EPT[D] Broodlords too good vs P? - Page 11
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Cade)Flayer
United Kingdom279 Posts
| ||
|
Titanidis
Greece132 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On March 12 2010 22:35 Cade)Flayer wrote: It's funny that a replay of Broodlords being fairly easily beaten is posted to say that they are imbalanced. Let's see like 10+ games of Broodlords being unstoppable before jumping to conclusions. ... they weren't easily beaten, just consider the amount of damage they did before dying - and how much more effective they would have been with a semi-decent economy | ||
|
TSL-Lore
United States412 Posts
People will complain that that's very difficult to get, but Brood Lords are top tier and require more tech to get than anything else in the game. By that point, protoss should have developed most or all of their tech tree. Protoss has always and will continue to always find success in having a good unit mix in their ball of destruction. | ||
|
Lunaraia
Norway3 Posts
| ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
| ||
|
Lunaraia
Norway3 Posts
On March 13 2010 13:55 -orb- wrote: I can't believe brood lords didn't get nerfed this patch Perhaps becaus they are NOT imbalanced? see my other post for a pretty easy hands-on how to counter em | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On March 13 2010 23:57 Lunaraia wrote: Perhaps becaus they are NOT imbalanced? see my other post for a pretty easy hands-on how to counter em everything in your post was wrong. dts cant be used as a main fighting unit because theyre so fragile relative to their cost. their only use beyond early game is harass. stalkers are *ok* vs broodlords, if the zerg has absolutely nothing else. unfortunately any other unit z has destroys them, meaning theyre hardly a good option in a normal scenario. also mutas do not need upgrades to be very strong. | ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On March 12 2010 17:50 iG.ClouD wrote: Fun to see again zerg players stating broodlords are fine when they are as imbalanced as banelings and need to get nerfed. Depending on who you believe, every single zerg unit is imbalanced and needs to be nerfed. And yet, Zerg are supposedly not winning any more than Protoss, and Protoss and Zerg are not winning much more than Terran. It's hard to believe that a race which has nothing but overpowered units ever loses, unless that race is crippled in some other way (say, needing to choose between more supply, more workers, or more units to kill things.) Some one (a LOT of some one) is beating Zerg. How are they doing it? Maybe that's a more useful exercise than declaring that every unit is imbalanced, since zerg aren't just terran or protoss with better units. They are a completely different race with unique weaknesses to exploit. | ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
| ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On March 14 2010 03:00 Wintermute wrote: Depending on who you believe, every single zerg unit is imbalanced and needs to be nerfed. And yet, Zerg are supposedly not winning any more than Protoss, and Protoss and Zerg are not winning much more than Terran. It's hard to believe that a race which has nothing but overpowered units ever loses, unless that race is crippled in some other way (say, needing to choose between more supply, more workers, or more units to kill things.) Some one (a LOT of some one) is beating Zerg. How are they doing it? Maybe that's a more useful exercise than declaring that every unit is imbalanced, since zerg aren't just terran or protoss with better units. They are a completely different race with unique weaknesses to exploit. The reason why Zerg isn't winning that much more than Protoss and Terran is because a lot of games don't get to the point of Brood Lords. However, once they do, the Brood Lords will always, without fail, do a ridiculous amount of damage disproportionate to the Zerg's economy/army size. Very very often, when it gets to that point, Zerg wins. The issue is that once BLs get into play, whether or not they're too powerful. The issue isn't that Zerg as a whole is imba, it's about BLs specifically. The argument is that BLs, or any other unit for that matter, shouldn't be an automatic "i win" unit, like the mothership was before the nerf. The problem with stalkers as a counter is that they just suck against everything else and Zerg will most definitely have "everythign else" to destroy the stalkers or make massing up stalkers very unviable. Void rays would be a logical counter, but they are countered by hydralisks, which is usually the support unit for BLs. Phoenix don't counter BL. At all. Carriers dont' do that much damage to BLs because of the nature of the Interceptor attacks and they're also more expensive than BLs. | ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On March 14 2010 04:33 Ryuu314 wrote: The reason why Zerg isn't winning that much more than Protoss and Terran is because a lot of games don't get to the point of Brood Lords. However, once they do, the Brood Lords will always, without fail, do a ridiculous amount of damage disproportionate to the Zerg's economy/army size. Very very often, when it gets to that point, Zerg wins. The issue is that once BLs get into play, whether or not they're too powerful. The issue isn't that Zerg as a whole is imba, it's about BLs specifically. The argument is that BLs, or any other unit for that matter, shouldn't be an automatic "i win" unit, like the mothership was before the nerf. The problem with stalkers as a counter is that they just suck against everything else and Zerg will most definitely have "everythign else" to destroy the stalkers or make massing up stalkers very unviable. Void rays would be a logical counter, but they are countered by hydralisks, which is usually the support unit for BLs. Phoenix don't counter BL. At all. Carriers dont' do that much damage to BLs because of the nature of the Interceptor attacks and they're also more expensive than BLs. I was responding to a specific comment which said that broodlords and banelings (LOL) are OP and should be nerfed. I've also seen numerous comments (not in this thread but as a general sentiment) that Zerglings, Hydralisks, Roaches, Mutalisks and ever Corruptors are OP and need to be nerfed. It's utterly ridiculous how quickly people want to label EVERY ZERG UNIT as OP. Now as to the specific example of broodlords, the fact is that for terran they are almost trivial to counter. Vikings have terrific range and knock them out of the sky from the safely of a an MnM ground force. Or, you can use siege tanks to clear out the ground clutter of hydralisks, and then take out BLs with stimmed marines. If half your force is killing broodlings and the other half is killing BLs, they go down fast. Unlike mutalisks, brood lords can't be bounced around and force you to chase or fall back. Apparently the issue for Protoss isn't that BL are actually OP but that protoss players either lack the correct plan, or lack a strong enough counter. I don't have any particular insight for protoss players. I don't play Protoss very often and I don't play them very well, so I never get to the stage of having to stop broodlords. I suspect that void rays, carriers, or high templars would be the proper response. A good enough response? I have no idea. I'll take your word for it that it's not. Maybe Phoenix needs to be be buffed vs massive units? Getting back to the general case though: I am not the greatest BW player, but in most Zerg v Terran pro games I've seen, if Zerg get to the point of being able to combo upgraded ultralisks with defilers, that's game over. Terrans don't have a good counter to that, so in order for Terrans to win, they have to either contain Zerg and pressure them so that they never have that much extra gas, or they simply have to win with an early push. Given the various drawbacks that zerg have especially early in a game, why is it not legit to look at broodlords the same way that SC/BW ultras are? If you let your zerg opponent get to them, and mass them, with the backup they need to keep them alive, then why shouldn't you be at a disadvantage? You said that most games don't get to that point, and yet some games do, and supposedly that's an automatic win for Zerg. So doesn't that mean that in the games that don't reach that point, they're losing more than they're winning? Doesn't that imply that there is some mid game balance issue that's working against Zerg? TL;DR: Maybe BL's are imbalanced and unable to be dealt with (I don't think so, but who cares what I think) but if that imbalance is the only thing keeping the matchups balanced, then isn't that either a good thing, or an issue that needs to be addressed in sum, rather than just nerfing the one unit? | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
On March 14 2010 03:00 Wintermute wrote: Depending on who you believe, every single zerg unit is imbalanced and needs to be nerfed. And yet, Zerg are supposedly not winning any more than Protoss, and Protoss and Zerg are not winning much more than Terran. It's hard to believe that a race which has nothing but overpowered units ever loses, unless that race is crippled in some other way (say, needing to choose between more supply, more workers, or more units to kill things.) Some one (a LOT of some one) is beating Zerg. How are they doing it? Maybe that's a more useful exercise than declaring that every unit is imbalanced, since zerg aren't just terran or protoss with better units. They are a completely different race with unique weaknesses to exploit. Uh yeah because it's rare that games get to brood lords. When they do it's almost auto loss unless you have a RIDICULOUS advantage over the zerg already. Statistics are averaged out, and I'd be willing to bet you the majority of games don't involve brood lords. | ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On March 14 2010 05:56 -orb- wrote: Uh yeah because it's rare that games get to brood lords. When they do it's almost auto loss unless you have a RIDICULOUS advantage over the zerg already. Statistics are averaged out, and I'd be willing to bet you the majority of games don't involve brood lords. So why aren't games getting to that point? Do zerg just not know that it's an auto win for them? Are they losing because they're trying to get BLs? Are they losing because protoss is just better in mid game? Imagine that1000 games get played between Z and P, and only 100 of them get to the stage where zerg can make broodlords and of those 100, Z wins 90 and P only wins 10. Brood Lord is OP, we conclude. But then we look at the overall statistics, and we see that over all, P won 500 games and Z won 500 games. That means in games where BL didn't appear, P had a 490-410 advantage, winning 54.5% of the time vs 45.5 for Z. Well, that seems pretty imbalanced too, doesn't it? Maybe not as imbalanced as the late game Brood Lord advantage, but since 90% of games don't go that far, it's a more relevant imbalance, even though it's smaller. Furthermore, maybe games only actually reach the brood lord stage when Z has completely outplayed P anyway. Maybe those BL wins could have nearly as easily been Mutalisk wins or Hydralisk wins or Infester wins just because the very fact that zerg could reach T3 and morph his spire and then morph his corruptors meant he went the entire game without being contained or strongly pressured. I think the fact that you can say "Brood Lords are OP!' at the same time that Protoss are doing fine vs Zerg is just as much an indicator that P are OP in the matchup. What if the real "fix" is to make BLs more expensive, or less powerful, but mutalisks or hydras or cracklings get buffed instead? | ||
|
zomgzergrush
United States923 Posts
http://www.2shared.com/uploadComplete.jsp?sId=5AyBHkkuEVYPYBvP He had quite a RIDICULOUS advantage over me. The only reason I didn't die right there was because of the broodlords in the nick of time (and the random ass expo to slow him down). They really need to be dealt with like carriers, sniped immediately instead of getting distracted by the broodlings. You just need to be on top of scouting as P and get a phoenix count when you see that greater spire. it's just "too good" right now coz every single time P gets caught with his pants down. | ||
|
Lunaraia
Norway3 Posts
Still, if you let your oponent tech that heavy then your definetly doing something wrong,the shortest time needed to tech broodlord is several times longer then it takes to tech carriers or cruisers, if your seriously taking it so laid back that a Zerg oponent finds it prudent to use broods on ya then it's pretty much your own fault, and if the zerg player is desperate enough to do it while he is at a disadvantage you should be able to kill off any expansions he had made for himself, since seriously the fastest you can get to brood lord is between 15-20 min if you create 6 drones for 2 extractors (constant gathering) and 20 on minerals, and only create the needed buildings, remove about 3 minutes if you expand and double that number (52 workers) due to extra construction time. | ||
|
Optimator
United States53 Posts
| ||
|
Apexplayer
United States406 Posts
On March 05 2010 20:25 Klive5ive wrote: I think this is the point here, they are a very expensive unit . I think we need A LOT more games played before we can look at late game balance. This. But honestly BL seems kinda imbaaa. Broodlings should not have to take 2 hits from zealots. | ||
|
blahman3344
United States2015 Posts
The situation is when it DOES get to that point in the game. The fact that the broodlings mess up the AI for the AA ground units is a really frustrating thing that players go through when they are up against broodlords. Now I never really experienced broodlords firsthand, but from what I've seen and read so far, Blizzard should probably attempt to fix the AI problem with broodlings, which will probably make the broodlords a little less harder to deal with, and will probably make it much easier to identify what it is about the broodlord that should be nerfed. | ||
|
Silver777
United States347 Posts
So yeah to recap....you see a fire and decide that the best course of action is to simply throw enough fuel on it to smother the **** out of it and hope you have enough fuel. | ||
| ||
