The Case for "Zerg is Not Underpowerd" (SC2) - Page 2

On September 21 2010 06:23 Chill wrote:

Protoss required the most intuition because there were a lot of early game times where they were vulnerable but couldn't scout, so they needed to make the right assumptions to prepare properly.

On September 21 2010 06:28 ZapRoffo wrote:
Oh yeah, the final part of the Blademaster story: Tons of people move to SC2 as their "serious game" because WC3 never really achieved the balance/depth/lifespan (not only b/c of the blademaster obviously) of BW.

Game knowledge is referring to a continually building sense of the interactions between all the strategies that have been developed, what timings exist when any of them meet, etc.. Really has nothing to do with how many units there are, since it basically requires just as much knowledge of the enemy's units and timings as your own.

That is evidence that at our current level of play, Terran is stronger. Whether that's because they are absolutely stronger or because Zerg requires better mechanics and sense of timing, and their power scales with player skill more (and requires higher than what exists currently to really realize the results), what evidence is there to say one or the other?

Also, that fits exactly what I'm saying. Look how Terran turned out. Which is why it is a mistake to overreact to the current state. React: good to an extent, with caution.

On September 21 2010 06:22 Saracen wrote:
I think it's not so much Zerg being underpowered as Zerg having less options...

On September 21 2010 07:24 red.venom wrote:


I mean I agree with this in a way, there are only so many variations you can do to get to lair with 2 hatcheries on 2 bases buuuut the ground units aside from baneling cost for cost perform pretty terribly vs Terran

and vs toss before hive tech its pretty easy to get put into situations where you will lose 10% or more of your army just for feinting an attack and getting forcefielded. Not that the units cant compete vs Toss but just saying that if P hits critical mass before you even coming near the opponents army = dead.

I guess what I think Z lacks is a solid defensive option. Spines don't do shit and the maps are too open to really place them perfectly and outplaying a "ball" of Protoss or Terran from a behind position is ridiculously hard even vs the most a-moving 50apm player

On September 21 2010 07:24 SubtleArt wrote:


This just sounds like some vague and generic stuff a game developer spews out in an inteview. Less units means less variation in unit composition, less builds and army compositions to explore, etc. If the second part of what you're saying is true, that you require knowledge of your enemy units as well, then I think you're contradicting the first part of your argument (theres so much complexity + game knowledge required with Zerg compared to every1 else), because this just means that the level of understanding should theoretically be the same for both races in a matchup. Now, if Zerg requires more awareness and more adaption than the other races, then to me that's a flaw in the game too.

No, the wins I was referring to are all higher level tournaments of varying importance (check the tournament roundups). The fact that Terran is dominating all higher level tourneys, as well as most rankings (check EU's top 20), and low level play, is pretty telling. Honestly I don't know how much more evidence you'd like.

What? No it doesn't. Theres very little difference between the amount of time and the amount of people have played Terran, Zerg, and Protoss. If anything, Zerg was the most common race during Beta. By "most people played ZErg in Sc1" I mean 90% upward. Other races were almost non existent during the time, so no, there's a big difference between the 2 examples.