|
Alright here are my 2 pennies on this subject, maybe it won't mean much maybe it'll be a huge discussion take it how you want it just want to talk a little.
So a lot of players are saying that if you are not a top player such as Cool, IdrA, Check, Dimaga etc. etc. the Zerg "imbalance" doesn't effect you because it's you playing bad. Now I totally understand this point of view, whenever I lose I blame myself for playing bad but alas that is not what I am creating this blog. I am making this blog to support the Hydraroach idea to make ZvX less imba discuss why this way of thinking is flawed in my opinion.
My reasoning behind this being a bad way of thinking, this being that if you are not a top player imbalance doesn't affect you you just had to play better, is that Zerg is tougher with less forgiving macro mechanics, too little choices to open the list goes on. Because these things are so much harder than the other races' the Zerg must work harder, it's like saying (sorry for this racial example I truly am it was the only one I could think of) because you are of X descent you will have a much harder time achieving what someone from X descent would have, even though this goal has nothing to do with your race.
If that was not clear enough for you, what I am saying is simply because a player chooses Zerg they should not have a harder time achieving something that another person wouldn't have to work as hard for. Imbalance means something that is not balanced, balance means equal. A Zerg player needs to severely outplay his opponent being on top of many things such as, larva management, base management, scouting, micro management, teching to counter, the list goes on and on. Now the other races and wall in and and not have to worry about a rush, the Zerg's tech pattern (invisible scout, and a scan that you cannot do anything about.) can save up energy without any cool down on abilities. The Zerg needs to be more on the ball and needs to understand the game much more than Terran or Protoss to win, they need to play at a higher level to be equal to players with a lower level, which is obviously not equal.
So there you have it, I went on a little longer than I thought I would in that last paragraph not sure if I did it any justice. Hope I may have put someones thoughts into coherent words.
-laggy
TL; DR
+ Show Spoiler +Read the full post or don't post in here at all, have some dignity.
 
|
I do agree with your post up to the point where you say Z has limited versatility but I heavily disagree with easier time to play factored into the balance of difference races.
For example, Protoss in SC1 was easier to play than Zerg in SC1 but the matchup was not in favor of Protoss, it was actually said to be in favor of Zerg in broodwar.
It is the same case here in SC2. Just because Terran is the easiest race to play in SC2 does not mean they are overpowered BECAUSE they are easy to play, it's for different reasons other than playing difficulty.
|
while there are certain subtleties really only prevalent in higher level play its idiotic to say its completely out of the picture in lower levels, the main problem being zerg scoutting
saccing an overlord on certain maps will reveal a quarter of the base with 1 marine/stalker on the outskirts, making it so easy to hide tech, and its impossible for zerg to possibly prepare safely against all the possible timing pushes/rushes without falling behind economically
while its not so bad on some maps like scrap where you can come in multiple directions, some others only offer 1 safe path to take
zerg is a reactionary race without the proper scoutting to react to threats, this is something that effects nearly all levels of play
|
Zerg players seems to have this perception of them playing the game on hard mode. That's not how it works. If you played T or P, you wouldn't be top 10 worldwide. Likewise, if Morrow played zerg, he'd still be fucking amazing and doing probably just as well.
Pre-diamond levels it might require more knowledge, just because of how zerg decision making works, but mechanically, I wouldn't say they are any harder at all. I'd say zerg probably requires a somewhat higher average APM, while T and P has to spike higher due to requiring more micro.
|
Kind of like terran in BW?
|
On September 28 2010 06:26 Creek wrote:
Kind of like terran in BW?
how do you compare the most successful race in BW with the least successful race in SC2?
|
On September 28 2010 06:47 lastmotion wrote:how do you compare the most successful race in BW with the least successful race in SC2?
Is not T most successful in both? The problems in tvz balancing in SC2 seem to be the same as in BW.
|
On September 28 2010 06:20 gillon wrote:
Zerg players seems to have this perception of them playing the game on hard mode. That's not how it works. If you played T or P, you wouldn't be top 10 worldwide. Likewise, if Morrow played zerg, he'd still be fucking amazing and doing probably just as well.
Pre-diamond levels it might require more knowledge, just because of how zerg decision making works, but mechanically, I wouldn't say they are any harder at all. I'd say zerg probably requires a somewhat higher average APM, while T and P has to spike higher due to requiring more micro.
I don't know at the very top levels but at the mid level (1450 atm) I see more toss/terran hovering around 70-90 than anything and pretty much never see any zergs under 120
Mechanically zerg certainly requires the highest to fully utilize their race with constant flanks, spreading creep tumors with leading overlords, larva injecting, muta harass ect ect, in my humble opinion~~!!
|
I've been playing as Z recently, and my apm jumped around 20 above what it was at with T..... It might simply be the race itself kinda forces you to play quicker, rather than it requires quicker play.....
As in, I feel like I'm playing slower as Z than T, yet my apm is higher.
I'm not sure if I'm 100% clear here.....
|
On September 28 2010 06:47 lastmotion wrote:how do you compare the most successful race in BW with the least successful race in SC2?
Terran was the hardest race to be good at in B.W. Required most multitasking.
That's how.
|
Baltimore, USA22261 Posts
On September 28 2010 07:40 Creek wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2010 06:47 lastmotion wrote:On September 28 2010 06:26 Creek wrote:
Kind of like terran in BW? how do you compare the most successful race in BW with the least successful race in SC2? Terran was the hardest race to be good at in B.W. Required most multitasking. That's how.
Requiring a lot of multitasking doesn't mean that Terran was the hardest.
|
On September 28 2010 07:40 Creek wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2010 06:47 lastmotion wrote:On September 28 2010 06:26 Creek wrote:
Kind of like terran in BW? how do you compare the most successful race in BW with the least successful race in SC2? Terran was the hardest race to be good at in B.W. Required most multitasking. That's how.
As a former Terran BW player, I'd say Zerg requires the most multitasking.
|
Maybe this is is a long shot, but perhaps blizzard left zerg a little on the gimp side, so that when the next expansion drops they can pump us up a bit... atleast thats what im hoping for. Most of the imba isnt really going to change from a patch that changes build time or something as simple as that, its going to take a new unit or ability to make a difference.
|
On September 28 2010 07:49 EvilTeletubby wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2010 07:40 Creek wrote:On September 28 2010 06:47 lastmotion wrote:On September 28 2010 06:26 Creek wrote:
Kind of like terran in BW? how do you compare the most successful race in BW with the least successful race in SC2? Terran was the hardest race to be good at in B.W. Required most multitasking. That's how. Requiring a lot of multitasking doesn't mean that Terran was the hardest.
Hardest for casuals and non-pro's.
|
Yeah, as of right now with the spawn larvae and creep spread, zerg requires a good 50 more apm on non-pro levels to compete with terrans
|
On September 28 2010 05:58 lastmotion wrote:
I do agree with your post up to the point where you say Z has limited versatility but I heavily disagree with easier time to play factored into the balance of difference races.
For example, Protoss in SC1 was easier to play than Zerg in SC1 but the matchup was not in favor of Protoss, it was actually said to be in favor of Zerg in broodwar.
It is the same case here in SC2. Just because Terran is the easiest race to play in SC2 does not mean they are overpowered BECAUSE they are easy to play, it's for different reasons other than playing difficulty.
The gap in how easy/hard it was to play a certain race in BW is probably a 100th of what the gap is in SC2. This is the problem. The gap is simply too large.
|
I feel your post stems from an incorrect assumption of different things. For example, you say that Zerg is "inherently harder" because of harder "macro mechanics". However, playing Zerg simply takes a different skillset than playing Terran or Protoss. Flanking and mobility are important, and the tradeoff for being able to spawn an army in the blink of an eye is that it cuts into your worker production (and vice-versa).
|
@Jugan, sure they do have a different skill set, but they have to be much better at their skill set compared to how well Terran or Toss have to be at their skill set.
|
Baltimore, USA22261 Posts
On September 28 2010 08:48 Creek wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2010 07:49 EvilTeletubby wrote:On September 28 2010 07:40 Creek wrote:On September 28 2010 06:47 lastmotion wrote:On September 28 2010 06:26 Creek wrote:
Kind of like terran in BW? how do you compare the most successful race in BW with the least successful race in SC2? Terran was the hardest race to be good at in B.W. Required most multitasking. That's how. Requiring a lot of multitasking doesn't mean that Terran was the hardest. Hardest for casuals and non-pro's.
I still disagree with you. Actually when I was just learning the competitive side of the game, I thought Terran were actually the easiest because of having the most straight forward build orders/counters. Less intuition was necessary than Protoss, and less muscle memory necessary than with Zerg (at least for me personally).
|
I totally agree Zerg is the new Terran.
Deflect everything and be the better mechanic and it can be very hard for the other side to succeed. It was this way in broodwar as terran. It was a rather hopeless feeling as protoss when a terran simply deflects any attack, defends every recall and comes rolling down your throat with 200/200 army. Right now in sc2 it's a bit ridiculous deflecting everything for zerg, particularly banshees in ZvT. Queens should not lose to banshees 1v1. In sc1 it was a little ridiculous deflecting everything (especially some builds in TvP) but it was not nearly as bad as ZvT is right now in sc2.
As soon as the community and blizzard figure out what the best fixes are for zerg in sc2 (primarily ZvT problems) I can see Zerg becoming a very scary race to play against vs a highly skilled player.
Players who are sticking with zerg through all of this might not be enjoying the benefits now but I have a feeling they will sometime rather soon once a few things get fixed and peoples mechanics and build orders get refined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
