload of resources that I don't know what to do with. Until I get some hydras and then all of a sudden I'm out of gas and still balls-deep in minerals. [editline]04:52PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Krepps;24165273]No, a baneling costs 50/25 including the zergling cost. [/QUOTE] I know what you're trying to do and it just doesn't work that way. I can't spend 25 minerals and get one zergling, it's either 50 minerals for 2 or not at all. Therefor at the very least a single baneling will cost me 75/25.

[QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24165057]Also there has never been a time whenever I have played terran that 250 minerals in 90 seconds could be more worthwhile than 12 seconds of knowing exactly what the enemy is up to.[/QUOTE] Your macro probably sucks then. MULEs are easily the most useful thing on the orbital command. You should keep some energy on reserve for detection if you need it and maybe use a scan for scouting purposes on occasion to see how they're teching but otherwise constant MULEs. The idea of DT fast expand is to trickle DTs into the terran player's base to force them to waste scans. Every scan costs 240-270 minerals which means the DTs pay for themselves even if they kill absolutely nothing. MULEs are really an essential part of terran macro. One MULE is roughly the equivalent of having 3 extra SCVs for a minute and a half.

[QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24160748]Typical die-hard Terran player. [editline]01:55PM[/editline] fucking ninjas fucking my automerges.[/QUOTE] this is this thread over and over again *Complaint about balance, giving x example* *Person responds to complaint, giving x examples of how it is inapplicable* *Complaint about how person who responded plays X and thus doesn't want it nerfed*

[QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24165277]I know what you're trying to do and it just doesn't work that way. I can't spend 25 minerals and get one zergling, it's either 50 minerals for 2 or not at all. Therefor at the very least a single baneling will cost me 75/25.[/QUOTE] So... you're making a [I]single[/I] baneling to stop those marines and marauders? Are you a troll? Are you just really, really bad at math?

[QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24164066]wait is that an army of spine crawlers.[/QUOTE] [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3865912/SC2%202010-08-18%2012-31-28-20.png[/img] Sausage fest

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;24165358]Your macro probably sucks then. MULEs are easily the most useful thing on the orbital command. You should keep some energy on reserve for detection if you need it and maybe use a scan for scouting purposes on occasion to see how they're teching but otherwise constant MULEs. The idea of DT fast expand is to trickle DTs into the terran player's base to force them to waste scans. Every scan costs 240-270 minerals which means the DTs pay for themselves even if they kill absolutely nothing. MULEs are really an essential part of terran macro. One MULE is roughly the equivalent of having 3 extra SCVs for a minute and a half.[/QUOTE] um build 1 missile turret at your entrance never be bothered by a DT

[QUOTE=Krepps;24165273]I don't even know what to say. [/QUOTE] Maybe your economy skills are terrible but I never really thought "DAMN I WISH I PUT DOWN A MULE INSTEAD OF WATCHING THE ENEMY FOR 12 SECONDS" because the income bonus is too small. Wow a whole 250 minerals! Sure that's a lot if you look at it one-dimensionally, but you also have to realize that it's spread over 90 seconds. that means that you only get 2.78 minerals/second, or 166.67 per minute. Yeah I'd rather be able to guess their tech tree without having to sacrifice any *actual* resources. [editline]04:56PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Krepps;24165404]So... you're making a [I]single[/I] baneling to stop those marines and marauders? I don't even know what to say. Are you a troll? Are you just really, really bad at math?[/QUOTE] I'm pointing out that your way of calculating a baneling's cost isn't working how dense are you. [editline]04:57PM[/editline] One zergling is the same cost as two zerglings. Three zerglings is the same cost as four zerglings. This is because the smallest increment is two. [editline]04:59PM[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;24165358]Your macro probably sucks then. MULEs are easily the most useful thing on the orbital command. You should keep some energy on reserve for detection if you need it and maybe use a scan for scouting purposes on occasion to see how they're teching but otherwise constant MULEs. The idea of DT fast expand is to trickle DTs into the terran player's base to force them to waste scans. Every scan costs 240-270 minerals which means the DTs pay for themselves even if they kill absolutely nothing. MULEs are really an essential part of terran macro. One MULE is roughly the equivalent of having 3 extra SCVs for a minute and a half.[/QUOTE] If my macro sucks why do I not need MULEs?

[QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24165457]I'm pointing out that your way of calculating a baneling's cost isn't working how dense are you.[/QUOTE] Yes it is, because there is no applicable situation in which you will ever need to make a single baneling, and therefore it is correct. Let's put it this way: I make 8 banelings. What do they cost, 75/25 apiece or 50/25 apiece? The answer is obviously the latter. [QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24165457]One zergling is the same cost as two zerglings. Three zerglings is the same cost as four zerglings. This is because the smallest increment is two.[/QUOTE] You get them in increments of two, and they cost 50 minerals per egg, and this will come down to 25 minerals per ling because you are never going to need only a single ling.

[QUOTE=Krepps;24165404]So... you're making a [I]single[/I] baneling to stop those marines and marauders? Are you a troll? Are you just really, really bad at math?[/QUOTE] Wait so let me get this straight. You somehow thought that I suddenly jumped from unit costs to fighting off marauders with a single baneling? Sir I think it is you who is trolling.

[QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24165620]Wait so let me get this straight. You somehow thought that I suddenly jumped from unit costs to fighting off marauders with a single baneling? Sir I think it is you who is trolling.[/QUOTE] No, look, you either get to say that you make a single baneling and it cost you 75/25, or you get to say you made multiple and they cost you 50/25. This is what you get to choose. Anything else is unreasonable.

[QUOTE=Krepps;24165578]Yes it is, because there is no applicable situation in which you will ever need to make a single baneling, and therefore it is correct. Let's put it this way: I make 8 banelings. What do they cost, 75/25 apiece or 50/25 apiece? The answer is obviously the latter.[/quote] They cost 150/50 per two because their predecessor isn't available in increments of 1. The cost of one baneling from a larvae is 75/25. The cost of two is 100/50. In other words, the odd baneling is 75/25 while the even baneling is 25/25 if you want to take it from a third perspective, the one between mine (absolute cost) and yours (theoretical cost). [QUOTE=Krepps;24165578]You get them in increments of two, and they cost 50 minerals per egg, and this will come down to 25 minerals per ling because you are never going to need only a single ling.[/QUOTE] Once again you're straying from your original point, going from "one x costs y" to "you wouldn't need one x so why talk about it?" The answer to that question is the same answer as why I view lings as 50 per two and not available to cut shorter. You're working in theory. I can't ignore that a zergling will cost me any less than 50 and that a baneling is 25/25 [b]added on.[/b] You can't take the price of a pair of zerglings and cut it in half because [b]I cannot make half of an egg.[/b] [editline]05:10PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Krepps;24165694]No, look, you either get to say that you make a single baneling and it cost you 75/25, or you get to say you made multiple and they cost you 50/25. This is what you get to choose. Anything else is unreasonable.[/QUOTE] No. It's unreasonable to think that zergling cost can be simplified any more that 50/per pair while banelings cost 25/25 per single. I'm working in the increments, while you're working in theory.

[QUOTE=FunnyGamer;24165816]They cost 150/50 per two because their predecessor isn't available in increments of 1. The cost of one baneling from a larvae is 75/25. The cost of two is 100/50. In other words, the odd baneling is 75/25 while the even baneling is 25/25 if you want to take it from a third perspective, the one between mine (absolute cost) and yours (theoretical cost). Once again you're straying from your original point, going from "one x costs y" to "you wouldn't need one x so why talk about it?" The answer to that question is the same answer as why I view lings as 50 per two and not available to cut shorter. You're working in theory. I can't ignore that a zergling will cost me any less than 50 and that a baneling is 25/25 [B]added on.[/B] You can't take the price of a pair of zerglings and cut it in half because [B]I cannot make half of an egg.[/B][/QUOTE] Ok, I get two zerglings. I get two banelings, etcetera. I pay double the price, get twice the amount of units, and still rape the MMM. Is that fine with you? :eng99: You obviously don't seem to understand what I'm getting at, so I will challenge you instead: Best out of five games, loser stops posting in this thread forever. Is that good with you?

Now why aren't you refuting my points I just made. Also that is unreasonable as I have just started playing my placement matches and I am still no good so, sir, I say no. [editline]05:17PM[/editline] Actually now you're not making any sense.

Except banelings don't rape MMM Also the scan is so overpowered because it can not be countered. No other race has an unstoppable way of scouting the opposition. Detector in your base and observers are out. Overlords can be shot down. Not to mention the scan can be used ANYWHERE at ANY TIME. They focus fire your ravens down? No worries, boom scan. No other race is capable of that.