ZvP is imbalanced - Page 45

On December 19 2009 04:03 NeCroPoTeNce wrote:
I feel really left out of everyone saying ZvP is imba, cuz I get fucking owned by tosses w/ like 100 APM and a whole ICCUP rank lower than me (im currently C-, but i get owned by some D+ dudes w/ only like 150 APM)

On December 19 2009 04:03 NeCroPoTeNce wrote:
I feel really left out of everyone saying ZvP is imba, cuz I get fucking owned by tosses w/ like 100 APM and a whole ICCUP rank lower than me (im currently C-, but i get owned by some D+ dudes w/ only like 150 APM)

On December 18 2009 23:35 Foucault wrote:
Yeah there is an imbalance to ZvP. You guys serious? Even a couple of progamer zergs (Savior and Jju comes to mind) have said that ZvP is EZ.

If you can't see that ZvP is imbalanced you're either a zerg player, play at low levels or haven't watched enough Starcraft games through the years.

On December 19 2009 05:01 MuscLe wrote:
Everyone says that every match up is imbalanced. It is just about how bad you really are. I'm surprised some of the people who play BW haven't said the mirror match ups are imbalanced. LOL

On December 19 2009 04:49 FieryBalrog wrote:

ZvT and TvP are also slightly imbalanced. Its been that way forever. However, what's really happened is that Z's have equalized the ZvT matchup in the past 2.5 years because of muta stacking, and that same innovation has helped them in ZvP. Meanwhile P's have pulled further ahead in the PvT matchup since 2 years ago thanks to better use of tech timings which T can't match.

In other words, the modern era of zerg is simply the result of the muta stacking bug being brought to its full potential (or closer to it, anyhow).

On December 19 2009 06:01 zulu_nation8 wrote:
jensofsweden i'll give you $100 esports dollars if you never post again

On December 19 2009 06:01 zulu_nation8 wrote:
jensofsweden i'll give you $100 esports dollars if you never post in this thread again

On December 19 2009 04:49 FieryBalrog wrote:

ZvT and TvP are also slightly imbalanced. Its been that way forever. However, what's really happened is that Z's have equalized the ZvT matchup in the past 2.5 years because of muta stacking, and that same innovation has helped them in ZvP. Meanwhile P's have pulled further ahead in the PvT matchup since 2 years ago thanks to better use of tech timings which T can't match.

In other words, the modern era of zerg is simply the result of the muta stacking bug being brought to its full potential (or closer to it, anyhow).

On December 19 2009 03:08 Severedevil wrote:

I believe there was a stint of Protoss advantage after Bisu's revolution, before Zerg noticed there are counters to corsairs.

On December 19 2009 07:25 Ziph wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnduFvxVhX0&feature=sub

balance "1sm2sm3sm4sm5sm6sm7sm8sm9sm0sm" a move

On December 19 2009 08:13 Foucault wrote:


Thanks for contributing!

Adress my arguments but don't post silly one-liners for no apparent reason, especially when I outlined my thoughts on ZvP.

Yup, but ZvT isn't as hard as PvZ is, especially on these new bigger maps. When zerg can take 3-4 gas on his side of the map while terran is pumping of two bases, things could get serious fast for terran. There's a reason we're seeing so many ZvT:s with Ultralisks on big maps, and that's because it's relatively easy for zerg to secure alot of gas.

Zerg has lurkers, defilers and ultralisks; three units that really can own a terran hard. What does protoss have against zerg? Reaver, sure. DT:s, sure. But DT:s usually don't make that much damage because of all the overlords spying everywhere but if a zerg happens to forget an overlord somewhere, then it's game over, whereas if protoss loses a DT, it's negligible. And since there only seems to be two units the protoss arsenal that can keep up with zerg, maybe they should make another one that can kill 6 hydras or 12 lings or infinite stacked mutas with an AoE spell for 75 mana.... The other protoss units are so fragile and susceptible to flanks and getting surrounded but all zerg needs to do this is 1a2a3a, no micro required, right?. You can often see zerg basically running protoss over with units while protoss is microing hard and working on his unit composition so hard to move your 4 control group army in a ball, not to mention that APM-intensive task of "working on your unit composition". Zerg just sends in hydras and lings in masses not that oh-so-deadly hydra/ling unit combination again!!, not to mention the hydra cannon-breaks god forbid blizzard give zerg ONE pre-hive unit that can actually stand a chance against a turtling protoss, I've stopped counting the amount of times I've seen that. It's ridiculous how a so-so zerg can own a superior protoss with these builds.

Anyways, back to my point about ZvT. Lurkers are a very strong unit against terran and usually keeps him at bay until defiler arrives I'm glad zergs have one unit that allows them to survive until lategame ... "usually", then just turtle up on your bases and tech to ultras. Ultras in ZvT I feel are a little bit like carriers in PvT, VERY powerful units. When I see lots of ultras pop out I'm usually pretty sure that the zerg will win the game which nearly balances out how vessel clouds can kill your 2400/2400 worth of ultras for 75x2 mana per cast and how a single dropship can win you the game. Also, Terran needs to multi-task, and micro hard in ZvT. Besides muta harass, there is not the same emphasis on micro in ZvT It must be nice to be able to sit around a ball of units that can two-shot lurkers and have approximately infinite range and 1t2t3t4t and wait for your opponent to execute a perfect flank at their natural.
Zerg doesn't have to move around 5 control groups of units all the time lol??? troll?, units that die to one lurker spine attack which is so unfortunate even though zerglings don't even get to get a hit off of a marine before they die.

Btw, I'm oversimplifying etc. I know ZvT is hard, but not as hard as PvZ imo. If zerg can hold their own in early/mid-game ZvT, ultras arrive to save the day. Defilers and dark swarm are also super good against Terran.

On December 19 2009 11:40 old times sake wrote:
I only read the first five pages, not all forty-five, so forgive me, but I feel like the main issues are things like this:

1- We try to judge the balance of the races based on the possible, which means only the best. Take away one or two protoss players and we would see huge imbalance, but because of them we say it was balanced, but now it's not. This is a huge problem because normally to make statistical arguments you need larger sample sizes than a couple of players' handful of games. That "60%" is often a false 60%, it's like 60% +/- 20%, which is ridiculous.

2- Let's say the game is balanced for pros. Doesn't that mean it could be horribly imbalanced for top foreigners? Do we not care about that? I mean, what if SC was basically broken (which it's not, but imagine) except for top koreans? I think we would still want it fixed. What this means is that judging by the top has some flaws with it. We should care about how the game plays out at some other levels as well. It's not enough to say "well if you were pro, it would be balanced." After all this is a game for us all. I think it's okay if the game is imbalanced at beginner levels but at some point I think you want all races to be viable.

3- On the other hand, don't we all choose which race we play? If it's so damned imba then you picked the wrong race, sorry. No one made you play it. What this means is that this debate isn't really about fairness, it's about improving an already great game--the idea that not enough races are viable at enough levels. It's almost trivial, really. If the game was reduced to two races at the top level, or the beginner level for that matter, it's still a good game, and complaining is only wishing it could be 'even better'--hardly the imperative that these imba debates make it out to be.

4- A lot of people in this thread have said "why don't pros try X Y Z." Come on! They train! They have practice parters! I'm sure they've tried DA builds and etc., and they fail. That's why they don't try them in matches. If you can't do it to your practice guy, you aren't going to try it on TV, sorry...

5- We could advance much further in balancing SC if we held regular experimental tournaments or leagues, but no one is _that_ interested in improving PvZ. For instance, if we made some building faster or cheaper, or some upgrade already-researched, it might still be fair for Z, but helping P. We don't discover options like this, so we can't propose them. No one cares enough, and if we don't do it Blizzard sure won't. In fact, Korean leagues might have the biggest incentive to find ideas like this, but I think they'd rather not as well. There's a simple formula for considering changes to balance: if you can give a race something for free, will it be imba the other way? If the answer is "gee, almost definitely not," then that is a good change to try out. And, if you can think of dozens of ideas like this for one race (say P) then, even though P aren't really struggling, this is still a strong indicator that the balance can be improved in their favor. But again, this is unlikely to happen at all... if so, then why talk about balance? Perhaps for maps (see below).

6- Similarly, we _could_ make good maps for PvZ alone. They would still be usable for PvP and ZvZ TvT and for other matchups we'd have to decide ourselves. But, allow leagues to use different maps for PvZ and you can have better games, easily. Good PvZ maps are entirely possible if you aren' compromising the PvZ balance for PvT and TvZ considerations. Have a league or tourney where some maps are PvZ-only and you can fix the matchup. This could improve all matchups, really, but again it's not being considered.

I'm not a very good player so forgive me if I'm way off, but I did not see many people saying these kinds of points. Am I way off?